Help with Welcome Finance

[beyondhope]

Just looked at default it is the same as the last just one has all bits filled in the other doesnt lol its the figures that threw me I think....check check and triple check AQ tomorrow night and my work here is done for now

[cyril1982]

hi beyondhope, i have been reading your thread for hours over the last two day's, quite long isn't it...lol

 

any chance you can link me to your poc as i'm not sure exactly what grounds you have gone to court on and would like to have a look.

 

not to worry you but i do think some of the advice in the early part of your thread was flawed and may have been detrimental to your case, for example advising you not to pay was poor advice as a flawed agreement doesn't mean your vehicle is classed as a "gift" as post told you in the early stage of this thread and does not automatically entitle you to stop paying.

 

i'd really like to read your poc and see what exactly your reason for going to court was, any chance of a link to your poc?

[beyondhope]

hi beyondhope, i have been reading your thread for hours over the last two day's, quite long isn't it...lol

 

any chance you can link me to your poc as i'm not sure exactly what grounds you have gone to court on and would like to have a look.

 

not to worry you but i do think some of the advice in the early part of your thread was flawed and may have been detrimental to your case, for example advising you not to pay was poor advice as a flawed agreement doesn't mean your vehicle is classed as a "gift" as post told you in the early stage of this thread and does not automatically entitle you to stop paying.

 

i'd really like to read your poc and see what exactly your reason for going to court was, any chance of a link to your poc?

 

Hi Cyril, the politest way I could put it was I was lead down the garden path initially if you can PM me an email address ill send you a copy of the POC im not wanting to put it here at the moment for obvious reasons

[beyondhope]

Scrap that.....here it is

IN THE XXXXXX COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN

XXXXX - Claimant

And

Welcome Financial Services Ltd - Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The claimant entered in to a hire purchase agreement with the defendant on 22nd October 2008, agreement number: XXXXX with regard a vehicle registration mark: XXXXXX. The cash price agreed was £7333.

2. On 23rd March 2009 the original hire purchase agreement was modified by the defendant in response to the claimant becoming unemployed. Modified agreement number XXXXXX, the vehicle remained unchanged.

3. Both the original hire purchase agreement and the subsequent modified agreement were regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and this is a Consumer Credit Act claim.

4. On 1st February 2010 the defendant terminated the modified agreement and instructed recovery agents to repossess the vehicle.

5. The claimant maintains that the default notice that preceded the above termination is in fact defective as per s88 of CCA 1983 and by terminating the agreement from this default letter unlawfully rescinded the hire purchase agreement.

6. On 11th March 2010 a recovery agent, name of Julie, employed by ‘Claymore’ acting as an associate of the defendant, arrived at the claimant’s property on instruction of the defendant to repossess the vehicle. Conversation was entered into outlining the vehicle was to be taken into storage in Newport, South Wales.

7.The defendant explained the account had been in dispute since November 2009 due to the claimant not answering queries sufficiently regarding the account.

8.The claimant stated he was in no way voluntarily allowing the agent to take the vehicle and agreed to hand over one key to the vehicle to prevent the agent causing damage to the vehicle to access it, as the agent detailed that a window would be smashed should keys not be handed over. The logbook and spare key remain in the possession of the claimant.

9. The agent handed the claimant a copy of a letter which was addressed to the claimant but never received. This letter introduced the agent and what their purpose was. The agent signed this letter as evidence the vehicle had been taken.

10. On 13th March 2010, two days after repossession of vehicle, a response from the claimant was received regarding the queries being questioned since November 2009. This response included a subject access request containing many letters all addressed to the claimant regarding the uplift of the vehicle that had never been received.

11. The claimant has entered into written correspondence with the defendant in the form of seven letters between November 2009 and March 2010. The defendant has not given any satisfactory response as to the queries raised.

12. The modified agreement entered into with The claimant as outlined above states a total amount payable of £12441.89 when calculating total amount of payments 120 x £129.60 (£15552.00) this gives a difference of £3110.11. On requesting information as to what the difference in these figures represents the claimant has been provided with a different total amount payable, namely £15657.74. The total amount payable is a prescribed term of the agreement and as such should be accurate.

13. The claimant appeals to the court that the defendant has implemented an unfair relationship with the claimant in that Section 140A, subsection 1(a)(b)© of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 applies:

“140A Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors

(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—

(a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement)”.

