Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have received a PCN from Euro Car Parks for MFG - Esso Cobham - Gravesend. I was completely unaware that there was any such limit for parking and always considered this to be a service station. I stopped there to use the toilet, have a coffee and made a couple of work calls. I have read the previous topics on this location which suggest I can ignore this and ECP will not take legal action. The one possible complication is that the vehicle is leased by my employer so I do not want to involve them with the associated reminders and threatening letters. The PCN was first issued to the leasing company Arval who have notified ECP of the hiring company. I have attached a copy of the PCN Notice to Hirer with details removed as per instructions. What options do I have or should I just pay the PCN promptly at the reduced rate of £60? img20240424_23142631.pdf
    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
  • 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

Welcome Finance Agreement


andys123
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3680 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

HI.

Have recently been looking at my secured loan agreement with Welcome which is nearly two years old.

The loan amount was for £5000 over 48 months and this is on my loan agreement,

and under 'ther financial information' is an acceptance fee of £235

and a broker fee of £250 along with the 'interest charge' of £3098.41.

My query is, and why I would like some assistance,

why have my 'fees' had interest applied to them for the 48 months,

why is the 'total amount of credit' on my agreement different to that of my 'opening statement' which states £5485.

I can see that the fees have been added to the amount of credit but my agreement clearly states £5000.

On my 'statement of price' it also clearly states amount of credit as £5000

but when everything is broken down to arrive at my monthly payment of £178.82

the 'acceptance and broker fee' have an amount allocated to them,

so for instance,

the acceptance fee of £235 is actually costing £367.68 over the 48 months at a monthly payment of £7.66.

Any help/advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 254
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

5000 @ 178.82 @ 48 months = 33.9% apr

 

5485 @ 178.82 @ 48 months = 26.8% apr

 

If you can proove that 'total amount of credit' was in fact £5485' then you will have a potential claim for unenforceability due to the total amount of credit is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac183/............./WELCOME%20DOCS/DSC03622.jpg

 

Here is my statement clearly showing that the opening balance was £5485 and not £5000 and with yet another APR. If I'm to put the account into 'dispute', what is the legal basis for this...apart from the obvious?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://i898.photobucket.com/albums/ac183/andysaunders69/WELCOME%20DOCS/DSC03622.jpg

 

Here is my statement clearly showing that the opening balance was £5485 and not £5000 and with yet another APR. If I'm to put the account into 'dispute', what is the legal basis for this...apart from the obvious?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read through this, correct data/enter dates where applicable.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I am writing to you with regard to the above account. I have come across what I believe and can prove to be a breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 hence rendering the above account unenforceable.

 

I have discovered from your companies paperwork that whilst my agreement shows an acceptance fee of £235 that is calculated into the overall loan total your company has failed to disclose on this document that the £235 has had an interest rate applied. This contravenes s.61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and has been proved in court through Wilson V First County Trust. In addition, you have clearly stated to me that the “total amount of credit” provided was in fact £5485. I did not sign and Consumer Credit Agreement with a total amount of credit of £5485. I also believe that £5485 @ 178.82 @ 48 months = 26.8% apr, and not 33.9% as per the agreement.

 

I would also say that I feel your company has deliberately mislead their representations as the acceptance fee is clearly shown as a separate figure on the credit agreement I will be referring this matter to the Financial Services Authority as I deem this to be a direct attempt to mislead the customer.

 

Therefore as this account is now unenforceable I will be cancelling my future direct debits to your company with immediate effect and request a refund of all payments made to your company before this date.

 

Furthermore, despite sending you a formal Subject Access Request on the XXXXX, I still have not have received the necessary documents.

 

I would like to remind you that the 40 days for supplying information after our Subject Access Request ends on the XXXXXX.

 

In addition, if you fail to meet your obligation under the act a report will be sent to the information commissioner and you will face investigation.

 

Furthermore, I am sure you are now aware due to the sheer amount of these letters you receive plus the massive media attention, that every time you receive one of these letters it will be followed up by a request for a full refund of any disproportionate penalty charges and associated charges, this will give you 14 days to do so before court action. Please note if I have to take court action to reclaim these charges then I will do so. Therefore, to save yourselves some time and money, if you could just refund all these charges dating back six years immediately you will not incur the court fees or your solicitors fees and the 8% interest I am entitled to claim.

 

As this account is now in dispute you may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment. You may not add further interest or charges to the above account nor are you to pass this account to a third party.

Lastly you may not register any information in respect of this account with a credit reference agency nor are you allowed to issue a default with regards to this account.

 

If my request is not complied with within 14 days I will have no further option to file this matter in the courts.

 

I also draw to your attention the recent Office Of Fair Trading (OFT). “Lenders must not mislead borrowers that their debts are enforceable, when in fact they are not, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) says.”

 

Yours Faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks emanevs, shall I also include the 'broker fee' of £285 when quoting the figures?

  • So to clarify, my signed agreement is for £5000.
  • My initial statement shows the amount of credit given to be £5485.
  • The interest applied to the account refers to the £5485.
  • My 'statement of price' shows a repayment figure which includes the 'broker/acceptance' fees (including interest) but based on a loan of £5000

Is their mistake as really as straightforward as that and can I get the money back? There is the other issue of it being a secured loan with a charge on my house, how will this be affected. I have read on other threads that the charge would be removed if the loan is unenforcable, is this correct?

 

Do I send the dispute to the Nottingham H/O?

Do I need to quote anything else?

How are they likely to respond?

 

Thanks for the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andys123, that was me. I have had the charge removed because the agreement was not properly executed. If the agreement is not properly executed then the security instrument is not properly executed either and has to be returned immediately Read sec 105 and 106 which clearly states this. They tried to hold onto the security but my legal argument won the day. It works, but I would only say with regard to ours that WF agreed non execution (after some pressure), you will need to convince them that this is the situation in your case. It obviously is but I guess until they agree you probably will not move forward easily on this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...