Welcome PPI claim pre 2005 *** SUCCESS ***

[hillards]

Going back over a current loan document,

which we took out in 2006 to consolidate previous debts,

we realise that several of the old accounts paid off would have had PPI in some shape or form.

 

Welcome Finance is one of them.

 

The account was opened pre 2005, we think, and when it was paid off it was a 5 figure sum, so not something we should have ignored all this time really.

 

Just need a quick pointer as to where to start as it will be a tricky one by the look of other threads. We cannot go to the FSCS as it it's an old account.

 

Is there are current address for enquiries and/or a SAR ?

[hillards]

We have managed to send a SAR and Welcome acknowledged this today.

 

Until we get that we're not quite sure just what was on the old account.

 

We were pressured into the agreement and the PPI, thta much we do remember as it was for the purchase of a car.

 

It was almost like we would not have got out of their office alive if we had not signed, quite frightening at the time.

[hillards]

OK,

 

Welcome have sent the SAR and it includes a loan agreement that was taken out in November 2003 for £15,612 of which £3,137.57 was PPI

and a further £475 of home and life insurance AND £1,320 'Mortgage Indeminity Fee' (their mis-spelling)

 

The account was closed and settled in full as part of a consolidation loan (with a different company) we obtained in March 2006.

 

At the time we paid just over £11,000 that was outstanding.

 

We had a good credit score at the time of taking it out and at the time it was repaid,

no payments were missed and their own history of payments show they were all made on time.

 

No additional charges until it was settled,

at which time it shows that they got the cheque,

made a fee rebate of £59 (debit),

another fee rebate of £335 (debit),

Insurance rebate of £745 (credit) plus Settlement Penalty Interest of £469 (debit).

I am unsure what these are and if they should be included in our claim ?

 

If anything,

the settlement produced a credit balance of £153

as a regular monthly payment had been made between the time the settlement figure was obtained and the cheque raised.

 

We are unsure if this was ever repaid,

their comments report show a telephone call was made just after the settlement

where they advised making an 'indemnity claim with the bank'.

 

I don't think we did,

their records show that this was subject to a ledger adjustment to take the balance to zero before we made that call.

 

Can someone please advise what the next step should be to reclaim the PPI

and other charges made that we we mis-sold at the time.

 

I have noted that the FSCS are dealing with some claims

but ours is before their cut-off point and we need to deal directly with Welcome.

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

hello

sri you've been missed

you deserve better.

the PPI

home/life

and

MIF

can all be reclaimed

we have good evidence

they were all mis-sold or not even required.

i'd knock up a spreadsheet [at the end here]

see link 1 below.

dx

[hillards]

Thank you

 

I have read through the 'PPI - Single Premium - Your questions answered' thread and used that to work out the percentage of insurances against the loan amount, but then came up with almost £700 not accounted for when I looked at the totals I need to look again at what was charged for, I may need to query the total as it does not match up !

 

I have used the StatIntSheet v101 and entered the original insurance amounts, plus the percentage calculated amounts per month we paid over the life of the loan, before we paid it off. The total is approaching £14,500

 

Monthly repayments were £419.31 with 28.00% being the insurance amount I calculated, therefore £117.41 of that. I will finalise that when I look again at the totals. It seemed odd that it was exactly 28.00%

 

I have taken time to read the documentation provided from the SAR in more detail and they messed up big time ! The first named was my wife, but they created the insurances incorrectly in my name. This is clearly shown on the paperwork and on their electronic records. There is a handwritten note on the original document to re-issue the paperwork in my wife's name, but that didn't happen. Also in the notes is states my employment status as self-employed, which I was at the time. Therefore the PPI and other insurance was totally useless.

 

I have the bones of a reclaim letter written, based on template 1 with additions, but will leave it until morning now as it's not quite making sense when I re-read it. I will happily send them a copy of the spreadsheet when I get it all together.

 

As I've noted, this is prior to the timeline for the FSCS to deal with it, I will need to go back to Welcome directly.

 

We have had success with the FSCS before and this is the first of 4 PPI claims we are doing at present. The paperwork from Welcome tells me that this was not the car loan as thought it was, but a previous consolidation. They have provided us with details of the companies and account numbers involved, which could lead to a further 4 PPI claims being made...

 

In the SAR they've also given us a document that relates to someone else, giving change of address details and her telephone number. That's a breach of data protection they've committed as well !

 

In my defence, these consolidation loans were taken out before I joined CAG

[hillards]

I've now checked over the figures and it looks like I just had a minor typo on the spreadsheet to correct.

On the original agreement there is an acceptance fee of £235.00 that I've not mentioned before. APR was given as 22.72% (1.35% monthly) and they had a legal charge on the property, since removed.

There is a separate PPI form, which has the written note about them needing to send a new form and was NOT signed by either of us.