14. The claimant also appeals that the agreement was unlawfully rescinded. Before a creditor or owner in the position of the defendant can become entitled to use Section 88 and the Consumer Credit (Enforcement Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (S/I No 1561) and (amendment) Regulations 2006 Welcome Financial Services must first serve a valid default notice. The Regulations are clearly set out in some detail, the form in which the notice must take, and what information a Default Notice must contain. In particular, Section 87 (1): The relevant parts of Section 87 (1), read as follows.

 

Section 87 (1):

"Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a ´Default Notice') is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement, -

 

(a) To terminate the agreement, or

 

(b) To demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

© To recover possession of any goods.

 

(d) To treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

(e) To enforce any security.

 

The facts of the Default Notice:

On 15th January 2010 the defendant sent a Default Notice to which the defendant contend complies with the provisions of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (S/I No 1561) and (Amendment) Regulations 2006 made there under. I do accept that in some respects the Default Notice complies with some of the statutory requirements, but I contend that the Default Notice has one critical flaw.

 

The Default Notice describes the action required to remedy the alleged breach of Agreement as "Pay the arrears of £236.49 to us within 14 days. For the purpose of doubt I shall explain why the above Default Notice falls short of the provisions of the Consumer Credit (Enforcement Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (S/I No 1561). On the 19th December 2006 the (Amendment) Regulations 2006 came into force and amended the time scale for a Default Notice to, “Not less than fourteen days”.

 

The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983[2] shall be amended as follows. In Schedule 2 in paragraphs 3©, 3(d) and 6 for the words "not less than seven days" substitute "not less than fourteen days".

 

With this evidence in hand I have come to the conclusion in relation to that one critical flaw, the Default Notice is non compliant.

 

The statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers. When a debtor is said to have broken the terms of an Agreement, the debtor needs to know precisely what is wrong and what is needed to put things right. The creditor has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If the creditor does not do so accurately then they cannot take "the next step".

 

What the defendant has done is that they have totally missed out on TWO vital points.

Point 1

The Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7 Practice Direction, Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

8th March 1985*

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

Point 2

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

In a short the defendant must allow for at least 2 days postage, 2 working days Monday to Friday, also allowing for any bank holidays. The Default Notice is dated 15th January 2010 and must be remedied within 14 days, what defendant have not taken into account is that a Default Notice has to be Date Specified and to state “within 14 days” falls very short of the statutory requirement. The 15th January 2010 was a Friday. (Saturday 16th and Sunday 17th do not count, 2 working days Monday to Friday, also allowing for any bank holidays). So postage day 1 would have been Monday 18th and Postage day 2 would have been Tuesday 19th January 2010. Add 14 days and the remedy date should have been 3rd February 2010. The default notice is four days short of the required remedy time. This is not an administration error but an error in meeting the statute requirements of the CCA 1974.

At this point the defendant had the opportunity to re-issue another Default Notice in compliance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, but the defendant did not. On the 1st February 2010 the defendant issued a Termination Notice, the Termination Notice did not simply imply the defendant could or would, not even they may terminate, the Termination Notice clearly stated “YOUR HIRE PURCHASE ACCOUNT HAS NOW BEEN TERMINATED”. Upon receipt of this Termination Notice it is perfectly obvious that the defendant had in fact relieved BOTH parties from the performance of the Agreement and all the terms and conditions with in it.

I am in no doubt that the defendant are totally aware that a Default Notice must adhere to the prescribed regulations for the manner in which a Default Notice is set out and the information that a Default Notice must contain. In particular and of utmost importance a Default Notice must give a debtor an opportunity to remedy any alleged breach and give a debtor “Not less than fourteen days” from the date of service and not 14 days from the date of author in which a Debtor must do so.

 

The Consumer Credit Act gives a creditor no room for error and demands that with the financial and legal knowledge at their disposal, they should be very able to get all their documentation right or suffer the consequences.

The consequences of the defendants actions are as quoted in case law an Unlawful Rescission of Contract see (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255). Thus having unlawfully rescinded the agreement by failing to comply with the requirements of the consumer credit act the defendant has also lost all benefits of section 87 (1): (a) To terminate the agreement, or (b) To demand earlier payment of any sum, or © To recover possession of any goods (d) To treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) To enforce any security.

