Welcome Finance - Secret Commission - No liability For Interest - Breach of Complaint Handling Rules

[postggj]

welcome to the welcome fan club wfspayback

 

ill let you drive in the final nail

 

ime number one in line with the coffin

[wfspayback]

welcome to the welcome fan club wfspayback

 

Thank you postggj

[wfspayback]

Can I ask everyone for a little help.

 

Before I started the process of claiming back the secret commission I was inspired by the information I read in all of your threads.

 

The problem is I have read so many, I can't remember which was which. I read a few threads where people have posted commission sheets and there was one that had a screen shot from what looked like an excel spread sheet.

 

If anyone knows which threads these were can you do me a huge favour and post a link here for me.

 

Also, if anyone has any commission sheets that they don't mind me looking at (please remove all personal details) can you email me a copy at wfspayback at yahoo dot co dot uk

 

Your assistance would be very much appreciated.

 

Many Thanks

[wfspayback]

BBC NEWS | Business | Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

 

"Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Mrs Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach of the Consumer Credit Act."

[jdene]

Good thread I have a hearing on the 5th May for the same reasons so will be watching with interest.

[jdene]

wfspayback, I have a commission sheet you are most welcome to use though it is for the insurances, it still prooves secret commissions are the norm for welcome

[wfspayback]

Good thread I have a hearing on the 5th May for the same reasons so will be watching with interest.

 

wfspayback, I have a commission sheet you are most welcome to use though it is for the insurances, it still prooves secret commissions are the norm for welcome

 

Thank you jdene, I wish you the best of luck with your case, I hope all goes well.

 

Is your sheet posted on your thread ? I will go and take a look..

 

Many Thanks

[wfspayback]

wfspayback, I have a commission sheet you are most welcome to use though it is for the insurances, it still prooves secret commissions are the norm for welcome

 

Hello jdene

 

I have had a read of your thread, looks you have had more than your fair share of problems with Welcome. I came across this though

 

 

Looks like it shows the commission for the finance (£292.50) and insurance (£457.40)

[wfspayback]

Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell ( 1888 )39 Ch. D. 339, the greatest constitution of the Court of Appeal of the 19th century considered that there never was a greater time in the history of our law when it was more essential for the courts to “draw with precision and firmness the line of demarcation which prevails between commissions … honestly received and… [those] taken behind the master’s back”.

 

The Court of Appeal commented: If people have got an idea that transactions for secret commissions can properly be entered into by an agent “the sooner they are disabused of that idea the better”.

 

The law was stated thus:

 

“where an agent entering into a contract on behalf of his principal, and without the knowledge or assent of that principal, receives money from the person with whom he is dealing, he is doing a wrongful act, he is misconducting himself as regards his agency, and … that gives to his employer … power and authority to dismiss him from his employment as a person who by that act is shown to be incompetent of faithfully discharging his duty to his principal.”

 

The agent does the wrongful act whether the secret profit is in return for services performed for the third party, or whether it is received on any ground at all. If the profit arises from the transaction then it belongs to the principal and the agent cannot keep it unless his master knows of it.

[wfspayback]

Case news: Imageview Management v Jack (13.02.09) - Property Week

 

Imageview Management v Jack

 

 

"An agent who makes secret commission is to be treated as a fraudster and should not receive any benefit. The law is severe to deter agents from acting in this way."

 

Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324, the Privy Council, heard an appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal in respect of bribes found to be have paid to the former Hong Kong Director of Public Prosecutions. Lord Templeman stated:

 

"Bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society."

 

 

Edited March 28, 2010 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

What is a Bribe?

 

The word "bribe" has certain connotations, suggesting corrupt motive in order to influence the agent being bribed, causing loss to the principal. However, the civil courts do not require proof of corrupt motive, influence and loss:

 

 

"the safety of mankind requires that no agent shall be able to put his principal to the danger of such an enquiry as that": Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch. App 96.