 

On the spreadsheet I have listed

Payment Protection Insurance - full amount as per the agreement document on the date they recorded it as paid

Mortgage Indemnity Fee - full amount as per the agreement document on the date they recorded it as paid

Misc Insurances - full amount as per the agreement document on the date they recorded it as paid

then I've listed all the monthly payment dates and entered the PPI part (28%) then let the spreadsheet do it's thing. The 'award' comes out as pennies under £14,500

 

I'll now finalise the letter and get this sent off to them. I will mention that the PPI form was incorrect and not even signed, that will probably help our case ;-)

I also read the thread about paying tax on the interest and have made a note that we will need to put that aside as and when this is resolved.

 

I think that's it for this one for the minute. Apart from, how long do you give them to respond ? They were very quick with the SAR so I guess they are geared up for claims too.

 

Looking forward to good news...

[dx100uk]

i''l look later

 

regards

 

dx

[hillards]

While I've been pottering about today, as I'm stuck at home through disability,

I've been going over a lot of paperwork.

 

This claim against Welcome came about as a result of seeing what we had paid off by taking out a consolidation loan in early 2006 with Paragon,

details of the problems we've had with them are elsewhere,

suffice to say we had a successful PPI claim on that account last year via the FSCS as the original broker had long since vanished.

 

We also paid off other debts and are in the process of sending SAR's to the various companies,

Monument (now Barclays), Egg and Shop Direct.

We would have had PPI and/or charges on these accounts so may as well see what cna be reclaimed.

 

With the SAR from Welcome they were kind enough to provide a list of earlier debts we had paid off,

so further SAR's will be going to J D Williams (Ambrose Wilson), G E Capital (incl. First National) and On Line Finance Ltd, now GMAC UK PLC.

 

We also need to look at the SAR already requested from Barclays to see if they include an older Providian account.

Some of the pay-offs we made were in the 4 figure region, so are probably worth looking at.

 

Now, a question.

 

Not long after the final consolidation loan was taken out in 2006

I lost my job and was unable to pay back a Barclaycard I had.

 

I think I may have had 2, both Visa & Mastercard versions.

 

Both taken out at the same time, they made an offer I seem to remember.

 

suffice to say these accounts fell into arrears and were eventually sold on to DCA's.

 

Because I've been unemployed, and now disabled,

I fended off the DCA's and they are now statute barred,

despite Lowell sending annual statements and another DCA now trying to collect the same account !

 

IF we make a successful claim on Barclays, in my wife's name,

they should no longer have any redress to settle my old account from any claim she is making ?

 

I just want to understand where we are with this sort of situation

as we don't want to be spending lots of time, and paying for SAR's,

for them to say 'ah, but, we're using the award to pay off your old debts'

- I read somewhere that once they've assigned the account to a DCA they lose the right to do that ?

 

Worst case scenario is that they can claim back,

but only the original amount paid for PPI and installments,

not the 8% interest that would have built up.

Even then, HMRC would want their 20% of that... !

 

I think that's right, or at least how I've read it. Not all as plain sailing as it could be

 

EDIT:

Just been reading again about the big £64K+ PPI claim.

 

Despite what I said about Barclaycard and my own account,

it may well be worth my looking at a PPI claim as I was self employed at the time.

It could be that the value of the potential claim is more than what they said I still owed them

(NOT the highly inflated figure that Lowell quote)

Edited February 26, 2014 by hillards
Found more info.

[hillards]

Letter to reclaim PPI, with a copy of the spreadsheet, going to Welcome on Friday lunchtime when wife gets in from work to sign it. I've just printed a fresh copy of the spreadsheet off and with there being a couple of days since I last worked on it it's now gone just over the £14,500 mark.

 

Also had a letter from Halifax about an old CC I had with them, they say to fill in the form and they'll look at it. Personally I feel that I should SAR them and do my own investigation first.

[dx100uk]

yes agreed

 

and use the FOS CQ not theirs!!

 

dx

[hillards]

yes agreed

 

and use the FOS CQ not theirs!!

 

dx

 

Funnily enough, the CQ sent by Hx is very similar to the FOS version, but anyway, another thread another day

[hillards]

Welcome have replied to say they cannot deal with the complaint as the main account holder has not given their authority to the person making the claim !

 

It was a joint application where my wife was (supposed to be) first named as I was self-employed and the insurances the insisted we had should therefore have gone in her name. But, they got it wrong on the main CCA agreement and put my name first. She signed first, all payments were from her bank account and she was named first on all the other paperwork. The PPI document is clearly marked, by their office rep., to say that first named should be my wife, not me, and to send a new form. Obviously they didn't, as that's all that came as part of the SAR, which was also done in my wife's name...

 

I guess this is just a delaying tactic of some sort, their loss as the amount they owe us goes up by £1.80 a day ! Needless to say, my wife has written a strongly worded letter, and asked for their complaints procedure to be invoked as it is clear to anyone looking at the documents that she is the main account holder. Oh, and we've added in a 'leter of authority' from myself, also pointing out the error of their ways and supporting the complaint.

[dx100uk]

classic lot aren't they:madgrin:

[intend]

hillards - thanks for link -

 

intend

[hillards]

Latest from welcome - and more delaying tactics that I'm unhappy about. Now they've sent a FOS questionnaire for us to fill in and return.