 

The claimant appeals that the defendant having unlawfully rescinded the agreement by failing to comply with the requirements of the consumer credit act, would not only prevent the court from enforcing any debt outstanding, the claimant would also have a right to counter claim for any damages see( Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

 

15. The claimant therefore claims, in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 2006 Section 140B:

a) A declaration that the Claimant is released from any liability under the agreement.

b) All records removed from credit reference agencies in regard to this account.

c)The return of the sums of £XXXXX paid by the Claimant.

d) The return of the vehicle or the sum of £XXXX as the value of the vehicle as stated in the agreement.

e) Costs incurred in attempts to resolve complaints consisting of recorded delivery postage, subject access request fee and consumer credit agreement fee of £XXXX

f) Interest in accordance with s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from 11th March to 8th April 2010 of £XXXX on £XXX and £XXX on £XXXand £XXXon £XXX also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £XX.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.

Full name XXXXXX

Signed___________________ _____

(Claimant)

[beyondhope]

Obviously more things have happened since this was written and with the strike out hearing as well but thats the bones

[cyril1982]

my only concern for you is that while the fact that the total amount repayable was incorrect, and the agreement was undoubtably boardeline extrotion, this did not make the agreement "illegal" or "unlawful" although it almost certainly rendered the agreement unenforceable.

 

you had admitedy missed payments which lead to the reshedule of the agreement, and knowing welcome, which i do as i once worked for a company owned by their parent company, you will have paid a huge amount of penalty fees and default interest on this agreement (they try to hide it though by calling it capitalisation, thats just what a bank would call default interest).

 

having an unenforceable agreement is great for you, but it does not entitle you to stop paying, there is no automatic right within the consumer credit agreement to stop making payments.

 

what having an unenforceable agreement does mean is that if you do stop paying it is far less likely that the creditor will try to take you to court, they can still default you though, this has been confirmed in a test case last year involving one those claims management companies that were springing up promising to write peoples debts off.

 

if i had been around in the early stage of your thread i would have initially advised that you maintain payments, but request a breakdown of all charges applied to your original and rescheduled agreements.

 

this may still be an option for you to pursue a reclaim of charges against welcome regardless of the legal case, do you have any idea how much in charges and interest you have paid since you took out your original agreement, also did welcome sell you ppi, i can't recall reading anything about ppi in your thread.

[beyondhope]

my only concern for you is that while the fact that the total amount repayable was incorrect, and the agreement was undoubtably boardeline extrotion, this did not make the agreement "illegal" or "unlawful" although it almost certainly rendered the agreement unenforceable.

 

you had admitedy missed payments which lead to the reshedule of the agreement, and knowing welcome, which i do as i once worked for a company owned by their parent company, you will have paid a huge amount of penalty fees and default interest on this agreement (they try to hide it though by calling it capitalisation, thats just what a bank would call default interest).

 

having an unenforceable agreement is great for you, but it does not entitle you to stop paying, there is no automatic right within the consumer credit agreement to stop making payments.

 

what having an unenforceable agreement does mean is that if you do stop paying it is far less likely that the creditor will try to take you to court, they can still default you though, this has been confirmed in a test case last year involving one those claims management companies that were springing up promising to write peoples debts off.

 

if i had been around in the early stage of your thread i would have initially advised that you maintain payments, but request a breakdown of all charges applied to your original and rescheduled agreements.

 

this may still be an option for you to pursue a reclaim of charges against welcome regardless of the legal case, do you have any idea how much in charges and interest you have paid since you took out your original agreement, also did welcome sell you ppi, i can't recall reading anything about ppi in your thread.

 

Unfortunately for me hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are many things I would do differently but unfortunately by the time I gained my own knowledge and no longer required the knowledge of certain members it was a little too late for us

No we refused the PPi as we knew it would be pointless.

Charges have already been refunded according to the figures on the default notice.

So in your opinion im flogging a dead horse in court?

[cyril1982]

i don't know if your flogging a dead horse or your on to a winner to be honest, i'm in no way an expert.

 

my only concern is that because the amount of monthly payments at the agreed rate per month equates to the higher total amount repayable and not the inncorrect, lower, amount stated on your agreement the court may take the view that ultimately this is what you agreed to repay and therefore the court can not rule that you do not have pay the higher amount, let alone pay nothng bcause there is no doubt that you agreed to pay x amount per month for x amount of months and that equates to the higher total amount repayable.