 

 

The essential vice inherent in bribery is that it deprives the principal, without his knowledge or informed consent, of the disinterested advice which he is entitled to expect from his agent, free from the potentially corrupting influence of an interest of his own.

 

 

The civil courts therefore look to whether a payment was secret and has put the agent in a position of conflict in order to determine whether such payment was a bribe. There is no need to show some sort of dishonesty normally associated with the word "bribe".

 

 

 

• The case of Panama and South Pacific Telegraph Company v India Co., (1875) L.R. 10 Ch App. 515 establishes the basic principle that any surreptitious dealing between one principal to a contract and the agent of the other principal is a fraud in equity of which the court may take cognisance.
  
• Not only is it immaterial whether the parties thought that they were doing anything wrong, but money secretly paid to the agent of the other party is recoverable unless the other party is informed of the payment made (Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1QB 369). According to Lord Chitty:"The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it."
  
• According to Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis [1949] 2 All ER 573, for the purposes of the civil law a bribe means the payment of a secret commission, which only means
  
  • that the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing;
    
  • that he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; and
    
  • that he fails to disclose to the other person with whom he is dealing that he has made that payment to the person whom he knows to be the other person's agent.
    

   

  [*]In Anangel v IHI [1990] 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 167, Mr Justice Leggatt stated that the key to the determination of the question of whether or not a payment or other inducement made to an agent constitutes a bribe is whether or not the making of it gives rise to a conflict of interest, that is to say, puts the agent into a position where his duty and his interest conflict.

  [*]In Ross River Ltd v Cambridge City Football Club Ltd [2007] EWHC 2115 (Ch), Mr Justice Briggs found that it was in the highest degree improper for an agent to seek, let alone obtain, a payment from a third party with whom his principal was engaged in tough negotiations. The payment was structured as an advance of monies that would in due course have to be paid to the agent, which took place because of the agent's financial difficulties. The agent put himself into the third party's moral debt and plainly committed a breach of the fundamental obligation of a fiduciary not to place himself in a position of potential conflict between his duties and his interest.

Edited March 28, 2010 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

Motive for Paying a Bribe

 

Whilst bribery is often associated with there being a corrupt motive on the part of the person paying the bribe, in civil proceedings, there is no need to prove such a corrupt motive.

 

• According to Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff (1900) (83 LT 43), if a bribe be once established to the court's satisfaction, then the court will not inquire into the donor's motive in giving the bribe, nor allow evidence to be gone into as to the motive
  
• Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis held that proof of corruptness or corrupt motive is unnecessary in a civil action. He further held that the motive of the donor in making the payment to the agent or donee is conclusively presumed against the person who makes the payment.
  
• In Allwood v Clifford, Mr Justice Park said that it can happen under the law of agency that a payment received by an agent from a third party may be one which the agent is not allowed to keep for himself, notwithstanding that the agent had no consciously improper motive in accepting it, and notwithstanding that the agent may have believed - possibly correctly - that there would be no damage to the interests of his client from what he has agreed to do for the third party.
  
• In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch), Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the payer of the bribe acted with a corrupt motive.
  

[wfspayback]

Was the person bribed, influenced by the bribe?

 

In civil proceedings, there is also no need to prove that the person bribed was influenced by the bribe.

 

• Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff, held that the court will presume in favour of the principal, and as against the briber and the agent bribed, that the agent was influenced by the bribe; and this presumption is irrebuttable.
  
• Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis, said that once the bribe is established, there is an irrebuttable presumption that it was given with an intention to induce the agent to act favourably to the payer and. thereafter, unfavourably to the principal and that it is conclusively proved against the person making the payment that the donee is affected and influenced by the payment.
  
• In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the agents mind was actually affected by the bribe.
  

[wfspayback]

The consequences of the bribe

 

Whether or not a payment should be classified a bribe does not depend upon the consequences of the payment.