 

Question: Do we HAVE to complete and return this? As far as I'm aware, we have given them more than enough information to identify the account, names, address and more.

 

I object to giving them telephone numbers, reasons for taking out the credit, or going over details which are already part of the information they have on file - such as employment status and so on. The Data Protection Act was created to protect my data, not to give these numpties a reason to demand I fill in a 13 page form.

 

Should the matter have to go to the FOS then I supposed we'd have to do the form for them, but I'm writing back to Welcome to say 'go away' or something similar. It's not a requirement that I know of - unless anyone can tell me otherwise...?

[intend]

would be inclined to complete the FOS version - as you state - if it goes to them and Ifear it will, it will look better than having not.Having looked at the one LTSB sent me, I think the FOS version is less onerous.

[dx100uk]

you are after them refunding mis-sold PPI

 

yu should have sent the FOS CQ in the very first place.

 

filling in everything you can remember.

 

dx

[hillards]

Much as I hate to disagree...

 

We did a SAR on Welcome where we had fully identified the account number and other details to the satisfaction of Welcome as they happily provided the data we had requested under that reference.

 

My understanding was that the FOS document was to be used where there were insufficient details to fully identify an account, person, address or whatever. We've gone well past that stage in that a claim has been made to and accepted by Welcome. I feel that they are asking for information that is totally irrelevant and beyond reasonable.

 

To be asking for all this information now is too late. My question was - do we HAVE to complete the questionnaire ? As far as I'm concerned, they have had more than enough information to identify the account and account holders and should proceed with the claim. Anything else on the FOS document is spurious.

 

If I refuse what can they do ? Quite happy to fill it in If it has to go to the FOS - but not just because Welcome say so. None of their ruddy business !

[Baz1994]

Much as I hate to disagree...

 

We did a SAR on Welcome where we had fully identified the account number and other details to the satisfaction of Welcome as they happily provided the data we had requested under that reference.

 

My understanding was that the FOS document was to be used where there were insufficient details to fully identify an account, person, address or whatever. We've gone well past that stage in that a claim has been made to and accepted by Welcome. I feel that they are asking for information that is totally irrelevant and beyond reasonable.

 

To be asking for all this information now is too late. My question was - do we HAVE to complete the questionnaire ? As far as I'm concerned, they have had more than enough information to identify the account and account holders and should proceed with the claim. Anything else on the FOS document is spurious.

 

If I refuse what can they do ? Quite happy to fill it in If it has to go to the FOS - but not just because Welcome say so. None of their ruddy business !

 

Sorry to but in hillards but did you include Mortgage Indemnity Fee amount in your spreadsheet ?

[Hortz]

Much as I hate to disagree...

 

We did a SAR on Welcome where we had fully identified the account number and other details to the satisfaction of Welcome as they happily provided the data we had requested under that reference.

 

My understanding was that the FOS document was to be used where there were insufficient details to fully identify an account, person, address or whatever. We've gone well past that stage in that a claim has been made to and accepted by Welcome. I feel that they are asking for information that is totally irrelevant and beyond reasonable.

 

To be asking for all this information now is too late. My question was - do we HAVE to complete the questionnaire ? As far as I'm concerned, they have had more than enough information to identify the account and account holders and should proceed with the claim. Anything else on the FOS document is spurious.

 

If I refuse what can they do ? Quite happy to fill it in If it has to go to the FOS - but not just because Welcome say so. None of their ruddy business !

 

They can't hold a gun to your head and force you but it would be in your best interests. The questionnaire is designed by the FOS to elicit all of the information that is of relevance to the assessment of your complaint. It may end up getting upheld on a different issue to what you originally complained about. It is not only for use where there are insufficient details to identify someone? It's use is accepted as standard acros the industry. Certainly if you went to FOS they would ask you to fill it in.

[Hortz]

Sorry to but in hillards but did you include Mortgage Indemnity Fee amount in your spreadsheet ?

 

If he did then it is an absolute waste of time. This is a perfectly legitimate requirement where the borrower is requesting a high loan to value in order to protect the lender. The alternative is to be refused the loan and go elsewhere. It was commonplace at one point, though has gone out of fashion somewhat now. Why anyone thinks the OP would be entitled to it back escapes me.

[dx100uk]

Sorry to but in hillards but did you include Mortgage Indemnity Fee amount in your spreadsheet ?

 

MIF is a sep claim

 

dx

[Baz1994]

MIF is a sep claim

 

dx

 

Thanks dx i'm interested because asked about this a while back but didn't pursue it. I did do a spreadsheet for MIF plus PPI but only submitted PPI as wanted to keep seperate.

 

Will need to research MIF option but any help / direction would be appreciated. Is there a standard letter to address this with welcome ?

[dx100uk]

from my notes

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?318323-Old-Welcome-Debt&highlight=postggj

.

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."

.............

collected from some thread on here .

dx

 

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

[Baz1994]

Thanks dx and rings a few bells now as I received a similar explanation from Welcome when I asked them and wanted to keep it separate from PPI.

 

Think it is time to address this issue again and will look through links.