 

the only real benefit of having an unenforceable agreement is that it makes it unlikely that you'll get taken to court if you don't pay, therefore i fear that you may have made a mistake by going to court, i just wish i had been around earlier, i happen to know that welcome are accepting as little as 45% of the total amount repayable on non paying (defaulted) accounts as full and final settlement, thats on enforceable agreemnts so i think there would have been room to do a reclaim on the charges then negotiate a settlement which you could have paid with the charges reclaim money if you were lucky.

 

i hope i'm wrong and the judge finds in your favour but i think postggg has alot to answer for if this action fails as telling you that you could stop paying, that welcome were commiting fraud, and that your vehicle was legally classed as a "gift" were all complete misinformation.

 

sorry, if i have put a downer on your spirits, i have everthing crossed for you and if it does go wrong don't worry, there is more than one way to skin a cat and i think i will be able to help you salvage something should the worst happen and the judgement go against you.

[cyril1982]

you say that according to the default notice all charges have been refunded, could you clarify this, how does that work? are they saying all of your charges have been deducted from the defaulted balance?

[pears23]

Reading with interest.............

[beyondhope]

Not all charges have been refunded I wouldnt have thought but there is a figure that has been refunded on my new default notice that has been sent post termination including arrears since the termination however thats supposed to work! How can you be in arrears for an agreement that essentially doesnt exist in as much as the right to pay in installments has been revoked!

 

I guess alot will boil down to how much they have annoyed the judge by the time we get to hearing with their late submissions and a defence that is defending something that wasnt alledged! He wasnt best pleased with their strike out application as it was and given the way our court works its more than likely going to be the same judge again!

[beyondhope]

So when will you share plan B?

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

The point is agreements need to be accurate and make it perfectly clear what exactly the borrower has to repay; that is the purpose of the Prescribed and Required Terms Regulations. If you look at it in the opposite form, the borrower could be confused into thinking "If that is the amount I am supposed to repay then why are my payments so high?? I am confused, I will end up paying MORE than it says here!"

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Not all charges have been refunded I wouldnt have thought but there is a figure that has been refunded on my new default notice that has been sent post termination including arrears since the termination however thats supposed to work! How can you be in arrears for an agreement that essentially doesnt exist in as much as the right to pay in installments has been revoked!

 

I guess alot will boil down to how much they have annoyed the judge by the time we get to hearing with their late submissions and a defence that is defending something that wasnt alledged! He wasnt best pleased with their strike out application as it was and given the way our court works its more than likely going to be the same judge again!

I have first hand experience of their tardiness!! It will be their downfall I can assure you of that!!

[beyondhope]

especially given it was signed under duress, so details wont have been checked etc and I dont often travel with a financial advisor in tow!

[cyril1982]

The point is agreements need to be accurate and make it perfectly clear what exactly the borrower has to repay; that is the purpose of the Prescribed and Required Terms Regulations. If you look at it in the opposite form, the borrower could be confused into thinking "If that is the amount I am supposed to repay then why are my payments so high?? I am confused, I will end up paying MORE than it says here!"

 

 

agreed, the agreement does have to be accurate hence why innacurate agreements are unenforceable in law, but does a mistake on a manually written agreement mean that you don't have to pay and the goods supplied are a gift? thats the question as this is what postggg told beyondhope and i think it is untrue and has no basis in law.

[beyondhope]

agreed, the agreement does have to be accurate hence why innacurate agreements are unenforceable in law, but does a mistake on a manually written agreement mean that you don't have to pay and the goods supplied are a gift? thats the question as this is what postggg told beyondhope and i think it is untrue and has no basis in law.

 

 

But what post has said is irrelevant as I havent asked for it be a gift, I am claiming under s140b which has nothing to do with gifts! Alot of what post initially said has proven unfounded and the evidence is in this thread such as CPR for postage times etc The point of the matter is the agreement is unfair, the fact they have totally ignored my queries until after they had repo'd the car is unfair and thats just the tip of the iceberg! And as I am claiming under 140b and they are defending s90 I dont see their defence as relevant really!

[cyril1982]

plan b is this, request a breakdown of all charges levied against your account from day one to termnation on both the origional and modified agreement.

 

i think you'll find that these are far higher than you think, probably into the thousands, i reckon it's likely that any charges levied against your origional agreement were added into the refinanced balance on the modified agreement meaning you'll be paying alot of interest on top of them.

 

did you not get a breakdown of all charges levied in your sar they should have been included.

