Jump to content
bustthematrix

Invalid Termination Welcome Finance

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3613 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello All

 

Having read a bit about the subject of invalid Default Notices and Unlawful Rescission, I thought I might post up some documents I have from Welcome Finance in relation to this.

 

The loan was started in February 2008 and initially ran ok until work issues started to affect repayments and things were never the same after that. WF finally defaulted in February 2010.

 

It appears to me that they have both defaulted and terminated the account, irrevocably and unlawfully. The Default Notice is invalid by at least one criteria which I can see (incorrect allowance of 14 days). Oh, and the figures are wrong due to unlawful added charges. I'd appreciate any further clarifications on the breaches.

 

If I have read this subject correctly they may now not be able to collect the loan principal, only the arrears at the time of the default. Also, they have been served with a CCA of which they are now in breach by over a month!

 

The docs are set out below. Can the experienced folks here please have a look at these documents and comment?

 

Many thanks.

Edited by bustthematrix
Typos

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Default Letter:

New Welcome DN&TN001 Edit.jpg

Edited by bustthematrix

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Default Notice itself:

New Welcome DN&TN002 Edit.jpg

Edited by bustthematrix

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can You Repost As Its A Bit Small

 

Try Cutting And Pasting The Image Code Onto Your Thread Via Photobucket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An Invalid Default Notice Will Be Unlawful Recession Of Contract If The Agreement Is Terminated

 

Thats Case Law Under Woodchester Lease Management

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes. This is a zipped version so should not be shrunk by the CAG system? Never used photobucket and I'm pressed for time.

Welcome DN and TN.zip

Edited by bustthematrix
Removed barcode!!!

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats Fine Now

 

Default Notice Is Pure Crap As Usual:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for looking in postggj


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An Invalid Default Notice Will Be Unlawful Recession Of Contract If The Agreement Is Terminated

 

Thats Case Law Under Woodchester Lease Management

Great. What can we go on to claim as a result? Are the circumstances of the termination relevant at all?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also keen to find out if Mortgage Indemnity Fees are reclaimable and on what grounds??? These were added to two WF loans which were paid off in 2007. We've had two lots of over £1300 each on two seperate loans. With interest added on, one is worth £3500 and another over £2700, if we can reclaim them at this time.


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On The Issue Of Claiming Interest On Fees

 

Be It Acceptance Or Mif

 

There Is A Case Being Heard In The Supreme Court

 

tomorow

 

7/7/2010

 

 

This Will Blow Welcome Out Of The Water Once And For All

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful. Are there no precedents that can be used in the meantime? MIF and Acceptance fees certainly apply to these loans. Had not even thought of claiming the Acceptance fee to be fair so thanks!

 

I guess this would also apply to Acceptance fees for various other lenders, not just WF?

 

btw, why are you so confident the lender(s) will lose in the hearing tomorrow? Is the hearing commencing tomorrow or is judgement being handed down tomorrow?..and how has it ended up all the way at the Supreme Court? Suggests someone has appealed it to that level does it not or did the Claimant(s) go straight there?

Edited by bustthematrix

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There Is Case Law That Decided In Welcome FavourE

 

That Was Walker V Pacific Loans

 

This Is Now Back In The Court Of Appeal

 

This Will Effect All Lenders

 

You Will Have Your Answer In 24 Hours

 

Its The Final Judgement Tomorow

 

This Has Gone Back And Forward All The Way Up

 

End Game For Us And The Creditor This Judgement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On The Issue Of Claiming Interest On Fees

 

Be It Acceptance Or Mif

 

There Is A Case Being Heard In The Supreme Court

 

tomorow

 

7/7/2010

 

This Will Blow Welcome Out Of The Water Once And For All

Hi Postggj

 

Any update on this please? I've been out of action and am just recovering.


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats Fine Now

 

Default Notice Is Pure Crap As Usual:D

Very good news indeed.:D

Can you say/PM me as to why?

