Griffiths V Welcome

[pwg6565]

Well in my case Post. It was a re-write with no funds exchanding hands, no pre-agreement and no cooling off period. It was signed in a Welcome Office though and I never recieved a copy of the agreement on the day.

When a settlement figure from your previous loan is given it never contains what is in it. Why ?

[postggj]

No Cooling Off Period

 

Game Over

 

You Need To Be Sent Away For Seven Days To Reconsider What You Were Signing And To Give You The Option To Change Your Mind

 

Its Getting The Proof That You Never Had The Cooling Off Period

[pwg6565]

Yeah that will be tough. It was a telephone call from them offering me lower monthly payments and less interest if I agreed to a re-write and then it was done as quickly as possible. Was not aware of MIF any other charges in those days. I have sent you a mail with that revised contract Post. See what you can do please mate. Kind Regards.

[emanevs]

hi everyone,

 

My problem is that the mif and acceptance fee WERE NOT STATED AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CREDIT.

 

However, they were fees added to the total amount of credit and interest was charged on the new total (albiet that the new total was not shown, and would have taken the agreement to an unregulated one)

 

What this means I think is that because of the Griffiths case, they are allowed to charge this fee (whether it be acceptance or mif) and add it to the total amount of credit, but not show it on the credit agreement.

 

The agreement, apparently states that “interest will be calculated at the rate of interest on the daily balance of the total amount of credit and the acceptance fee…”. Interest is, of course, also charged on the mortgage indemnity fee - and this is not specified.

 

This appears to be a failure to properly show an element of the contract very similar to the situation in Southern Pacific where it was not stated that interest was being charged on the “broker administration fee”. In Southern Pacific, of course, the Court of Appeal overturned the first Appeal Judgement and held that the agreement was enforceable. This would suggest that Court could well take a similar approach to my case.

 

Whether the agreement is defective because the ‘mortgage Indemnity Fee’ is essentially a contract of insurance. This point was raised in Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services t/a Welcome Financial Services (2006). In that case the Judge held that the Mortgage Indemnity Fee was NOT sold under a contract of insurance and that the ‘total amount of credit’ was therefore correctly stated.

 

The Judgment in Griffiths, then, effectively closes this line of argument, and is particularly relevant to my case??

 

Confused as hell now!

[emanevs]

bumpy bump......

[emanevs]

Postggi,

 

I am still unsure that this all helps??

 

please can someone help?

[postggj]

My View Is Mif Is A Charge For Credit And As Such No Interest Is Allowed To Be Applied As A Charge For Credit

[postggj]

This Mif Applied By Welcome Is Not An Insurance Charge By There Own Addmission

There Is No Insurance Policy So What Is It

 

Its A Bogus Money Making [problem] And Proporting To Be Some Thing It Is Not

 

Fraud Act Any One

[emanevs]

the agreement clealry sttaed that the mif is a charge for credit,

 

BUT

 

What legislation is there to state that its incorrect for interest to be allowed to be applied as a charge for credit????

 

For example:

"In that case the Judge held that the Mortgage Indemnity Fee was NOT sold under a contract of insurance and that the ‘total amount of credit’ was therefore correctly stated."

 

:confused:

[emanevs]

Fraud Act 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[postggj]

thats what i cant understand

 

mif is an insurance policy for the lender

 

i need a few days on this

 

i have a contact in the fos

[emanevs]

thanks Postggi.

 

Seems very strange, but need concrete evidence to cut them down completely.

[postggj]

ask pt when he comes on line

[jamesf104]

My view is that the MIF and the acceptance fee is part of the total charge for credit and is not credit and as such should not attract interest. These fees are both compulsory and clearly are a charge made for the credit advanced. Its clear now that MIF is not an insurance but just another fee that welcome have devised, therefore I would argue that this is part of the cost of credit without interest being applied but paid over time sec 9(4) says this I think

[emanevs]

In my particular case, the cases of Wilson, Southern Pacific and Griffiths seem all to be against me.

 

Section 9 (4) states:

 

"For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment."

 

My only concern is where does it say in any legislation, that:

 

1) They are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, without actually increasing the total amount of credit on the Regulated Credit Agreement

 

2) If these fees added to the original cash loan and it would mean that the loan exceeds £25k, what legislation would prevent them from enforcing the agreement.

 

3) What legislation states that they are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, charge for credit, then add interest to the gross total.

 

Hope that makes sense?

[emanevs]

Bump!

[frettful38]

In my particular case, the cases of Wilson, Southern Pacific and Griffiths seem all to be against me.

 

Section 9 (4) states:

 

"For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment."

 

My only concern is where does it say in any legislation, that:

 

1) They are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, without actually increasing the total amount of credit on the Regulated Credit Agreement

 

2) If these fees added to the original cash loan and it would mean that the loan exceeds £25k, what legislation would prevent them from enforcing the agreement.

 

3) What legislation states that they are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, charge for credit, then add interest to the gross total.

 

Hope that makes sense?

 

Excellent question, and I would love to know the answer to that myself too.

[emanevs]

ta,

 

bump........

[emanevs]

bumping......

 

Anyone have the answers???

[postggj]

email sent today to fos

[emanevs]

ok

[jamesf104]

In my view the fees, as they are part of the cost of credit, do not add to the actual credit which is the loan amount i.e. 25K The loan of 25K is the credit that the act refers to while the fees being part of the cost of credit together with the interest do not increase the loan amount, just as the interest applied to 25K does not increase the amount of credit, so do the fees not increase the credit either, the loan to which interest is applied is still 25K not 25K + fees. Sec 9(4) is clear on this I think. Its my opinion of course.

[emanevs]

but you would still have to pay back £27985??, and not £25k

[jamesf104]

I assume this figure includes MIF as well. Still a fee and yes you would pay back that much but still for the purpose of the act I would argue that your loan is still 25K and not over. The fees take it over 25K but are not counted as credit as they are part cost of credit. I am assuming that the argument is whether the loan exceeds 25K or not, I say it does not. Without going back over,I think this started as an MIF thing but it was established that MIF is a fee and not an insurance. Therefore MIF is cost of credit as post has said

[mark1arby]

Even if the loan is Over £25,000 if the agreement says something like," A Loan Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ". In my opinion it is Regulated by the Act.

 

For that simple reason you are affected All the Protection of the Act!

 

Am I right? Or is this even relevant to some of your worries Emanevs?

 

Cheers, MARK