 

i have seen many a welcome account where the total amount of default charges far exceeded the total of the original financed amount, so i find it hard to believe that you have no outstanding charges, it's easy to find out though and should cost no more than a tenner for another sar.

[beyondhope]

The exact amount at the time of sar was £105 what they have added since is anyones guess as every document including their defence has a different figure for the remaining balance after the sale of the car. Ive done the reclaiming of charges with them on my loan account too and at the moment im not interested in doing that with this account when they cant even give me straight answers to genuine queries I think that is a much bigger issue.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

agreed, the agreement does have to be accurate hence why innacurate agreements are unenforceable in law, but does a mistake on a manually written agreement mean that you don't have to pay and the goods supplied are a gift? thats the question as this is what postggg told beyondhope and i think it is untrue and has no basis in law.

 

Agree!! And then what she said lol!!

 

But what post has said is irrelevant as I havent asked for it be a gift, I am claiming under s140b which has nothing to do with gifts! Alot of what post initially said has proven unfounded and the evidence is in this thread such as CPR for postage times etc The point of the matter is the agreement is unfair, the fact they have totally ignored my queries until after they had repo'd the car is unfair and thats just the tip of the iceberg! And as I am claiming under 140b and they are defending s90 I dont see their defence as relevant really!

[cyril1982]

good luck then, i really am behind you, i just read the early part of this thread and i couldn't believe some of misinformation you were getting.

 

i honestly think that maintaining your payments and seeking the help/opinion of the FOS would have been the best advice in the early stages but i wasn't here to offer my opinion in the early stages so i just wish you well, to be honest i don't understand the legal technicalities of applying for a strike out, i still have to swat up on these things before i start my own legal action but i do know how to play an unenforceable agreement for your own gain, i did it with barclaycard when they refused to answer my queries regarding why they were charging me for ppi which i had requested thre times in writing be canceled due to being misold and had been told was cancelled, then charging me default interest for not paying said cancelled, missold, ppi. result i got defaulted and told in no uncertain terms that i was to shut up and pay up or face a ccj and bailiffs. in the end i played my trump card, unenforceable agreement, suddenly they were all ears, in the end i got the debt wiped and they had to repay me £800, we are in discussion about whether the default goes settled or gets removed but negotiations are going well, for me.

 

i suspect you could have done something similar with this agreement but i'd need alot more detail to be sure, i think it would have definately been worth some exploration before going the legal route.

[beyondhope]

good luck then, i really am behind you, i just read the early part of this thread and i couldn't believe some of misinformation you were getting.

 

i honestly think that maintaining your payments and seeking the help/opinion of the FOS would have been the best advice in the early stages but i wasn't here to offer my opinion in the early stages so i just wish you well, to be honest i don't understand the legal technicalities of applying for a strike out, i still have to swat up on these things before i start my own legal action but i do know how to play an unenforceable agreement for your own gain, i did it with barclaycard when they refused to answer my queries regarding why they were charging me for ppi which i had requested thre times in writing be canceled due to being misold and had been told was cancelled, then charging me default interest for not paying said cancelled, missold, ppi. result i got defaulted and told in no uncertain terms that i was to shut up and pay up or face a ccj and bailiffs. in the end i played my trump card, unenforceable agreement, suddenly they were all ears, in the end i got the debt wiped and they had to repay me £800, we are in discussion about whether the default goes settled or gets removed but negotiations are going well, for me.

 

i suspect you could have done something similar with this agreement but i'd need alot more detail to be sure, i think it would have definately been worth some exploration before going the legal route.

 

I dont disagree at an earlier stage that could have been something to look at although there is no ppi to fight and the charges dont amount to enough to be worth the heartache as it stands. Ill be sure to update regularly as it stands if I was to discontinue I would then no doubt be shafted with a wasted costs order and then hounded to eternity for the remaining balance on the agreement that being somewhere between 6k and 11k depending on which letter you wish to read lol Should I continue and not win I will then have exactly the same outcome as if I were to discontinue but at least I can say I fought to death on what I KNOW is right and as im claiming on two points one may get thrown out but a win is a win in my eyes and if I can get the marker on his credit report reversed or removed then it has been worth every single hour of the last 10months I have spent fighting, arguing and researching these things. This isnt about the money, i'll be honest being awarded the value of the car is neither here nor there for me as i'm purely doing this on principle! the agreement and the way they have conducted themselves as a creditor is unfair and my intention is to fight it as such, the CCA is there to protect us so why not use it!

