Welcome Finance PPI and Mr Z ** SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME **

[MrZ]

Can't see a deliberate concealment here, after all it was on the paperwork you read and signed. As for mistake, well it's not not got a spectacularly high success rate when pleaded. As for your barrister, a lawyer working for nothing? Obviously I have woken up on a different planet.

This is basically what the barrister said, that it cant be argued as a concealment, and that arguing it was a mitake is a gamble.

 

He isnt working for me yet. He wanted to view my papers in order to provide me a quote. He did say that I do have a claim, but that my entire POC are fundamentally flawed. He added if I instructed him to act based on the claim as it is now, even with the written admission, the claim is doomed to fail.

 

So much for the DIY approach eh?

 

I'm not upset, I knew full well this was a risk. Now I just need to try to find a way to solve my problems.

[citizenB]

Might be worth hitting the triangle at the bottom of your post to flag your query for site team attention Mr Z. As far as I am aware, the clock starts ticking from the time you become aware that you have been mis-sold. HTH.

[MrZ]

Might be worth hitting the triangle at the bottom of your post to flag your query for site team attention Mr Z. As far as I am aware, the clock starts ticking from the time you become aware that you have been mis-sold. HTH.

 

Thanks citizenb, I will. The only thing that has me concerned is 2 barristers and one solicitor (each unrelated to the other) have said pretty much the same thing. They all seem to agree, that based on the time the loan was taken (12/2003) that there was very little regulation, the claim is statute barred, and my only hope is unfair relationships, and possibly misrepresentation or unenforceability. The last two are advised as back up plans and not recommended for the basis of the claim.

 

I am doing more searching and more reading, more phone calls, etc....Trying to find any good cases that might have similarities to my own. I understand the section 32 argument and the idea that the clock should start from the discovery of the cause of action, but in reseacrh I have yet to find any case where this arument was made and upheld.

 

Part of me is panicking a little that now that I have brought the claim I may limited my ability to proceed another way, and part of me is thinking that these particular legal heads that gave me this advice could be wrong mistaken. Watch this space...

 

EDIT:

an excerpt from the intitial advice:

"...that your particulars of claim would need substantial amendment

and that, as your claim for damages is statute barred, you would have to

rely on Unfair Relationship alone. Your claim predates regulation of

insurance sales by the FSA so the claim for damages under FMSA 2000 is not

open to you."

Edited August 2, 2011 by MrZ

[pdb1980]

Hi Mr Z my understanding (although limited) is that the claim comes from when you first became aware of the issue. To me If I understanding it correctly basically the barrister is saying that no-one in the uk has a claim at all due to the fact that the PPi example was sold in 2004 and you only processed for a claim in 2010 - Ask yourself why people are managing to get their money back claims started much longer than 6 years ago? Its because they DID NOT BECOME AWARE until a later date. I am a little unsure as to how the barrister claims that it is statute barred, i can only see that happening if you made the claim over six years ago and welcome have chosen to ignore or not respond to it?

 

Also ignore the letters from welcome I would keep copies to add to your defense as your account is clearly in dispute and welcome should not be chasing you for anything I am sure the court would not look favorably on this

 

I hope that is of some help

[MrZ]

Hi Mr Z my understanding (although limited) is that the claim comes from when you first became aware of the issue. To me If I understanding it correctly basically the barrister is saying that no-one in the uk has a claim at all due to the fact that the PPi example was sold in 2004 and you only processed for a claim in 2010 - Ask yourself why people are managing to get their money back claims started much longer than 6 years ago? Its because they DID NOT BECOME AWARE until a later date. I am a little unsure as to how the barrister claims that it is statute barred, i can only see that happening if you made the claim over six years ago and welcome have chosen to ignore or not respond to it?

 

Also ignore the letters from welcome I would keep copies to add to your defense as your account is clearly in dispute and welcome should not be chasing you for anything I am sure the court would not look favorably on this

 

I hope that is of some help

 

Hi pdb1980,

 

I was always thinking this to. The only thing I can assume is that the barrister is saying its hard to argue or prove this, I dunno. Everything I have seen or read seems to suggest, as you say, that this (section 32) is good statue for bringing the claim. I am still looknig for a case somewhere that supports this. I think I would feel alot better if I could find some case law to support it rather than be confronted with having to argue the point with someone far more qulaified than me.