 

• The Court has never permitted a finding that the agent acted in the best interests of his principal, notwithstanding the receipt of secret commission, to avail either the agent or the third party when sued in respect of it by the principal (Anangel v IHI).
  
• In Petrotrade v Smith, Mr Justice Steel stated:
  
  • Neither common sense nor authority supports the proposition that the payment must induce a contract between the principal of the recipient of the payment and the donor. The secret payment is just as corrupt in the absence of an agreement (though often enough the payment will be intended to achieve such a purpose). In its ordinary meaning, the word bribe includes any reward given with a view to perverting the judgment or conduct of the recipient.
    
  • There is no requirement for a contract between the parties to be thereby induced. Indeed to focus on the possible outcome of the payment is to misapprehend the key distinguishing feature of a corrupt payment, namely that the making of it gives rise to a conflict of interest on the part of the agent.
    

  [*]In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the principal suffered any loss or that the transaction was in some way unfair or that the bribe was given specifically in connection with a particular contract, since a bribe may also be given to an agent to influence his mind in favour of the payer generally (eg in connection with the granting of future contracts).

[wfspayback]

Damages that can be recovered

 

The damages that can be recovered against both the person bribed and the briber can be the damages actually suffered as a consequence of the bribe. Alternatively, the claimant can seek to make a proprietary claim to the bribe, so that, for example, if the bribes have been used to purchase land and the land has gone up in value, the claimant can claim the land and take the benefit of the increase in value. In addition, a contract entered into as a consequence of a bribe may be rescinded.

 

• In Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff, Lord Justice Romer held that if the agent be a confidential buyer of goods for his principal from the briber, the court will assume as against the briber that the true price of the goods as between him and the purchaser must be taken to be less than the price paid to, or charged by, the vendor by, at any rate, the amount or value of the bribe.
  
• In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Jusitice Lawrence Collins said that it will be assumed that the true price of any goods bought by the principal was increased by at least the amount of the bribe, but any loss beyond the amount of the bribe itself must be proved. He went on to say that the agent and the third party are jointly and severally liable to account for the bribe, and each may also be liable in damages to the principal for fraud or deceit or conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. Consequently, the agent and the maker of the payment are jointly and severally liable to the principal (1) to account for the amount of the bribe as money had and received and (2) for damages for any actual loss.
  
• In Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid, it was held that when a fiduciary accepted a bribe as an inducement to betray his trust he held the bribe in trust for the person to whom he owed the duty as fiduciary; and, if property representing the bribe increased in value, the fiduciary was not entitled to retain any surplus in excess of the initial value fo the bribe because he was not allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty.
  
• In Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club [1988] 1 WLR 1256, Mr Justice Millett said that the principal, having been deprived by the other party to the transaction of the disinterested advice of his agent, is entitled to a further opportunity to consider whether it is in his interests to affirm it.
  
• In Ross River Ltd v Cambridge City Football Club Ltd, Mr Justice Briggs stated that where a contract ensues following a secret payment received by a party's agent, the principal is entitled to rescission if he neither knew nor consented to the payment. If he knew of it, but did not give his informed consent, the court may award rescission as a discretionary remedy, if it is just and proportionate to do so.
  

[wfspayback]

Leaving the best to last....

 

 

 

Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299, Lord Justice Tuckey commented as follows:

 

" the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated in the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe.

 

The principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for the money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe or for the damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given (Mahesan v Malaya’s Housing Society [1979] AC 374, 383). Furthermore the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it . . . (Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percher and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515, 527, 532-3).

 

and....

 

Sir Owen Dixon summarised in McDonald v Dennys Lacelles Limited that when a contract is rescinded because of matters which affect its formation, as in the case of fraud, the parties are to be rehabilitated and restored, so far as may be, to the position they occupied before the contract was made

[jdene]

wfspayback you seem to have the commission sheet posted above feel free to use it you need this to prove they take and pay commissions, as a judge will ask for proof.