 

As for advice given earlier on in this thread it just goes to show that people need to research for themselves any advice given.

[cab1ne]

having an unenforceable agreement is great for you, but it does not entitle you to stop paying, there is no automatic right within the consumer credit agreement to stop making payments.

read it carefully, and i think you could be wrong.

 

what having an unenforceable agreement does mean is that if you do stop paying it is far less likely that the creditor will try to take you to court, they can still default you though, this has been confirmed in a test case last year involving one those claims management companies that were springing up promising to write peoples debts off.

very true in one respect. this was due to a failure of a creditor supplying the agreement to the debtor under section 77/78. however once an agreement is terminated a creditor has no rights to carry on passing on your data.

 

if i had been around in the early stage of your thread i would have initially advised that you maintain payments, but request a breakdown of all charges applied to your original and rescheduled agreements.

if bee was a DCA, bee would award that comment with a gold medal, however as bee has been cheated by and lied to by the creditor " i think not " we get these sort of comments from DCA trolls all day long.

 

this may still be an option for you to pursue a reclaim of charges against welcome regardless of the legal case, do you have any idea how much in charges and interest you have paid since you took out your original agreement, also did welcome sell you ppi, i can't recall reading anything about ppi in your thread.

 

i do see were you are coming from and in some circumstances, i would agree. but in this case i find the advice a little one sided. and as i have said previously, we get these sort of comments from DCA trolls all day long.

 

cab

[cyril1982]

i do see were you are coming from and in some circumstances, i would agree. but in this case i find the advice a little one sided. and as i have said previously, we get these sort of comments from DCA trolls all day long.

 

cab

 

oh come on. i'm not a troll, i'm a consumer who has been fighting my own case against close motor finance for nearly 2 years now and i came here for advice just like beyond and wannabe and others.

my road hasn't been all roses, i've lost my case with the ombudsman because he believed close's false statements, trading standards all but gave up and left me in the lurch and at times i have been made to feel like maybe i'm the one thats wrong, but i'm not and i'm now in possession of docs proving that i'm not in the wrong and i'm about to start the fight once more, two years on.

 

but what i do know is that i was frowned upon by trading standards and the FOS for missing two paymnts even though i had a genuine reason, it was an oversight and as soon as it was brought to my attention i rectified it, oh and thiose two payments were missed and rectified six months before repo and all other payments paid but i was still made to feel like i was in the wrong and a bad payer.

 

having experienced that atttude my fear was simply that a court may take the view that beyond had no valid reason to stop paying and welcome were right to repo and this may overshadow the real reason beyond is there, to challenge the unfair relationship.

 

i'm not a troll, and i am 100% behind beyond and wishng him/her every success in there case. i'm not trying to be nasty, just offering some warniing based on my own experience of things not going my way.

 

so please, no more name calling, it's just childish.

[cab1ne]

oh come on. i'm not a troll, i'm a consumer who has been fighting my own case against close motor finance for nearly 2 years now and i came here for advice just like beyond and wannabe and others.

my road hasn't been all roses, i've lost my case with the ombudsman because he believed close's false statements, trading standards all but gave up and left me in the lurch and at times i have been made to feel like maybe i'm the one thats wrong, but i'm not and i'm now in possession of docs proving that i'm not in the wrong and i'm about to start the fight once more, two years on.

 

but what i do know is that i was frowned upon by trading standards and the FOS for missing two paymnts even though i had a genuine reason, it was an oversight and as soon as it was brought to my attention i rectified it, oh and thiose two payments were missed and rectified six months before repo and all other payments paid but i was still made to feel like i was in the wrong and a bad payer.

 

having experienced that atttude my fear was simply that a court may take the view that beyond had no valid reason to stop paying and welcome were right to repo and this may overshadow the real reason beyond is there, to challenge the unfair relationship.

 

i'm not a troll, and i am 100% behind beyond and wishng him/her every success in there case. i'm not trying to be nasty, just offering some warniing based on my own experience of things not going my way.

 

so please, no more name calling, it's just childish.

 

hi cyril,

 

my appologie's

not name calling, just a little dig. as you can appreciate we get the DCA trolls on here all the time. if i thought you was a troll, i would have called you a troll straight out "no bull".

 

anyway,

 

good morning

 

cab