Welcome Finance - Is This Enforceable??

[sequenci]

Hope that kind of made sense!

[frettful38]

Thanks sequenci that makes perfect sense now:D

[emanevs]

Thanks sequenci that makes perfect sense now:D

:confused:

[emanevs]

Mrs Heath was given the offer of a singular loan from the Southern Pacific. This could only be taken as a whole as a secured loan. It was a condition that some of the new loan would be used to repay an existing secured loan. This could mean that part of the new loan was restricted-use credit. The Judge couldn't find anything within the agreement which could pemit a conclusion that part of the loan was classed as restricted-use and part of it unrestricted-use. It is a single agreement, it cannot be seperated agreements.

 

This would be true if I had a cheque for the full amount of funds.......

 

I didnt.....

 

Welcome paid off some of my debts with cheques from welcome to the respective credit companies.

 

The remainder I have paid to me......

 

Also forgot to mention......

 

Acceptance fees - cannot be shown in the total amount of credit (we know that)

To introduce a mortgage indemnity fee separate from the acceptance............

 

restricted and non restricted agreement - multiple agreement.

[sequenci]

Your situation seems to echo the situation with Mrs Heath, didn't she get some of the funds for herself too?

[emanevs]

true, but for two things:

 

1) no cheques were issued on her behalf to pay off other credit from the supplier of the loan - if this were the case, she would have had no say in the matter as to how the funds were to be paid, because they were going to be paid off by the loan supplier cheques regardless. she could not use other funds to pay off these debts, because monies were to be paid out of the allocated cheques for existing debts out of here loan. (restricted use).

 

2) the mortgage indemnity fee - welcome chose to separate this out of the fees. clearly the agreement has an acceptance fee, so why - if this wasnt another loan agreement (mif) didnt they just state that the acceptance fee was 235 + 2750 giving total fees of 2985????

 

reason being is that they charge interest on the mif, and dont tell you.

 

must be a multiple loan agreement (restricted and unrestricted)

[emanevs]

she didnt have any cheques issued on her behalf.....

 

therefore no say in the matter of where these cheques were going......

[emanevs]

have you read about this one...

 

Credit Today online

[emanevs]

found this too - somewhere else on ere....

 

many thanks to eliziabeth1...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within-4.html

[emanevs]

checked my bank statements......

 

didnt have £25000 cheque......

 

this is a multiple agreement...

 

FACT.....

[Fester Tester]

Don't tell us, tell Welcome.

[Fester Tester]

Likewise. I think I'm going to have to be very patient though.

[emanevs]

and the **** are for their money.......

 

if im wrong.....

[emanevs]

part 18 submitted, Judge wants to see us now!!!!!

 

Any ideas?

[Fester Tester]

WTF are you talking about?

 

Judge wants to see you now? Yeah, OK. In your dreams.

 

No point asking for help AFTER you've taken this road. The time to find out what the feck you should be doing is BEFORE you do anything stupid.

 

I'm dying to see how many people help you out on this. I suspect the answer will be NONE. But I'll keep subbing cos I'm a nosy git.

[emanevs]

cant wait to see him again either - a very nice chap.

 

If these t*ssers gave me the information from the start then we could get on with the case, we win, set a precedent, and the floodgates open........

 

end of the ****......

 

simple as that.

[emanevs]

Hello fellow caggers!!!

 

Im still fighting the ****........

 

Things are starting to get interesting now........

 

[BEBOBEBO]

You go Emanevs, still fighting here, too. They have done a big u turn on me and finally admitted the figures i presented to them re PPI were right and they were wrong.