[wfspayback]

wfspayback you seem to have the commission sheet posted above feel free to use it you need this to prove they take and pay commissions, as a judge will ask for proof.

 

Thank you, after your last post I had a look through your thread.

 

If anyone else has commission sheets etc, could they please pm a copy or send me an email to:

 

wfspayback at yahoo dot co dot uk

 

Very much appreciated and thank you all in advance

[wfspayback]

Ok folks the below is my final email to welcome before popping down the Court and submitting my claim. The purpose of these emails is to enable me to demonstrate to the judge that I have made a number of attempts to avoid going to Court.

 

28 March 2010

Your Ref: COMP/xxxxx

Account Number: xxxxxxxx

 

Ms Margaret Young

Executive Chairman

Cattles Plc

Mere Way

Ruddington Fields Business Park

Ruddington

Nottingham

NG11 6NZ

 

Dear Ms Young

 

Secret Commission

 

Further to my previous email of 25 March 2010, I would like to take this opportunity to make one final attempt to avoid the need for me to commence litigation.

 

As previously advised, to prevent the instigation of proceedings, I require either Welcome Finance’s full response to the concerns that I have raised or confirmation of when Welcome Finance will provide me with its response, before 5:00 pm on Monday 29 March 2010. Please note that an email response will be acceptable. As previously advised, I request all future correspondence to be in writing only.

 

On 12 September 2006, I purchased a Ford Focus, registration xxxx from Concept Automotive Services Limited, company registration number: 2715908, trading as CarLand. CarLand was at all material times a Licensed Credit Broker (Consumer Credit Licence Number: 0344449).

 

I assert that in its role as a licenced credit broker CarLand, acted as my agent and approached Welcome Financial Services Limited (previously known as Progressive Financial Services Limited), company registration number: 133540, (Consumer Credit Licence Number: 0020708), trading as Welcome Finance on my behalf.

 

It is my understanding that Welcome Finance was one of a number of different financial institutions that formed CarLand’s panel of financial providers. I assert that commission was paid to CarLand by Welcome Finance.

 

It is my understanding that as Welcome Finance does not keep records, it is unable to refute or deny the payment of such. As I had not been informed that any commission would be paid by Welcome Finance to CarLand, I conclude that any such payment would be classed as “secret commission.

 

Hurstanger confirms that the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated by the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe.

 

The payment of a bribe by Welcome Finance

 

The word bribe has certain connotations, suggesting corrupt motive in order to influence the agent being bribed, causing loss to the principal. However, the civil courts do not require proof of corrupt motive, influence and loss:

 

"the safety of mankind requires that no agent shall be able to put his principal to the danger of such an enquiry as that": Parker v McKenna (1874) LR 10 Ch. App 96.

 

The essential vice inherent in bribery is that it deprives the principal, without his knowledge or informed consent, of the disinterested advice which he is entitled to expect from his agent, free from the potentially corrupting influence of an interest of his own.

 

The civil courts therefore look to whether a payment was secret and has put the agent in a position of conflict in order to determine whether such payment was a bribe. There is no need to show some sort of dishonesty normally associated with the word bribe.

 

According to Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis [1949] 2 All ER 573, for the purposes of the civil law a bribe means the payment of a secret commission, which only means

· that the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing;

· that he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; and

· that he fails to disclose to the other person with whom he is dealing that he has made that payment to the person whom he knows to be the other person's agent.

 

Motive for Paying a Bribe

 

Whilst bribery is often associated with there being a corrupt motive on the part of the person paying the bribe, in civil proceedings, there is no need to prove such a corrupt motive.

 

· According to Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff (1900) (83 LT 43), if a bribe be once established to the court's satisfaction, then the court will not inquire into the donor's motive in giving the bribe, nor allow evidence to be gone into as to the motive

· Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis held that proof of corruptness or corrupt motive is unnecessary in a civil action. He further held that the motive of the donor in making the payment to the agent or donee is conclusively presumed against the person who makes the payment.