 

I noted you managed to get your entire WF debt(s) cancelled, not just the arrears. Do you have a thread for that? Otherwise can you elaborate?

 

Was the CCA faulty and was it pre/post April 2007? Or was this irrelevant to your action? Also, were you the Claimant or the Defendant counterclaiming?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Postggj

 

Where art though???:D

 

The result of Walker is out now, and as we both know, the appeal was lost i.e. 'Walker lost'. But as I and others have said elsewhere, the SC, in the Walker case actually gave us some pretty useful legal declarations while on their way to dismiss the appeal.

 

For example, the SC re-affirmed the following, thus removing any doubt and limiting further room for creditor shenanigans in the lower courts:-

 

1. Missing Prescribed Terms renders a CCA an IEA

2. There is a very important distinction between Total Cost (or Total Charge for) of Credit VS Amount of Credit.

3. The importance of a correctly calculated APR. This is very easy for ledners to get wrong!!!

4. That the now famous Wilson vs First County case was decided by the then HOL rightly!

:-)


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, about my Q's in post #15...ta.:D


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got your pm ;)

 

cab


Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Postggj

 

Where art though???:D

 

The result of Walker is out now, and as we both know, the appeal was lost i.e. 'Walker lost'. But as I and others have said elsewhere, the SC, in the Walker case actually gave us some pretty useful legal declarations while on their way to dismiss the appeal.

 

can you drop a link to that one please

 

cab


Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi m8

 

thanx for that.

 

on the face of it "GARBAGE" the default is stating you have 14 days from the date of author, it must be date specific. the date must be 14 clear days after service, 2 days for 1st class 4 days for 2nd class. if you have the envelope it came in "KEEP IT SAFE"

 

cab


Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi m8

 

thanx for that.

 

on the face of it "GARBAGE" the default is stating you have 14 days from the date of author, it must be date specific. the date must be 14 clear days after service, 2 days for 1st class 4 days for 2nd class. if you have the envelope it came in "KEEP IT SAFE"

 

cab

 

 

Agree with this, service must be allowed for, welcome will also tell you that 14 days is a sufficient phrase as cca states debtor should be allowed no less than 14days what they fail to remember is CCA also requests a DATE now given the understanding of the word DATE this is numbers not words you wouldnt say your date of birth is 30 years 2 months 26 days ago would you, you give a DATE (this will be in court for my case soon so will see what the judge makes of it ;) ) Highly recommend the invalid default thread for more info or if i can help please shout :) also creditors are to default 'in a timely manner' so that also may be something to query as two years is a long time to be timely....invalid default notice thread can be found HERE


I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree with this, service must be allowed for, welcome will also tell you that 14 days is a sufficient phrase as cca states debtor should be allowed no less than 14days what they fail to remember is CCA also requests a DATE now given the understanding of the word DATE this is numbers not words you wouldnt say your date of birth is 30 years 2 months 26 days ago would you, you give a DATE (this will be in court for my case soon so will see what the judge makes of it ;) ) Highly recommend the invalid default thread for more info or if i can help please shout :) also creditors are to default 'in a timely manner' so that also may be something to query as two years is a long time to be timely....invalid default notice thread can be found HERE

Hi Beyondhope thanks for dropping by. Sorry, what were you referring to in relation to the two years? Is it the non payment?

 

All the best with your case! Did you have multiple breaches with your Default Notice or just the Date? So far, it seems I can find at least two strong problems with this one (date issue and wrong amount) and another 2-3 which are less strong but still foul of regulations anyway. Do you have a CAG thread for your case?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi m8

 

thanx for that.

 

on the face of it "GARBAGE" the default is stating you have 14 days from the date of author, it must be date specific. the date must be 14 clear days after service, 2 days for 1st class 4 days for 2nd class. if you have the envelope it came in "KEEP IT SAFE"

 

cab

Hi Cab

Thanks for the feedback sir. Anything else you think is foul of regulations?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say date in numbers you mean for example 15/09/2010. So would 15th september 2010 also count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...