Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

6 YEARS!!! paying off £750 loan from Welcome


Tomofthenight
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4327 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Having been in financial difficulty for the past few months, we sent off to Experian to get our credit reports, in order to sort out our debts.

 

Looking back through my wife's, and believe me, this had been kept from myself, but she took out a loan from Welcome Finance, for £750 with a start date of 23/05/03.

 

Payments were; £91.00 p/m over 18 months.

 

All payments were met on time, bar 1, less than a month late.

 

She had repaid £546 over 7 payments, Then out of the blue, a new loan came into place, my wife cannot remember why this was put in place, and also no separate agreement was signed, no further monies were given to her, but payments increased to £136.00 over a period of 24 months.

 

Experian stated; LOAN

Started 23/05/03 Balance £0 Settled 27/11/03.

 

No indication was given to her as to full repayment costs on new loan, and no new agreement was signed.

 

During this period all payments were paid, bar 1, and two were slightly late.

 

12 payments were made on that loan.

 

Experian stated; LOAN

Started 27/11/03 balance £0 Settled 29/10/04.

Finding it hard to keep up these payments, during a phone call from welcome, it was suggested to my wife that payments could be reduced. Without having any agreement or T&C's in front of her, my wife agreed verbally to the reduced payments.

 

£61.00 p/m over 61 months.

 

No indication was given to her as to the full repayment costs on new loan, and no new agreement was signed.

 

Experian stated;Loan

Started 29/10/04 balance £181.

 

59 payments were made on that loan, and 1 missed.

 

Today we received a letter from Welcome Finance, a Notice of Sums in Arrears, stating that notice was now being given because we are behind in payments.

 

Opening balance £104.64

Shortfall for the purpose of this notice £267.48

 

Having calculated all payments made to Welcome Finance, it comes to a grand total of £5613 over 6 years for an original loan of £750, and now they have the audacity to add a further £267.48 on top.

 

I have printed off both application for CCA, and Subject Access Request, and will send both off tomorrow, but any input, advice would be gratefully received.

 

TOTN

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can`t be serious? How can they even think like that? It`s absolutely F**king ridiculous. They should not be able to trade like that. Utter A***holes.

 

Somebody will see this soon and you will be sorted on how to set about them.

 

Chers, MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me they should have been on Monday's Panorama as well!

 

The simple fact is if they don't have an agreement for this other loan, it is unenforceable. Further, I would be reclaiming what has been paid as there was no agreement for the extra (non existant) money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly if you do some reading in this forum, it is all too common for them to do this..

 

 

thats why we call them un-welcome

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you will most likely find that your loan(s) being regulated by CCA1974 and of 2003 vintage are actually unenforcable. The SAR should make interesting reading, post up your agreements when you have them less personal details of course

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update;

 

Yesterday, we received an attempt at a SAR sent back to us, but a good lot of the relevant info is not with it, and what they claim is the correspondence from them to us, is a half dozen letters all dated 9th Dec 2009, and all giving differing amounts of balance and arrears, but no indication of when these were allegedly sent out originally.

 

They have sent copies of the three separate loan agreements, and between them there are 10 signatures for my wife, but we can safely say that at least 6 are not hers, and another 2 we can't be sure of, and on 1 agreement she has gone from a married mother to 3 kids, to a single mother of 1 child.

 

They have sent partial computer notes ending 2006, and a correspondence log that goes back from Nov 2009 as far as Mar 2008.

 

The computer log does't show any new loan arrangements being made, and as far as my wife can recall, across the phone it was put to her that it was a readjustment of her repayments to help her meet the payments, and although she knew this would extend the repayment period, she was never told it was a new loan.

 

From the partial loan statement that only goes back to 2004, it shows that for Jan 2005, 5 payments of £15.13 were made totalling £75.65, Yet charges were made against her totalling171.95, meaning my wife went £96.30 further into debt while making the agreed payments on the agreed dates. These charges are made up of ADD HOC FEE's, CAPITALISATION and INTEREST.

 

I'm not sure how to take this forward now, especially the forged signatures, and I would appreciate any advice from anyone who could help.

 

It makes me so angry to think my wife paid them more than £5000 for this £750 loan.

 

By the way, she was charged £183.23 PPI and £150 healthcare for £750 loan.

Never mind, it could be raining!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...