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 PPI - FSCS Legal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3856 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

Hi all,

 

Looking for some advice with my PPI reclaim and Welcome Finance.

Quite a long winded background story to it so i'll keep it brief.

 

In August last year, having checked my CallCredit record, I became aware of an outstanding account with WFS for a HP agreement taken out in 2006.

 

I voluntarily terminated after half way through the contract and was advised that I had no outstanding liability at the time.

 

They sent no correspondence to me to advise there was an overdue amount and I heard nothing from them since.

 

I contacted the company who had bought the account,

MKDP who quickly advised it was for the WF HP agreement and sent me a copy.

 

A quick read through the contract made me realised I was missold PPI on several points,

so a claim was raised to WFS in December last year.

 

Obviously had to jump through all the various hoops etc filling out the FSCS forms and such.

 

In March, the FSCS concluded their investigation, agreeing that I had been mis-sold PPI to the value of £1700~;

however that this amount would be offset against any outstanding account I held with Welcome Financial Services,

obviously I was unhappy with this as according to a SAR I had served on them earlier in the year,

they had written off the account and sold it to MKDP.

 

So,

I sent a response to FSCS advising of this and asking they pay the mis-sold premium to myself so that I may negotiate with the third party company.

Very soon after asking for this review.

MKDP wrote to me thanking me for my payment and advising the account was now closed :???:

 

So, fast foward to May 2013.

 

I receive the conclusion of the review requested from the FSCS;

who agreed that I had been mis-sold,

and that I had no outstanding liabilities to WFS at the time of their decision.

 

It states uncategorically that they will instruct WFS to make cash payment direct to myself.

 

Around a week later, having heard nothing from WFS, I contacted them asking for payment to be made.

They responded at the end of May advising that they had referred the matter back to FSCS,

which is where it is today, apparently still with the FSCS legal team under review.

 

Does anybody have any advice to offer.

 

I've contacted FSCS to ask for updates several times over the past few months and each time am told the same thing

"It is currently being reviewed by our legal team and we will update you once a decision has been made".

 

WFS simply respond by saying its still with the FSCS and refuse to discuss the matter further.

 

Any advice?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the debt has been sold

 

the FSCS cannot offsrt against the old loan.

 

how did welcome get ahold of the money?

 

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

As far as I was aware, with WFS being in Default it would be the FSCS who would make the payment (?)

 

suspect they issued the funds to WFS to settle and in turn they then passed it to MKDP.

 

At this stage, i'm afraid you know as much as I do

 

as trying to get more information from either the FSCS / WFS is like getting blood from a stone unfortunately.

 

I've threatened WFS with court action via a LBA at the end of August this year,

 

they simply responded by saying that as it was with the FSCS I couldnt take legal action against them..

 

. is this bs?

 

Thanks dx

Link to post
Share on other sites

re the FSCS

 

is this welcome staff operating under the FSCS guidelines?

 

what address are you writing to for the FSCS?

http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-for-welcome-financial-hn0qripj/

 

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

Slight update, have had a response from an email I sent to the head of legal at the FSCS advising he will investigate and respond shortly.

 

I guess there is some light at the end of the tunnel finally :|

 

Will update with any further progress.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well over two weeks and still no update, even with assurances from the Head of Legal that he would provide one.

 

Can anybody advise if it would be beneficial serving a SAR on the FSCS for an update on my claim? Or would it be pointless?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

If you exercised a VT then once you've exercised that right you're ONLY liable to pay 50% of the amount financed. If you VT at a later stage you cannot reclaim anything over the 50% amount that you have paid.

 

In short, there ISN'T an outstanding balance, and it's wrong of them to imply that there is. From a legal perspectvie you are entitled to that refund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sequenci,

 

Couldnt agree more and

 

in the latest correspondence from the FSCS, they did agree that there was no outstanding liability to WFS.

They instructed WFS to make payment of the refund direct to myself;

however WFS refused to accept this and passed it back to the FSCS to review again.

This was in May IIRC and its been with them since.

 

If i'm completely honest, I'm confused as to why the reclaim is with the legal team at the FSCS.

They instructed WFS to make payment direct, WFS refused to do so.

 

I'm starting to suspect that it may be the case that WFS are refusing to follow the instruction of the FSCS and they are taking legal action against WFS as a result;

but without feedback from the FSCS I cannot confirm or deny this unfortunately.

 

My concern is simply that FSCS have gone completely silent and are refusing (it would seem) to divulge any information as to the progress of my claim, but why?

I thought the FSCS acted on my behalf and hence should be openly providing details of the current progress.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...