 

I intended to ignore the letters. I find it funny actually. They keep sendiing me letters saying "we are trying to reach you and you wont respond" I keep writing back saying, "I received your letter saying you are trying to reach me and that I havent responded to you, blah blah blah" All recorded and signed for. They are digging deeper holes.

 

I am sure my case is strong, and provided I can settle the issue of the time limit, and why my POC needs to be substantially amended, I wont rest easy.

[ims21]

Hi Mr Z

 

I may have missed something but did not Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council rely on S32? (Mistake)?

 

It is quite feasible that in amongst the 500 odd posts I could have overlooked something.

 

Regards

 

ims

[MrZ]

Hi Mr Z

 

I may have missed something but did not Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council rely on S32? (Mistake)?

 

It is quite feasible that in amongst the 500 odd posts I could have overlooked something.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

I'm re-reading it and reviewing my notes for the arguments relevant to PPI.

[BankFodder]

I the PPI was missold then you know my view already. It was purchased as a result of some mistake by the claimant caused intentionally or otherwise by the defendant and time runs from the moment the mistake was discovered or could reasonably have been discovered.

 

I don't know why the barrister came to his own conclusion. We don't know what his instructi0ons were or what he considered.

 

It would be interesting to see his written opinion to understand his reasoning but without that I would say that he is just plain wrong

 

On the issue of PI - it sounds more like the Latent Damage Act to me.

Edited August 4, 2011 by citizenB

[BankFodder]

I can tell you that as a matter of principle anyway, English Law would not allow someone to be involved in an agreement which was unenforceable from the outset, to be deprived of his money simply because of some technicality of time.

 

English contract law supports business dealing and it is completely contrary to principle to treat the PPI repayments as if they were merely some irrevocable gift.

Edited August 4, 2011 by citizenB

[MrZ]

Thanks BankFodder,

 

I should add that the barrister didnt give a full written brief. He saw my POC, the DOC as well as some other pappers to include the agreement and the policy docs. Here are the relevent bits that I have in writing. Other comments were made over the phone.

 

"It seems to me that you understand the subject matter of your PPI claim pretty well.

 

 

You will not be able to get ATE cover as a litigant in person whether you instruct me on public access or not. ATE cover and conditional fees are only open via a solicitor.

 

One firm of solicitors doing PPI work at the moment is xxxxx. Alternatively xxxxx of xxxxxx. If a solicitor will take you on on a CFA (and your e-mail suggests to me they might) I will be able to advise, if you wish on a CFA to them without cost to you.

 

I am unsure how urgent all this is but if the broker is bust then the outcome of the appeal heard in the Master of the Rolls' court on 13th July 2011 in Harrison v Black Horse may be worth waiting for, especially if you have limitation problems (The UR claim will have a 12 year limitation period). I have no idea when the Judgment will be handed down but I expect it fairly soon. As your claim for damages is statute barred, you would have to rely on Unfair Relationship alone. Your claim predates regulation of insurance sales by the FSA so the claim for damages under FMSA 2000 is not open to you.

 

 

 

You can make a rough guess at the commission by subtracting the cost of monthly PPI (as calculated using DISP Appendix 3.7.13 from the cost of the single premium policy. That figure must represent the minimum amount of commission. It will probably be more than that because by its very nature single premium PPI will always be cheaper than monthly PPI (until the latter is grossly inflated by massive commissions, as is usual, and then has interest added to it).

 

 

With kind regards,"

 

Having looked for solicitors to take the claim on, I have been left with the following options:

1. Pay roughly £1,000.00 on account to get a barrister to re-write the POC, and then instruct a solicitor via CFA and try to get ATE.

2. Pay roughly £300.00 on account to get a solicitor to review my papers and then decide if they agree with the barrister, then pay additional to have the POC amended so that a CFA can be arranged.

3. Do nothing and keep going the direction I started in.

[MrZ]

Here is a copy of my POC as well as the defence DOC

 

MrZ_POC.pdf

MrZ_Welcome_DOC.pdf

 

If anyone can give me some suggestions on what needs to be amended, I would be very grateful. I am afraid of this getting all the way to a trial and then because of some technicality or something else I haven't done correctly the entire claim gets struck out, at which point I would be totally and completely stuffed.

