Welcome Finance Unenforceable Loan ??

[dantripled]

bump:confused:

[scoobyd77]

Hi I have similar issues, just started my complaint.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-finance/267167-welcome-secured-but-no.html#post3028213

 

Who cares about the figures, your question should be is a reconstituted cca agreement acceptable to a court.

 

I have not seen anyone on this forum win a case with welcome for a secured loan having no cca. I would think welcome will sit on your loan until you need to sell, then hammer you to release the charge with a massive bill.

 

Also I have heard Citi group might be buying welcome, so maybe you can do a deal then.

[dantripled]

i too am still looking for a success story, but the info and help you'll get on here is fantastic...

 

maybe there are no success stories with welcome as of yet cause they don;t bloody reply to anyone!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I need to know the figures as i already think one of them is wrong and lets face it, it's all ammunition for me, the more mistakes i can find, the better...

[scoobyd77]

Seems a reconstituted cca is okay and its all a matter of luck.

 

 

What gives this guy the right to make it up as he goes along:-x

Its seems the law is not the law.(for some anyway)

 

 

 

 

 

Banks have won a partial victory against some credit card customers who have been trying to avoid their debts.

A judge at the High Court in Manchester has upheld that card companies need only provide a "reconstituted" copy of the original loan agreement.

It confirms that banks can still enforce debts even if the original agreement has been lost or destroyed.

The ruling may affect thousands of potential cases gathered by claims management companies.

"It seems to me to be likely that the number of challenges... will diminish significantly hereafter," said Judge David Waksman.

Banks sometimes have great difficulty in providing an exact copy of an original credit card agreement, such as a photocopied or scanned version, and at least one major bank is thought to have destroyed all its old credit card agreements.

Reconstitution

Under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA), lenders are obliged to supply a copy of their credit card or loan agreement to a borrower, if asked to do so, within 12 days.

The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made

 

 

Judge Waksman

 

Some claims management companies and their solicitors have been trying to use the law to stop debts being enforced, possibly permanently, if the copy cannot be produced satisfactorily.

This has led to disputes between lenders and customers about what sort of copy is acceptable under the law.

Judge Waksman examined six test cases to decide this.

He said that the purpose of obliging lenders to provide a copy of the loan agreement, when asked, was not to prove that the agreement had been properly struck in the first place, but to provide the borrowers with information about the state of their account.

"The debtor has a legitimate interest in seeing a copy of the agreement he signed, not in the sense of proof of execution but as information," he said.

As such, he ruled that a reconstituted version of the agreement was perfectly acceptable.

The information in it could be drawn from other data held by the bank about their customers, and it could be recreated by drawing on the standard terms and conditions that the bank applied at the time.

Also, it was not necessary for the bank to examine the original signed agreement to do this, or even still to have it.

"A creditor can satisfy its duty... by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself," he said.

"The fact that the creditor no longer has the original executed agreement is not therefore, itself a bar to compliance [with the Act]," he added.

'Honest and accurate'

Judge Waksman did point out that the banks could not simply invent the loan agreement retrospectively to comply with the law.

"It must - of necessity - be based upon records held as to the debtor and the agreement he made," the judge said.

"That a creditor needs to take care when providing the copy is highlighted by the fact that it is implicit in its duty that it is an 'honest and accurate' copy," he added.

Judge Waksman rejected some arguments put forward by the banks, and supported some of those put forward of the claims management firms and their clients.

He ruled that:

• a copy of the loan agreement must contain the name and address of the borrower as it was at the time it was signed

• if an agreement has been subsequently varied by the lender, then the lender is obliged to supply a copy of both the original agreement as well as the current one.

Judge Waksman's rulings were welcomed by one of the biggest claims management companies, Cartel Client Review, which was involved in the Manchester hearings.

It said that the clarification of the law would "open the floodgates" to many more cases being put forward in 2010.

"Our experience shows that many banks and credit card companies have failed to instigate systems and procedures that allow them to comply with the requirements of the CCA and it is also clear that many agreements did not comply with the prescribed terms of the CCA, when the agreements were originally drafted," said Andrew Settle of Cartel's solicitors CCLS.

Fishing expeditions

Judge Waksman also ruled that failure to supply a copy did not, of itself, mean there was an unfair relationship between the lender and borrower under the CCA.

But he confirmed that if a lender could not supply a copy of the loan agreement, then this automatically prevented them from using the courts to chase a debt until such time as they could come up with a copy.

The judge went on to criticise some attempts by credit card customers to avoid repaying their debts by challenging their lender to produce a valid copy of their original loan agreement.

"Many claims now made under [the Act] may properly be regarded as unattractive and merely fishing for a case of unenforceability," he warned.

He went on to strike out claims from two individuals, pointing out that they had failed to supply any evidence at all that they had never signed their loan agreements in the first place.

"The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made," ruled Judge Waksman.

[scoobyd77]

although what do you think about this bit

 

"But he confirmed that if a lender could not supply a copy of the loan agreement, then this automatically prevented them from using the courts to chase a debt until such time as they could come up with a copy."

 

does this mean no cca no court???bit confused now

[dantripled]

still very interesting, some of the quotes here will help in my letter to welcome, i.e. copy MUST have the correct name/address as it had at the time, also MUST be an honest copy (i have two different ones)...

[dantripled]

my understanding is that a COPY can be used to enforce the debt...

 

if they can't supply a copy or original, then they can;t enforce the debt...

[dantripled]

i'm not trying to wriggle out of my debt as i truly believe i have paid them, they have had their £5000 back plus £3000 on top and all the stress they have put me through etc.. with their bullying tactics, i would say they should call it a day now, NOT say i still owe £14000 for christs sake!!!!