· In Allwood v Clifford, Mr Justice Park said that it can happen under the law of agency that a payment received by an agent from a third party may be one which the agent is not allowed to keep for himself, notwithstanding that the agent had no consciously improper motive in accepting it, and notwithstanding that the agent may have believed - possibly correctly - that there would be no damage to the interests of his client from what he has agreed to do for the third party.

· In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd [2004] EWHC 622 (Ch), Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the payer of the bribe acted with a corrupt motive.

 

Was the person bribed, influenced by the bribe?

 

In civil proceedings, there is also no need to prove that the person bribed was influenced by the bribe.

· Lord Justice Romer, in Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff, held that the court will presume in favour of the principal, and as against the briber and the agent bribed, that the agent was influenced by the bribe; and this presumption is irrebuttable.

· Mr Justice Slade in Industries & General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis, said that once the bribe is established, there is an irrebuttable presumption that it was given with an intention to induce the agent to act favourably to the payer and. thereafter, unfavourably to the principal and that it is conclusively proved against the person making the payment that the donee is affected and influenced by the payment.

· In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the agents mind was actually affected by the bribe.

 

The consequences of the bribe

 

Whether or not a payment should be classified a bribe does not depend upon the consequences of the payment.

• The Court has never permitted a finding that the agent acted in the best interests of his principal, notwithstanding the receipt of secret commission, to avail either the agent or the third party when sued in respect of it by the principal (Anangel v IHI).
  
• In Petrotrade v Smith, Mr Justice Steel stated:
  
  • Neither common sense nor authority supports the proposition that the payment must induce a contract between the principal of the recipient of the payment and the donor. The secret payment is just as corrupt in the absence of an agreement (though often enough the payment will be intended to achieve such a purpose). In its ordinary meaning, the word bribe includes any reward given with a view to perverting the judgment or conduct of the recipient.
    
  • There is no requirement for a contract between the parties to be thereby induced. Indeed to focus on the possible outcome of the payment is to misapprehend the key distinguishing feature of a corrupt payment, namely that the making of it gives rise to a conflict of interest on the part of the agent.
    

   

 

• In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Justice Collins stated that in proceedings against the payer of the bribe there is no need for the principal to prove that the principal suffered any loss or that the transaction was in some way unfair or that the bribe was given specifically in connection with a particular contract, since a bribe may also be given to an agent to influence his mind in favour of the payer generally (eg in connection with the granting of future contracts).
  

Damages that can be recovered

 

The damages that can be recovered against both the person bribed and the briber can be the damages actually suffered as a consequence of the bribe. Alternatively, the claimant can seek to make a proprietary claim to the bribe, so that, for example, if the bribes have been used to purchase land and the land has gone up in value, the claimant can claim the land and take the benefit of the increase in value. In addition, a contract entered into as a consequence of a bribe may be rescinded.

• In Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff, Lord Justice Romer held that if the agent be a confidential buyer of goods for his principal from the briber, the court will assume as against the briber that the true price of the goods as between him and the purchaser must be taken to be less than the price paid to, or charged by, the vendor by, at any rate, the amount or value of the bribe.
  
• In Daraydan Holdings Ltd v Solland International Ltd, Mr Jusitice Lawrence Collins said that it will be assumed that the true price of any goods bought by the principal was increased by at least the amount of the bribe, but any loss beyond the amount of the bribe itself must be proved. He went on to say that the agent and the third party are jointly and severally liable to account for the bribe, and each may also be liable in damages to the principal for fraud or deceit or conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. Consequently, the agent and the maker of the payment are jointly and severally liable to the principal (1) to account for the amount of the bribe as money had and received and (2) for damages for any actual loss.
  