 

I have an application filed asking for permission to amend the POC, I would like to make sure that if I am given permission. I can make the changes necessary to keep my claim on good footing.

Edited August 4, 2011 by MrZ

[MrZ]

Having given more thought to the matter, I feel I need to instruct solicitors and barristers in this case. There are far too many unanswered questions, and the case will in all likelihood be allocated to the fast track. The risk of paying costs to Welcome if I lose on some technicality or because my POC wasn't as it should be is far too great.

 

By instructing solicitors, I will be able to get ATE insurance to cover my cost liability should it turn out I don't win my case. I simply have to bite the bullet and come up with the £1,000.00 to pay the barrister to re-write my POC.

 

Now the issue at hand is the AQ form that needs to be submitted by Thursday the 11th. With that form, is a fee of £220.00 to the court. Even though I have an application pending(hasn't been scheduled or seen by a judge yet, as far as I know) for a stay, there is little to zero chance a stay will be granted prior to the deadline for the AQ form. I also assume, that once I pay the AQ fee and submit the form, that if the barrister rewrites the POC, then Welcome will get to submit a new defence, and then a new AQ will be required, which means another fee. I have no idea if this is the case or not, but thats my assumption.

 

So the question is, Is it possible to extend the time for the AQ submission? Can I ask Welcome's solicitors to consent to an extension based on the application thats pending? Can I ask the court for an extension for the same reason?

 

If I can get an extension, this will allow me time to instruct the barrister who will re-write my POC, and then I can instruct a solicitor on a CFA who will obtain the ATE insurance.

 

I really wanted to do this claim on my own, but given the complexity and the questions surrounding limitations, etc, I think it would be really foolish to allow this to go to trial without having experts on board. There is simply too much to risk or loose to take on the claim as a LiP. Additionally its been suggested by the barrister that even with written admission of the mis-sale from Welcome, that the case could still be lost based on the POC as it is now. So, if anyone can provide some insight on how best to buy the time I need (delay or extend the AQ deadline) to get the counsel on-board, I will be very grateful.

[MrZ]

For the benefit of those who are following this thread I believe I have found my answer as to whether or not I can ask the other side for an extension of the AQ.

 

CPR 26 says:

 

"The date for filing the completed allocation questionnaire may not be varied by agreement between the parties."

 

I havent found anything that says whether or not the court can/will extend on an aplication from one of the parties, so I will assume there is no such provision.

 

 

This claim is becoming very expensive very quickly due to the mistakes made when preparing the POC. As such, I am very seriously considering withdrawing the claim, and accepting the offer made by Welcome, even though its far less than what it should be. It seems another win may be coming the scums way.

[citizenB]

I am really sorry to hear this, because you have put an awful lot of effort in. I simply dont know what you can do to rescue this.

[MrZ]

I am really sorry to hear this, because you have put an awful lot of effort in. I simply don't know what you can do to rescue this.

 

I know what you mean. It seems to me that I really only have 2 options.

 

1. Find and scrape the money needed to hire the experts needed, which is a near impossibility.

2. Carry on as I am, and hope for the best.

 

I am trying and trying and trying to get this money sorted to pay the experts, but as its this far into the proceedings, there is no guarantee that even if I can pull the funds together that the court will allow me to start everything over again from the beginning.

 

One thing I have learnt in all this, no matter what you read or see in forums or elsewhere, making a claim in the court IS NOT something that should be done without a great deal of support and expertise. I appreciate that a defence to a claim is much easier and probably more appropriate for a DIY approach. However, now having had the experience up to this point, I honestly think that anyone who is even considering filing a court claim should seek the advice of experts, and only after having gotten experienced and/or expert opinions on their unique case, should one consider proceeding as a LiP.

 

The sad fact of the matter ,bringing a claim is very time consuming and expensive. If the claim has any value at all, one should be fully aware that the banks and lenders are not simply going to roll over and give in. So the moral of the story is, unless you have time, money, experience, and ALOT of committed support, one is probably best served by letting the experts do what they are trained and qualified to do.

