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

Welcome Finance say ppi claim is statute barred


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4424 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

thank you

1 question though are they not meant to add interest to the acceptance fee? and should these be claimed back seperately

ie

acceptance fee claim

insurances claim

ppi claim

or can i just put them all together

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

There are no cases on CAG that I can find where MIF has been successfully claimed back....but I'm happy to be shown a successful case

 

ims

 

 

my notes from over time here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?304631-Welcome-Finance-PPI-and-Mr-Z&highlight=reclaim+MIF

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?251405-Welcome-Secured-Loan-agreement

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?304631-Welcome-Finance-PPI-and-Mr-Z&highlight=reclaim+MIF

 

As per the post above the MIF is not for insurance. Welcome have admited on more than a few occassions that it is not insurance....Never has been, never will be.

The real question is where does the money go? They will tell you its a fee in relation to being a higher risk, and that by charging this fee, and the interest it attracts, it helps to cover them in the event of a shortfall. They will also tell you that whilst many lenders do use the fee to purchase insurance, they never have.

This is not only stated in the Griffith v Welcome case, but I also have it in writing directly from them.

"The MIF is a fee that can be charged by lenders when the value of loans secured on a property is at a level similar to the value of the property. It is an additional form of protection for the lender in the event that they are required to repossess the property and are unable to recover all of the monies are outstanding under an agreement (i.e. there is a shortfall). In such circumstances, the lender is entitled to pursue the borrower for the shortfall. As can be seen by the terms and conditions of your agreement, you were charged a MIF, which meant that should the situation described above arise you would not be pursued for any shortfall. This was not an insurance policy although some lenders do take out insurance policies for this purpose. It was what could be described as a 'waiver fee'. It was decided in Griffiths -v- Welcome Financial Services (2006) EWHC 3769 (QB) that the charging of the fee by a lender but not actually taking out an insurance policy was entirely reasonable."

The MIF has not been tested in court as far as I know, I certainly will be testing it though, its a big part of my claim against them.

 

 

Last edited by MrZ; 16th August 2011 at 19:35.

I too am uncertain of the legalities regarding the MIF. I have seen and read the threads I can find about it. I started a separate thread, which is now merged with this one specifically asking about the MIF. This is what I have been able to gather so far pertaining to the MIF.

1. Its been said that it should only be applied to mortagages or secured loans of 25,000.00 or more. (I have not seen and regulation yet that states this)

2. Its been said that it should be 75% loan to value (I have not seen any regulation that states this)

3. mortgage Indeminty Fee is a fee to be used to purchase insurance. (This is not a regulation per se, but rather an industry norm. mortgage lenders will charge this fee and then use the fee to purchase insurance to protect against a shortfall)

4. In the case of Welcome, they are not using this fee to purchase insurance. (I have yet to see any explanation from Welcome as to why they charge the fee)

5. Welcome are treating this fee as a Charge for Credit and it attracts interest at the same daily rate or AIR.

So having gathered the above information from this forum and other resources, it is my intention to write Welcome regarding only the MIF. I will not include it as part of any other complaint or claim, as I want to ensure it doesnt get "muddled over" or lost amongst other issues. I dont want to give them room to wriggle out of an explanation. I am drafting the letter today and will definitely update this thread once I have a reply.

MIF is a fee the debtor pays incase there is a shortfall on the loan

this fee is an insurance policy/product

you paid for it so ask welcome for the insurance policy.

i can tell you now there will be none

it goes into welcomes own pot under WELCOME ELITE BROKERS

YOU NEED TO BE ASKING WELCOME WHO THIS MONEY WAS PAID TO AND DEMAND PROOF VIA ANPOLICY NUMBER AND DATE AND WHO THIS FEE WAS PAID TO

ILL LAY EVEN MONEY NORWICH UNION/AVIVA

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny how it is ONLY welcome that charges MIF on secured loans under 25k.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes 1000's

 

just have a browse of the welcome finance forun.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI DX

i have gone back to my spreadsheets and calculated a statutory comp claim and a contractual comp claim and wondered if you wouldnt mind checking them for me?

 

regards

pudsey2

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...