• In Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid, it was held that when a fiduciary accepted a bribe as an inducement to betray his trust he held the bribe in trust for the person to whom he owed the duty as fiduciary; and, if property representing the bribe increased in value, the fiduciary was not entitled to retain any surplus in excess of the initial value of the bribe because he was not allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty.
  
• In Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club [1988] 1 WLR 1256, Mr Justice Millett said that the principal, having been deprived by the other party to the transaction of the disinterested advice of his agent, is entitled to a further opportunity to consider whether it is in his interests to affirm it.
  
• In Ross River Ltd v Cambridge City Football Club Ltd, Mr Justice Briggs stated that where a contract ensues following a secret payment received by a party's agent, the principal is entitled to rescission if he neither knew nor consented to the payment. If he knew of it, but did not give his informed consent, the court may award rescission as a discretionary remedy, if it is just and proportionate to do so.
  

Rescission of Credit Agreement

 

Pursuant to section 2 (1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, I refer you to the Court of Appeal case of Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299, Lord Justice Tuckey commented as follows:

 

“the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated in the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe.

 

The principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for the money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe or for the damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given (Mahesan v Malaya’s Housing Society [1979] AC 374, 383).

 

Furthermore the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it . . (Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percher and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515, 527, 532-3).”

 

Hurstanger confirms that the payment of commission by Welcome Finance to CarLand is treated as a special category of fraud. Sir Owen Dixon summarised in McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Limited that when a contract is rescinded because of matters which affect its formation, as in the case of fraud, the parties are to be rehabilitated and restored, so far as may be, to the position they occupied before the contract was made (Termination Ab Initio).

 

Rescission is a remedy in equity which aims to set aside transactions and order the payment of money so as to place parties in a dispute in the position they would have been in before any transaction between them had been entered into. Under the laws of England, this equitable remedy is available only when Restitutio in Integrum is possible Restitutio in Integrum is the process of putting parties in the position they would have been in, if the transaction in question never took place.

 

Restitutio in Integrum requires Welcome Finance to pay me the difference between the amount I borrowed and the amount I have repaid. This would enable both parties to be rehabilitated and restored, so far as may be, to the position they occupied before the contract was made. Therefore, both parties would be fairly put in the position they would have been in, if the transaction in question never took place.

 

Provision of Statements

 

The Hire Purchase statement I recently received was the first statement of account provided to me by Welcome Finance. As I am sure you will appreciate following the introduction and gradual implementation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, I should have been provided with a statement of account no later than 1 October 2009.

 

I say this because from 1 October 2008, creditors were required by section 77(a) of the 1974 Act, to provide debtors with annual statements in relation to regulated agreements for fixed-sum credit, such as loans and hire purchase.

 

Content of Statements

 

The 2007 Regulations specify the information to be included in statements for fixed-sum credit agreements. In particular:

 

· The duration of the agreement and the amount of credit provided.

 

The ‘Hire Purchase Loan Statement’ provided by Welcome Finance did not specify the duration of the agreement.

 

· The rate or rates of interest applicable, together with

· the period during which each rate applied

· if applicable, the element of the credit to which it applied

 

The ‘Hire Purchase Loan Statement’ provided by Welcome Finance did not specify the rate of interest.

 

· The amount and date of any interest or other charges falling due during the period.

 

The ‘Hire Purchase Loan Statement’ provided by Welcome Finance did not specify any interest falling due during the period.

 

Prescribed Forms of Wording

 

· The consequences of paying less than the agreed sum .

· Sources of help or advice if the debtor is having difficulties making payments.

· The right to settle the agreement early.

· The right to terminate a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement.

· Dispute resolution and complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service FOS).

 

As I am sure you will not dispute, the ‘Hire Purchase Loan Statement’ provided by Welcome Finance did not contain any of the prescribed forms of wording.

 

Breach of the Act or Regulations

 

For reasons that are self-explanatory, it is a matter of fact that Welcome Finance, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 did not provide a statement of account before 1 October 2009.