 

I'm still not 100% sure what I am going to do. My final decision will be based mostly on what the court tells me regarding my application for a stay. If I can get a stay before the AQ deadline on Thursday, I will do all within my power to get the funds to instruct counsel. If there is no stay before Thursday, I am going to withdraw the claim as I absolutely cannot afford to let things get further along and risk losing it all because my POC isn't up to standard. At the moment there is no indication that a stay will be granted as my application hasnt been seen by a judge, as far as I know.

 

I almost forgot...a word of warning to others considering making a court claim. DO NOT assume that a templated POC or other documents will suit your purpose, even with amendments. Always, always, always, get an expert opinion. If there is any doubt as to whether your POC or claim is correct or sufficient, then you probably shouldn't be acting as a LiP or a DIY lawyer like I have been.

 

At any rate, watch this space, I will certainly keep it updated until a result is achieved one way or the other.

Edited August 7, 2011 by MrZ

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hello, I have been following your thread on and off for a little while now and I just wanted to add a little comment.

I know exactly what place you are in right now and it is awful, there were many times when I wanted to give it all up too. I agree totally with your last post; this is definitely not something that should be undertaken lightly.

On a slightly brighter note I have been wanting to tell you that not all barristers know what they are talking about, a lot of them are driven by the £££s as opposed to justice and welcome's smarmy solicitor and barrister can be beaten. I have dealt with them both personally and I know their underhanded tactics inside out, just because the man wears a wig and a black gown does not make him right or knowledgeable or decent!

I approached a barrister to help me with my case and he as good as told me that if I wasn't incredibly wealthy then I didn't stand a chance of winning! As it turned out, I decided to blunder on as an LiP and went to High Court on Appeal and won against welcome sodding finance! Incidentally, the issue the Lord Justice was most pee'd off about was the secret commission, he battered their barrister and forced him to address the issue of 'equitable duty'. i.e. "equity favours those with clean hands".

 

Nobody would blame you for withdrawing as I can totally sympathise with how you are feeling right now and I wouldn't wish that on anybody, (except maybe welcome and their scummy tag alongs). They will try to baffle you with big words and intimidating tactics because that's the kind of people they are, they have no interest in justice or doing what's right, it's all about getting their bent clients out of the hole they dug for themselves.

 

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say really and well done for hauling them over the coals; anybody that causes welcome grief is top in my book!

[pdb1980]

I would echo what wannbedebtfreesoon has said you have done very well to get this far with little or no knowledge. I does seem tough right now and you cant see the wood for trees etc but remember that you only feel this way due to the defense response from the **** just remember how you were feeling when preparing your case. It is down to welcome to unequivocally disprove your claims. from their response it would appear to me that they have basically waffled their way through each point to make you feel bad. Oh and regard to it being with HFS (I believe) and not with welcome. HFs may have 'introduced' you (without your consent) does not matter the loan paper work has the scums name on it the payments go to **** all the mikey mouse insurances were 'sold by the ****. In other words 'if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd it generally is a turd!

[MrZ]

Hello, I have been following your thread on and off for a little while now and I just wanted to add a little comment.

I know exactly what place you are in right now and it is awful, there were many times when I wanted to give it all up too. I agree totally with your last post; this is definitely not something that should be undertaken lightly.

On a slightly brighter note I have been wanting to tell you that not all barristers know what they are talking about, a lot of them are driven by the £££s as opposed to justice and welcome's smarmy solicitor and barrister can be beaten. I have dealt with them both personally and I know their underhanded tactics inside out, just because the man wears a wig and a black gown does not make him right or knowledgeable or decent!

I approached a barrister to help me with my case and he as good as told me that if I wasn't incredibly wealthy then I didn't stand a chance of winning! As it turned out, I decided to blunder on as an LiP and went to High Court on Appeal and won against welcome sodding finance! Incidentally, the issue the Lord Justice was most pee'd off about was the secret commission, he battered their barrister and forced him to address the issue of 'equitable duty'. i.e. "equity favours those with clean hands".

 

Nobody would blame you for withdrawing as I can totally sympathise with how you are feeling right now and I wouldn't wish that on anybody, (except maybe welcome and their scummy tag alongs). They will try to baffle you with big words and intimidating tactics because that's the kind of people they are, they have no interest in justice or doing what's right, it's all about getting their bent clients out of the hole they dug for themselves.

