Welcome Finance - Hp - Ucan car ***WON***

[Tedstyler]

I did when it went up but it hasnt updated yet. will keep refreshing, otherwise i'll remove it.

[postggj]

if that commission has not been declared on the agreement

 

game over

[postggj]

give me half an hour and ill run the figures

[Tedstyler]

right here' the original again

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0016-1.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0017-1.jpg

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Ok Ted, just gone through your figures and there's absolutely no doubt about it!! You have paid over £1200 more than the repo figure

I've looked up pre action protocol and it's saying you needed to have sent a letter before action before you can file a court claim. Which you have

 

If I were you I'd get a claim in asap. The fos are gonna do buggarall in reality apart from saying "you had the money, the creditor can do whatever the hell they like".

 

To be on the safe side maybe send Welcome one more lba and then go for the throat.

It's even in their own agreement that if they repo without a court order you are entitled to all your money back! There's no way they can get out of it!

[Tedstyler]

hey postggj, here's the copy of the statement of price for you to look at again as you said the figures were all out before.

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0005.jpg

[Tedstyler]

OK people, here's one for you.... we also have a secured loan with welcome, which were not to bothered about as we can pay it and we only did it as we had bought a renovation project and needed the cash.

With the SAR we also got details of the secured loan and in it we have found evidence of welcome tampering with one of the documents.

Its the legal charge document!!

 

As my wife is a legal conveyancer we have requested copies from the land registry and will have them tomorrow but what Welcome have sent us and what we've retained when the loan was taken out are different- the document supplied by Welcome has our signatures but not our names. Oddly, the document states the names of the people who bought my wifes parents house (an address where I was living prior to me purchasing the car)

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

It's amazing what a sar brings to light! So the legal charge document has somebody elses names on it but your signatures??? That has to be a case for fraud!! Surely!!

[Tedstyler]

yeah but thats on a different loan.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

yeah but thats on a different loan.

It makes no odds! You may be able to legally challenge that agreement too!

[Tedstyler]

Hey everyone. I know it been a while but here's an update

 

Back in May I sent everything to the Financial Ombusman.

 

Today I got a letter back,

 

They have agreed with Welcome Finance that inlight of the fact that had no court order, they acted inlawfully and have agreed to pay back everything on both the first agreement the second agreement and all the interest @ 8%.

 

No car though....... But its a win none the less!!!

 

Thank you everyone for all your help.

 

I couldnt have managed without you all

 

I will be making a nice donation very shortly.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

OMFG!!!! I am so happy for you I could just bust!!!!

[Tedstyler]

I will post a copy of the letter form the ombusman later.

 

I might frame it?!

[Tedstyler]

OMFG!!!! I am so happy for you I could just bust!!!!

 

 

I cant thank you all enough.

 

just have to wait for the cheque now.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I will post a copy of the letter form the ombusman later.

 

I might frame it?!

I really can't wait to see that!!!!

 

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I've asked for your thread to be marked "WON"!

[MARTIN3030]

Good result well done.

Thread title added to.

[rcl]

whoo Hoo thats good news !

[Tedstyler]

here's the letter back from the FO.

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0001.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0002.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0003.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0004.jpg

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

here's the letter back from the FO.

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0001.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0002.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0003.jpg

 

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy127/tedstyle/scan0004.jpg

 

OMG!! That's what I said! LOL! I'm so pleased it's all turned out so well for you and I'm so pleased you came back to your thread. What a beautiful result, you've made my day well done Ted!!

 

I've got a lot on with my own court battle with Welcome at the mo but I'm so troubled by this thread. Please Ted come back!! Is there any way somebody could get Ted to come back?????!

 

The facts are, (and I've had it confirmed, out of the mouths of the **** themselves), YOU HAVE PAID YOUR THIRD, THE GOODS WERE PROTECTED, THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL REPO OF PROTECTED GOODS!!!!!!!

 

In the event that Ted never comes back but somebody else reads this that is in a similar position I'd like to just show what the situation is.

 

90 Retaking of protected hire-purchase etc goods

 

(1) At any time when—

 

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

 

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

 

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

 

 

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

(2) Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the “installation charge”) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to one third of the total price shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one third of the remainder of the total price.

 

(3) In a case where—

 

(a) subsection (1)(a) is satisfied, but not subsection (1)(b), and

 

(b) subsection (1)(b) was satisfied on a previous occasion in relation to an earlier agreement, being a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement, between the same parties, and relating to any of the goods comprised in the later agreement (whether or not other goods were also included),

 

 

subsection (1) shall apply to the later agreement with the omission of paragraph (b).

 

(4) If the later agreement is a modifying agreement, subsection (3) shall apply with the substitution, for the second reference to the later agreement, of a reference to the modifying agreement.

 

(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, to an agreement if the debtor has terminated, or terminates, the agreement.

 

The part in red is the part that is very valid here.

 

It is basically saying that if you had paid a third in your first agreement and then the agreement was modified, (a re-write), but you did not change the car, (i.e. both the first agreement and the re-write were for the same car), then the third issue becomes irrelevant in the re-write as long as the agreement was terminated by them and not you. The car is "protected", they cannot take it without a court order and the consequences of them doing this are also clearly outlined.

 

(7) Goods falling within this section are in this Act referred to as “protected goods”.

 

91 Consequences of breach of s 90

 

If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90—

 

(a) the regulated agreement, if not previously terminated, shall terminate, and

 

(b) the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the debtor under the agreement.

 

I read this part of the Act many times in preparation for my own case but didn't quite get that part, so I read it and read it until I did!!!

 

I have received a copy of Welcome's defence in response to my claim and in one of their points they have conveniently verified this for us

 

"The defendant, (Welcome), will further say that the claimant has not paid more than one third of the total amount payable under either the first or second agreement. Consequently the vehicle was not protected"

 

Pay special attention to the highlighted word above

 

Come back Ted, you've won!!!!!

 

Wannabe x

[Calb0b]

Well done Ted this is a fabulous victory & Wannabe's input was crucial to this success Congratulations to you both.

 

Wannabe 1 --- Welcome 0

Edited August 25, 2010 by Calb0b

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Well done Ted this is a fabulous victory & Wannabe's input was crucial to this success Congratulations to you both.

 

Wannabe 1 --- Welcome 0

Slight over exaggeration!!! but thanks for the acknowledgement, appreciated.

Ted put in a lot of work too

[beyondhope]

Wahoooo Thats brilliant!!!! Maybe the FOS arent totally useless after all CONGRATS!!!!!!!!!!

[Tedstyler]

thankyou all for your comments and again a big thakyou for wannabedebtfreesoon. This mostly falls on you and your advice.

 

If I could send you champagne and flowers when we have the cheque then just pm me your details.

 

And thankyou all once again. Could not have done this without this site..

 

Once I get it cashed I'll be helping this site stay online.

 

Many thanks everyone

 

Tedstyle and a very happy wife.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thanks Ted that's a lovely thought but really not necessary! We're all here to help each other and fight the good fight, it's reward enough to see such a happy ending....and of course to give welcome a good, sharp poke in the eye!!