 

Furthermore, the statement recently provided does not comply with all the statutory requirements as detailed above. If a creditor does not give the debtor an annual statement in respect of a fixed-sum credit agreement when he is required to do so, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance. In addition, the debtor is not liable to pay any interest calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance.

 

In addition, the OFT and Local Authority Trading Standards Services have powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to take enforcement action where there is a breach of legislation which harms the collective interests of consumers. Enforcement action may also be taken where appropriate under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

Breach of the requirements may also reflect on fitness to hold a consumer credit licence under the credit licensing regime. Therefore, I conclude that until such a time that Welcome Finance provides a statement of account that is fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 2006 it is unable to hold me liable for interest calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance.

I respectfully refer you to ‘Consumer Credit Act 1974 Post-contract information requirements’ as published in July 2008 for confirmation of my observations.

 

Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors

 

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—

© 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).

 

140B Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships

 

(1) An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following—

(a) require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person);

 

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

 

I assert that the payment of secret commission and the aforementioned breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended 2006) created an unfair relationship. The effect of s.140B (9) is that the burden of proof is placed on the creditor (in this instance Welcome) rather than the Borrower/Claimant.

 

Resolution

 

Restitutio in Integrum would require Welcome Finance pay me the difference between the amount I originally borrowed and the total amount I have repaid to date. This payment would enable both parties to be rehabilitated and restored, so far as may be, to the position they occupied before the contract was made. Both parties would be put in the position they would have been in, if the transaction in question never took place.

 

As previously advised, to prevent the instigation of proceedings, I require either Welcome Finance’s full response to the concerns that I have raised or confirmation of when Welcome Finance will provide me with its response, before 5:00 pm on Monday 29 March 2010. Please note that an email response will be acceptable. As previously advised, I request all future correspondence to be in writing only.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

 

xxxx

C.C

Mr Vince Cable MP

Mr xxxxx MP

BBC Watchdog

Mr Tony Hetherington, Readers' Champion, Mail on Sunday

Office of Fair Trading (O.F.T)

Financial Services Authority (F.S.A)

Trading Standards

Edited March 28, 2010 by wfspayback

[wfspayback]

Thank you everyone for sending me copies of your commission sheets. For some reason, yahoo has now blocked my account for 24 hours.

 

Not sure why they have blocked it..

 

Anyway, thank you to everyone..

 

I have enough now to work on thank you once again

[beyondhope]

Best of luck

[johnerog]

Excuse me everyone. does anybody have a commission sheet for Blackhorse?

Sorry to jump in.

 

Wfs. I have sent you the w/s; sorry for the delay.

John

[wfspayback]

=

Wfs. I have sent you the w/s; sorry for the delay.

John

 

That's ok, thank you for your help it is greatly appreciated.

 

I want to thank everyone else as well. Sorry I can't email you all back individually to thank you, for some reason Yahoo has still blocked my account from sending emails.

[wfspayback]

Back to business....

 

I have received the following response today:

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: xxxx [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 29 March 2010 15:10

To: xxxx

Subject: Dear Mr xxxx

 

Dear Mr xxxx

 

Further to your email dated 28 March 2010, I can confirm that a response to all your points is currently awaiting sign off and you will receive correspondence within the next few working days.

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

xxxxx

Compliance Officer

Cattles Group Compliance

Tel: 0845 xxxxx

Fax: 0115 xxxxx

Ext: xxx

E-Mail: xxxxx

Postal Address:

Welcome Financial Services Ltd

Mere Way

Ruddington Fields Business Park

Ruddington

Nottingham

NG11 6NZ

 

 

 

Cattles plc Registered in England No: 133540

Kingston House, Centre 27 Business Park,

Woodhead Road, Birstall, Batley, WF179TD.

Edited March 29, 2010 by wfspayback

[beyondhope]

Oooooo they sound like they are running around like headless chickens after all! Awaiting sign off indeed!