Jump to content


Welcome Finance 'secured' loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2904 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

Hey everyone

 

I'm new to this and really need some help! Please direct me to the correct place if needs be!

 

I took out a 'secured' loan with Welcome in April 2008. I put the word 'secured' in inverted

comas as i recently went to the land registry office to see of there are any charges on my property and the only charge is my mortgage provider!

 

Since taking out the loan, every payment has been made on time until January 2013 when my husband lost his job. After doing some jigging about with our finances, my husband looked at my credit agreement and statements etc from welcome and saw that they have charged me for things I said no to on the original credit agreement such as healthcare, etc. This loan is in my name only as I took it out before even meeting my husband.

 

I decided to send a SAR and received a letter saying they aacknowledged my request and would be in contact soon. Yesterday I received a letter saying they need me to verify my ID which I find strange as they have always communicated with me at the same address. I'm wary of sending a copy of my passport or driving license as I read on here that when SAR'ing Welcome, you shouldn't sign with your usual signature as they are fond of scanning it and using it without your consent. Not sure what to do and need some advice. My husband thinks the agreement is unenforceable and this is what we want to look into hence the SAR in the first place.

 

Please help me!!

Madison's Mummy

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Act allows you to confirm two things before you are obliged to respond to a request.

First, you can ask for enough information to judge whether the person making the request is the individual to whom the personal data relates. This is to avoid personal data about one individual being sent to another, accidentally or as a result of deception.

The key point is that you must be reasonable about what you ask for. You should not request lots more information if the identity of the person making the request is obvious to you. This is particularly the case, for example, when you have an ongoing relationship with the individual.

 

IMO if they have been more than happy to communicate with you over a period of time sending personal and confidential information too you, then, they have no reason to suspect your not the person you say you are requesting this information. Commonly this is a stalling tactic employed by disreputable outfits, however the 40 days is still ticking away.

 

Again, IMO I wouldn't be sending them any further information through the post less for a letter confirming that, "As you have been more than happy to communicate personal and confidential information with me over the past xxxx days/week/month, then I fail to see why it is only now you are concerned with my identity. If you are unsure as to my Identity, then you should have confirmed this days/weeks/months/years ago when I originally corresponded with you.

 

The ICO is extremely clear on the issue of confirming Identity, something which you are clearly unaware of, I have provided sufficient evidence for you to comply with my legal request and will remind you that the time limit for complying with my request began on dd/mm/yyyy(when they received you SAR)

 

I am not comfortable with providing confidential documents through the post, I will however be happy for you to forward my SAR to my nearest branch whereby I can produce a document confirming my identity on arrival.

 

I look forward to your prompt response.

Regards.

[PRINT NAME]

 

The use of signatures is somewhat of a misnomer as to fabricate a document in order to obtain money would be fraud.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...