 

and they can't supply me with an HONEST copy so these are all factors for my account to be in dispute...

 

If someone could please please please take a look at my figures and just say if they are correct or not that would be great

[beyondhope]

I can see that in some cases (only some so dont jump on me lol) people have jumped on the bandwagon spent £1 and then put into dispute without having any reason or understanding than yay I dont have to pay and its the cases like that that make us more honest and disgruntled customers be put in the same boat. The majority of people just want to be treated fairly not avoid what they have borrowed.

 

What those type of people dont realise is with companies such as welcome 'account in dispue' actually means nothing as they dont subscribe to the banking code and therefore dont have to abide by its regulations and therefore stopping payment simply from not receiving a copy of an agreement and such like is just making trouble for themselves as they will still incur charges and they will still be chased albeit not through the courts until an agreement appears but still by the creditor and any debt companies it is passed too.

[dantripled]

i totally agree beyond...

 

are you any good with the APR % figures by any chance???

 

i have put the figures for all 4 loans on post 83 of this thread and just wondered if they look right, i think loan number 1 is out by £300 approx and just need this clarifying, could also do with the others checking aswell, i'm no good with that stuff....

[beyondhope]

i totally agree beyond...

 

are you any good with the APR % figures by any chance???

 

i have put the figures for all 4 loans on post 83 of this thread and just wondered if they look right, i think loan number 1 is out by £300 approx and just need this clarifying, could also do with the others checking aswell, i'm no good with that stuff....

 

Sorry Dan im absolute rubbish with numbers give me words any day LOL I did have a calculator saved though let me see if i still have it....

 

HERE

 

Hope that helps abit

[dantripled]

thanks for that, i'll have a go later

[beyondhope]

thanks for that, i'll have a go later

 

no worries

[dedogs******]

sorry to jump on your thread but how can they reconstruct an agreement from other data?they may have standard t/cs but like welcome they will have different fees interest rates an so on for different clients,so what if the reconstructed one is nothing like the copy that you where giving at the point of sale and you still have?

[dantripled]

they should be able to reconstruct it from your contractual monthly payment, it's a bit complicated but if they look at your so called payments and term of loan as at today's date, they should be able to work it back to what the figures would have been when you apparently signed...

 

i'm concerned because they have given me two different reconstituted copies.... like i've said above only pennies out from each other, but the main thing being one has no name on yet the other has the wrong name on, so this is clearly or should i say THESE are clearly not true and honest copies!!!!!!!!!

[DOTCOM]

Hi Dan this is how to work out APR as far as I know, maybe somebody will correct me but here goes, lets use your first loan as an example

take the full amount of loan £4939.37 over 3 years with monthly payments of £193.79

 

multiply monthly payments by number of months over life of loan

 

£193.79 x 36 = £6976.44

 

divide total by original amount of loan

 

£6976.44 divide by £4939.37 = 1.41

 

Move decimal point 2 places to right to convert to a percentage = 141%

 

Divide the percentage by number of years

 

141 divide by 3 = APR 47%

 

Hope this helps

[dantripled]

i've done the figures as you said above and i also get it back to 47%, however my agreement says 38.93%, so this is wrong?????

[dantripled]

can anyone else check the above figures out??

[dantripled]

i think i'm gonna have one last go with FOS tomoro, perhaps maybe ask for a new case officer???

she said originally that i need to prove welcome have affected my financial position as it is today, i've done a lengthy letter breaking down my orginal loan of £3000 and £2000 (total £5000) without PPI, insurances and unlawful charges.I have predicted that without these added, i would only have ever owed welcome £8300 approx, which is what they have more or less had from me.

 

loan 3 and 4 were simply rewrites (no cash ever received), basically they are just a total of interest upon interest upon and interest, oh and a few charges for missed payment etc....

 

i am not trying to dodge my loan, as i feel i have paid it and am no way paying another £14000!!!!!!! they have had there money back plus interest fair and square...

 

i will be however be referring to the judge waksman ruling re: unenforceability as i feel i have a good case there.... he clearly states it is imperitive that the creditor provides all correct material (correct names, addresses at time of signing) on resconstitued loan agreements, and the two i have are totally wrong with wrong name on, HOW DUMB OF WELCOME!!!!!

 

i'll ring fos tomoro and let you know how i get on, feel tonnes better now i've sort of got my head around it and will hopefully sleep a bit better tonight

[DOTCOM]

Well done Dan, you have obviously put a lot of effort into fighting this shower

and it is very clear you are not just dodging your financial obligations. Like many on this site you just want to be treated fairly. I don't want to dampen your spirits but sometimes the FOS are like toothless tigers and your only course maybe the courts. If all else fails let Welcome take you to court then you can hit them with everything you have got - Good Luck with this!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

subbing to look at in the morning with fresh eyes and minus brainache!

[dantripled]

thanks guys, i'm at the stage where i feel like giving up, i think all i'm asking for here is some positivity really to keep me going, i'd love to let welcome take me to court, but will that ever happen???

[dantripled]

hi wannabe, any chance you can take a look at this please

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

thanks guys, i'm at the stage where i feel like giving up, i think all i'm asking for here is some positivity really to keep me going, i'd love to let welcome take me to court, but will that ever happen???

Never give up mate, you will find all the positivity you need here on cag. If we all support each other we can win!! Chin up!!!

 

Your figures are a nightmare lol!!

 

In total how much cash have you actually had from them and how long ago was this??

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I'm really confused about your 4 loans!! What was the purpose of each re-write? It seems that with each rewrite the interest and monthly payments went up!! I just don't get how this can happen if you didn't receive any more money

 

I think you should have a good read of the UTCCR and section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act amendments 2006