 

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say really and well done for hauling them over the coals; anybody that causes welcome grief is top in my book!

 

Thank you for your very encouraging post.

 

I certainly dont want to withdraw, but I have to try to consider all the possibilities. And the one possibility that seems to have my head hurting is the question of my POC. Maybe there is nothing wrong with them at all, and the barrister is seeing an oppertunity to make money on a solid case. Because Welcomes solicitors are being very quiet, I may just be fearing the worst. I have never been known as the most patient person, and perhaps the unknown is getting the best of me.

 

Do you have a thread about your Welcome case? I think its very brave of you to go that far and appeal. My hat's off to you!

[MrZ]

I would echo what wannbedebtfreesoon has said you have done very well to get this far with little or no knowledge. I does seem tough right now and you cant see the wood for trees etc but remember that you only feel this way due to the defense response from the **** just remember how you were feeling when preparing your case. It is down to welcome to unequivocally disprove your claims. from their response it would appear to me that they have basically waffled their way through each point to make you feel bad. Oh and regard to it being with HFS (I believe) and not with welcome. HFs may have 'introduced' you (without your consent) does not matter the loan paper work has the scums name on it the payments go to **** all the mikey mouse insurances were 'sold by the ****. In other words 'if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd it generally is a turd!

Thanks, I know what you mean, and my doubts are getting the best of me. I think initially I had no doubts as I was able to research and find the statutes and case law to support my arguments. Now, I am at the point where procedures, and forms, and interaction with the court is required. Even though i still believe the case is strong I am very fearful that a mistake with my POC (or something else) will cost me the claim, and perhaps additional cost.

 

There are so many unanswered questions, and if get it wrong, it could wind up costing me more money to correct it, or worse adversely affect my chances of success. As I have said before, my biggest concern is Welcome allow this to go all the way to trial and I will have some fundamental flaw that I missed or didnt know about.

[MrZ]

I have spoken to the court once again. I am told that my application has been sent to the judge, but that they are currently working on a 1 week back log. I also learnt that if after submitting the AQ on Thursday, I later amended the POC, requiring a new AQ, I wouldn't have to pay the fee again. So that's some good news.

 

I've also spoken to the barrister as well as a firm of solicitors. Between them, they have agreed to take the claim on a CFA, on the condition that my entire claim is amended. So basically I have to pay the barrister to amend the claim (£1000.00), then pay the court fee to amend(45.00), then pay Welcomes costs for a new defence (300.00 estimated). Once I have done that both the solicitors and barrister agree to work on a CFA.

 

So I have these three options

1. Pay the lawyers 1300 odd, and start over

2. Carry on with what I have on my own

3. Cut my losses and withdraw

 

If I continue, I would prefer to go with the first (safest) option, and could come up with the money by the end of the month, but that would mean an extremely tight budget for the next 6 weeks, and some other juggling. But, If I can manage it, it means I will no longer have to worry about paying costs if I lose as there will be insurance to cover that.

So considering that and option 2, its pay now and save later, or go it alone and save now and (maybe) pay later.

 

I don't want to withdraw, but I am not sure I am prepared to go it alone either. I have already set the money for the AQ aside and was prepared to file it on Thursday. I am going to spend the next day and a half going over things in my mind, and if after that, I feel confident in my AQ, I will go ahead and file it. I will then have some time to contemplate further.

Edited August 8, 2011 by MrZ

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thank you for your very encouraging post.

 

I certainly dont want to withdraw, but I have to try to consider all the possibilities. And the one possibility that seems to have my head hurting is the question of my POC. Maybe there is nothing wrong with them at all, and the barrister is seeing an oppertunity to make money on a solid case. Because Welcomes solicitors are being very quiet, I may just be fearing the worst. I have never been known as the most patient person, and perhaps the unknown is getting the best of me.

 

Do you have a thread about your Welcome case? I think its very brave of you to go that far and appeal. My hat's off to you!

Yes I do have a thread but it is a helluva long read! It's over in the Vehicle Repossessions forum.

In a nutshell welcome repossessed my car from private property without a court order in breach of Section 92 of the CCA. It all got very convoluted and they started bringing a load of other issues into it so I amended my POC and claimed for all the other issues they were so keen to bring up too! Including secret commission.

