Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

another welcome finance debt


fee106
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4959 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

my son took out a personnel loan with welcome finance in 2004 for the sum of £3075 , he defaulted and was taken to court for £4230 that includes howard cohens wedge on top...he now has a ccj and was ordered by the courts to pay £25 a mth starting in feb 2009...he has been paying this off has not missed a payment ...when suddenly he received a statement of how much he still owes, they have also now put on £3000 odd pound for capitalisation for the last 2 years from 20th 2008 to feb 2010 doubling the debt...no interest added before that

 

i mite add that when he took out the £3000 loan i was the second signature on it...

when the debt got taken to court it came only in his name and not mine as well, though i have received a statement of monies owing...what does he do now as on the court papers it only says that he owed original debt and solicitors costs and interest to the date it went to court,as he obviously mae the £25 offer to the courts as this was all he could afford, and now they have basically doubled the debt

 

according to the lady i spoke to at lewis they still have the same balance owing as we do from the courts

also i thought that if debt was for under £5000 no interest could be added,or only 8% on a ccj

hope that all makes sense...thanks

Edited by fee106
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

I think you need to be more specific, the debt was taken out in 1996 and the court made him pay in 2009.

 

How long was the agreement for ? I believe a debt can't be enforced after 6 years of no cantact with the lender from the last point of contact. I also think you can reclaim capitalisation charges as they come under unlawful fees etc.

 

It may be best to send off a cca sar request so you know what transactions have been made. 13 years for a 3k loan seems a long time.

 

It's worthwile scouring other posts for info regarding your dilema, especially para 2 because i'm not 100% sure on that.

 

I'm sure someone will come along with the necessary clout to help you.....

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the poc on from of court letter says

the claimants claim is for the sum of 4065.44 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated credit agreement made in writing between the defendant and claimant under reference 1300451

 

the defendant has failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to section 87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974

 

the claimant claims the sum of £4065.44

Link to post
Share on other sites

This reads to me the account was sold to The Lewis Group with an outstanding balance of £X,XXX.XX - Cohens costs and the court fee gave a total of £4230.00,

 

Welcome are still adding interest to an account which they allegedly sold to the Lewis Group when your son defaulted.

 

The POC should state the "The Claimants claim is for the sum of £X,XXX.XX being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated credit agreement between the Defendant and Welcome under reference xxxxxxxxxxx and assigned to the claimant on the DD/M/Year, notice of which has been given to the Defendant"

 

What is this "regulated credit agreement made in writing between the Defendant and Claimant under reference 1300451"

 

Who is the actual Claimant sighted on the N1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For this to be lawful Howard Cohen should have included a clause for interest within their Particulars of Claim, they havent? I would write to Welcome saying having issued legal proceedings and sought payment for the outstanding balance, when judgement was awarded against the defendant the account was terminated. You have now received a statement whereby Welcome have continued to add interest from the date of judgement, please can you offer an explanantion. Send this recorded delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, welcome instructed cohen for collection....the POC from of court letter says

the claimants claim is for the sum of 4065.44 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated credit agreement made in writing between the defendant and claimant under reference 1300451.

 

Judgement was awarded to cohen, account 1300451 terminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send Welcomes statement to the court and state that they have breached the terms of the original CCJ and therefore you would like a redetermination hearing - this is to establish whether the original particulars meet with the CPR regulations... that should send the wind in their sails.

 

Trying to change particulars after a case has been heard to suit their needs seems to be coming more common.

 

I think this is because before the days of internet forms they could get away with people being completely ignorant of the law and its workings and thinking you need a solicitor to deal with any little problem. These days this forum and others like it are having an impact on a very murky industry....

Link to post
Share on other sites

a redetermination is a waste of time here as my son is not contesting how much he is paying through the ccj...he wants to no what to put in a letter to welcome about them still charging interest on a debt thats got a ccj on it even though theres nothing on the courts poa

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...