Welcome PPI claim at Court stage - Advice needed Please

[Armsoft]

My son had a loan with welcome finance which he paid off in 2009, he submitted a claim to Welcome in December 2010 for a refund on his PPI and received an offer from them in January of a Full Refund (£3,100).

He rejected the refund as the numptys terms were that they would use the refund to offset an outstanding balance on the account (the account was clear with No balance)

This then resulted in him making loads of phone calls to them over the next few months to try and sort it out (without success)

In April he received a letter from fscs stating that they were now dealing and asked him to sign a claim form as they said that they did not have his correct bank details. Unfortunately he signed the claim form (new T&Cs) before he spoke to me about it, this resulted in fscs offering him a refund of just 90% of what he was originally offered, but they still insisted that he had an outstanding balence which they would use the refund to offset.

A few more months of Phone calls to them followed, again without success.

In July this year, fed up with being mucked about, my son started a claim online (moneyclaim) for the full amount outstanding plus interest.

A summons was served on Welcome, with a copy of this sent to my son, 3 days after it was served my son had paid into his Bank Account (without any warning) the amount that fscs had offered to him (90% of the claim) and he was contacted by their solicitor saying that they have paid him and they would be asking for the claim to be struck out. Welcome had met it's obligations under the terms of the fscs.

 

The case has been moved to my sons local court (so is still active) and he wants to make a change to his POC as the solicitor is sticking on the point that they have complied with the T&Cs that my son had signed up for, but infact the offer made to him in January would have been accepted if there terms were correct ie; a cash payment to him rather than using it to offset a non existing outstanding balance.

Is anyone able to give some advice on how this should be worded on the POC and of any relevant cases that could be referered to relating to unfair T&Cs etc.

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

[MrZ]

My son had a loan with welcome finance which he paid off in 2009, he submitted a claim to Welcome in December 2010 for a refund on his PPI and received an offer from them in January of a Full Refund (£3,100).

He rejected the refund as the numptys terms were that they would use the refund to offset an outstanding balance on the account (the account was clear with No balance)

This then resulted in him making loads of phone calls to them over the next few months to try and sort it out (without success)

In April he received a letter from fscs stating that they were now dealing and asked him to sign a claim form as they said that they did not have his correct bank details. Unfortunately he signed the claim form (new T&Cs) before he spoke to me about it, this resulted in fscs offering him a refund of just 90% of what he was originally offered, but they still insisted that he had an outstanding balence which they would use the refund to offset.

A few more months of Phone calls to them followed, again without success.

In July this year, fed up with being mucked about, my son started a claim online (moneyclaim) for the full amount outstanding plus interest.

A summons was served on Welcome, with a copy of this sent to my son, 3 days after it was served my son had paid into his Bank Account (without any warning) the amount that fscs had offered to him (90% of the claim) and he was contacted by their solicitor saying that they have paid him and they would be asking for the claim to be struck out. Welcome had met it's obligations under the terms of the fscs.

 

The case has been moved to my sons local court (so is still active) and he wants to make a change to his POC as the solicitor is sticking on the point that they have complied with the T&Cs that my son had signed up for, but infact the offer made to him in January would have been accepted if there terms were correct ie; a cash payment to him rather than using it to offset a non existing outstanding balance.

Is anyone able to give some advice on how this should be worded on the POC and of any relevant cases that could be referered to relating to unfair T&Cs etc.

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

If you have to amend the POC you will want to make sure you get it right and not have to amend again.

 

The first question is, do you have copies of the account statements? Anything in writing that shows or breaks down any money Welcome claim were owed to them?

 

Secondly, the FSCS is a scheme set up by the FSA under the FSMA 2000. You may not have much choice here. The FSCS handbook states that they will pay only 90%.

 

Lastly, how confident are you that the amount offered (or 90% of it) is the correct amount? Who did the calculations you or Welcome? Did the figures match your own calculations?

[Armsoft]

Having served a SAR on Welcome back in early July my son has all the account statements, he also has phone transcripts from them for this year with them talking internally to other departments agreeing that he paid the account off in 2009.

He also has a couple of letter confirming receipt of the payment in 2009 along with one which clearly says that his account balance is Zero.

 

Although the fscs has a legal standpoint, if welcome had applied the correct t&c in January then he would not have fallen under fscs in April.

 

He has the paperwork from Welcome and the fscs with the refund calculations on them.

 

Thanks for the advice/questions so far

[MrZ]

Having served a SAR on Welcome back in early July my son has all the account statements, he also has phone transcripts from them for this year with them talking internally to other departments agreeing that he paid the account off in 2009.

He also has a couple of letter confirming receipt of the payment in 2009 along with one which clearly says that his account balance is Zero.

 

Although the fscs has a legal standpoint, if welcome had applied the correct t&c in January then he would not have fallen under fscs in April.

 

He has the paperwork from Welcome and the fscs with the refund calculations on them.

 

Thanks for the advice/questions so far

 

Ok, I have a better idea of the recent history.

 

I appreciate you have been wrong done over. I know how you feel, I have had (still having) plenty of battles with this lot. However, it might help to have an objective opinion. Your approach is going to have to be pragmatic. The fact is, Welcome have been declared to be in deafult. They didnt have a choice in the matter. As a result, the regulators approved a scheme whereby the FSCS would oversee the refund process. The powers that be decided the only way for the majority of peopl who had been mis-sold would get any refund is if the limit of 90% was imposed. Otherwise there just wouldnt be enough money to refund everyone.

 

Having said that, the court in almost all likelihood would defer back to the decision of the FSCS. Depending on how Welcome argued the case on their application to strike out, you might then be orderd to pay their wasted costs.

 

Its extremely unfair and illustrates how even when you win, you can still lose, as you certainly arent in the same financial position you would have been in had you not been mis-sold.

 

The only other idea that springs to mind, is if you can show an unfair relationship. If so, you can argue this in court. But then the question to ask is, to what end? You may be able to get an award for damages, but even that probably wouldnt be worth the time and expense to take the case to court.

 

Basically, I dont think you have much to go on making a case because of the 90%. If you go to court without something more, I think it could have the opposite effect of what you are going for.

 

I dont like to put a damper on things, but its important to consider both side of the proverbial coin.

[Armsoft]

Thanks for the very valued feedback.

 

My belief is that the court would take the view that as Welcome applied unfair (wrong) terms back in January with the original offer of settlement (there must be some case law to support this?) the fscs T&Cs do not apply in this case by default.

 

DLA Piper who are representing Welcome seem to be relying on the fact that my son signed new t&c, although communication with them has been quite laughable in terms of what they do and do not know and what Welcome seem to be giving or not giving them (I almost feel sorry for them)

 

Is anyone aware of any case law to support the ruleing out of new T&Cs on the basis of incorrect/unfair original T&Cs being enforced?

 

Any help/feedback appreciated

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Sorry to butt in, who are DLA Piper???

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thank you, I was more confused as to why they are representing welcome?? Usually welcome have their own partners in crime they use exclusively, hmmm... maybe they got the sack for completely messing up somebody else's case

[Armsoft]

Back on subject

Has anyone any thoughts on any Case Law to support incorrect terms used causing unfair terms to be applied as a result?

Looking to file the amended POC on Monday 3rd

 

Any help/advice appreciated