Their idiot team couldn't think of anything better to say than "deny everything, whatever she said-we didn't do it your honour!"

When it came to trial they changed their story from "we didn't do it" to "yes we did do it but it was only small and so it shouldn't matter" and unfortunately the trial judge allowed this and then went on to err in law when interpreting S92.

It was a total travesty and so I felt I had no option but to appeal to the High Court, which I did and won. The Lord Justice allowed my appeal on the grounds of the payment of secret commission and also made a ruling that S.92 did apply and they did breach it. He attacked their professionalism and mocked and ridiculed their non-nonsensical defence

They have been very quiet with me lately too, maybe it's losing in High Court to an LiP on an issue that they have previously been paid a lot of money to provide defences to, or maybe it's because the one and only case they have been relying on for their defence has been appealed in Supreme Court and the judgment is expected any day now??

I think their very fragile house of cards has come tumbling down

[MrZ]

Yes I do recall your thread now. It seems alot has happened since I last read it. I will have some catching up to do. Again, well done!

[Andrew Thomas]

Hi MrZ sorry to hijack your thread but i have read the last 4 pages and would like your opinion on this

 

Hi everyone after much frustration and delay my claim with Welcome finance through the FSCS looksa to be nearly sorted.

 

I have been refunded around £5k but as Welcome have gone into default the £5k will be paid off from my current loan as per the FSCS rules.

 

My query is, is it legall for welcome to reduce the balance down and not discuss or even inform me of changes to my loan terms.

 

Welcome have stated they expect me to continue to make my full pre claim monthly payment and that the account will be paid off sooner than orignially stated on the credit agreement. I have not been informed of any new terms and have so far been unable to get an answer from welcome re - the new closing date.

 

Does anyone know if changes to the credit agreement as above are legal? should welcome not first come to me and ask if i would like to reduce the term OR the monthly payment? as would be done if making additional mortgage payments.

 

And finally if im still upset with the outcome can i escalate it further?

 

[MrZ]

Hi MrZ sorry to hijack your thread but i have read the last 4 pages and would like your opinion on this

 

Hi everyone after much frustration and delay my claim with Welcome finance through the FSCS looksa to be nearly sorted.

 

I have been refunded around £5k but as Welcome have gone into default the £5k will be paid off from my current loan as per the FSCS rules.

 

My query is, is it legall for welcome to reduce the balance down and not discuss or even inform me of changes to my loan terms.

 

Welcome have stated they expect me to continue to make my full pre claim monthly payment and that the account will be paid off sooner than orignially stated on the credit agreement. I have not been informed of any new terms and have so far been unable to get an answer from welcome re - the new closing date.

 

Does anyone know if changes to the credit agreement as above are legal? should welcome not first come to me and ask if i would like to reduce the term OR the monthly payment? as would be done if making additional mortgage payments.

 

And finally if im still upset with the outcome can i escalate it further?

 

 

I honestly dont know the answer to your question. I do know that the FOS guidance says that the firm should put you in the financial position you would have been in had you not purchased the PPI. One could argue that the PPI element inflated your monthly premium, and that in order to be in the finaincial position you would have been in, the monthly payment must be reduced. The OFT and FOS have also give guidance to firms about re-writing the agreement without the PPI. Welcome no longer hold a credit license and therfore are unable to create a "new" agreement, they should however be able to vary the terms with your consent.

 

As far as escalating the issue, I suppose its down to the time and effort involved and how much its worth to you to get it resolved. You could certianly start by writing a letter and explaining that because of the PPI over all this time, you have been unable to mainatin the monthly payments, and that you can only afford the lower payment over the same amount of time. See what they say, based on the response then you might have a better understaing of how you wish to proceed.

[MrZ]

I asked earlier in the thread if and when I could ask questions of Welcome. Questions such as:

 

"When did HFS first contact Welcome Finance with my details in respect to the alleged brokering?"

"Who prepared and dispatched the loan forms for signature?"

etc etc etc

 

Can anyone tell me how these types of questions should be included as part of the AQ form that I submit? Are they part of the draft directions or are they listed separately? Are they obligated to answer them at this stage?