Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
    • Massive issues from Scottish Power I wonder if someone could advise next steps. Tennant moved out I changed the electric into my name I was out the country at the time so I hadn't been to the flat. During sign up process they tried to hijack my gas supply as well which I made it clear I didn't want duel fuel from them but they still went ahead with it. Phoned them up again. a few days later telling them to make sure they stopped it but they said too late ? had to get my current supplier to cancel it. Paid £50 online to ensure there was money covering standing charges etc eventually got to the flat no power. Phoned Scottish Power 40 minutes to get through they state I have a pay as you go meter and that they had set me up on a credit account so they need to send an engineer out which they will pass my details onto. Phone called from engineer asking questions , found out the float is vacant so not an emergency so I have to speak to Scottish Power again. Spoke with the original person from Scottish Power who admitted a mistake (I had told her it was vacant) and now states that it will take 4 weeks to get an appointment but if I want to raise a complaint they will contact me in 48 hours and it will be looked at quicker. Raised a complaint , complaints emailed me within 24 hours to say it will take 7 days till he speaks with me. All I want is power in the property would I be better switching over to EON who supply the gas surely they could sort it out quicker? One thing is for sure I will never bother with Scottish Power ever again.    
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Welcome says My £12k CCA Regulated secured Loan will now become a mortgage!


Baz1994
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1760 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

  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

cisheet

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

  • 1 month later...

I have an ongoing PPI claim with Welcome and a seperate claim regarding unfair charges, fees etc in which I submitted a compound interest calculation spreadsheet with my letter.

 

Well today I have received a response from Welcome saying that they agree that I was unfairly charged and that they would be refunding amounts plus interest.

 

My question is, should they have included capitalisation (interest) amounts i.e. £20.00 unpaid direct debit amount (refunded) plus £20.00 capitalisation amount also applied (not refunded) and then compound interest applied to total of £40.00 ?

 

Its just that the figures that I have obviously differ to what they are saying and do not want to agree to anything until I am sure that what I have is correct.

 

Also my Loan Agreement APR was 20.1% (which I used on my spreadsheet) but latest annual statement quotes 16.20% - does this sound right ?

 

Sorry if questions sound stupid but I just want some advice and clarity before I respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome tend to lay their statements out in an odd way.

 

If you look at an unpaid dd entry you will see on one line it says £20 for that. On the very next line it will say "Capitalisation" with an amount of exactly the same.

 

However, look at the balance on the account and you will see that it only changes by one amount of £20.

 

Capitalisation is the entry which actually adds that amount to the balance.

 

As a result you only get 1 x £20 back as only 1 x £20 has been charged.

 

As far as the interest rate goes, the 16.20% is probably the actual flat rate. The APR quoted on your agreement will more than likely include other things like a set up fee and/or documentation fee.

 

Have you got the agreement still?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes all very confusing and see what you mean, all a bit clearer now thanks regarding balance not changing twice.

 

Yes I still have a copy of the agreement and states APR 20.1% and 1.35% a month.

 

 

Should I have applied the 16.20% to my Compound Interest Calculations and not the 20.1 % ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Ok 1.35% per month multiplied by 12 is the 16.20% figure and is therefore the flat rate i.e. the rate they use to actually calculate the interest on the loan.

 

The APR is higher due to their costs on the account/agreement.

 

They should be refunding you interest at the 16.20% rate on the charges they are giving back.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks ims and I have now entered correct % fig and all seems to be nearer theirs quoted, give or take a few pounds.

 

Just another quick question re PPI part of claim,

 

I have also done a spreadsheet (only PPI no MIF) but with 8% simple interest

 

- will the same 16.20% APR apply ?

 

Sorry ims please ignore that last comment re application of 16.20% APR but do I apply any other interest apart from 8% simple ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah now the PPI is slightly different.

 

What you should be getting back is the amount of the premium paid to date plus associated contractual interest and a further 8% on each of those payments made. That 8% runs from the date of each payment to the date of settlement.

 

Is it one of the sheets from CAG that you have used or one of your own making?

 

This is the one to use

 

StatIntSheet v101.xls

 

If you want to post up your spreadsheet I'll take a look at it for you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again and yes thats the one I had used iro PPI only excluding MIF payments.

 

Just another question re charges / fees

 

 

- Welcome are going to deduct from Loan balance is this correct ?

 

 

Am I entitled to request that it is repaid by cheque ?

 

 

Or can the fees/charges be refunded to account and the payment of interest by way of cheque ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if the account is live and running then they will and can just credit those charges and the interest adjustment back to the account.

 

It does have the benefit of reducing the balance on the account of course.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that's one way of looking at it

but would have been nice to at least got the interest back by cheque, as quite a tidy sum.

 

On the above basis then,

if successful with the PPI will the same apply do you think ?

Or will I at least receive or entitled to refund of 8% simple by cheque ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the PPI it should be a different approach.

 

If there are no arrears on the account then the PPI and all of the interest should come to you.

 

The reason for the difference int he approach is that the charges on the account are deemed to be notional only and simply affect the balance. It is ok for the lender to credit these back to the account.

 

With the PPI on a single premium policy, the premium has actually been paid to the insurer at the start and you are making payments as you go against that. This means that the amounts you have paid towards it are actually deemed as paid. That is why you get 8% on top, as compensation for your actual loss of the use of your money.

 

PPI refunds can be used to set against notified arrears but as this account appears to be running its normal course there are no arrears so the money would come to you.

 

The lender should restructure the future part of the account to remove the PPI element from it so your future repayment amount should go down.

 

I have assumed here that the PPI claim is being dealt with by Welcome and not the FSCS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers again ims your comments are most helpful.

The loan is currently being paid contractually but as previously mentioned

I have an ongoing dispute / complaint in respect of some old arrears

but the PPI refund amount still outweighs what is supposedly outstanding.

 

 

Therefore would they just deduct from amount then and refund to me difference with interest amount ?

My main concern is that they will just do the same again. This obviously depends if it is eventually successful.

 

The actual loan was pre 2005 (Nov 2003) and was previously up-held by Welcome

but they are now trying to palm off to the broker / Underwriter

(who I had no previous contact with as seem as it was dealt with internally)

and is now currently with FOS who are dealing with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok as the account is currently being serviced properly and is apparently in order, then I would still say that the refund of PPI and associated interest should come to you and it is then for you to decide how to disburse it.

 

With a company like Welcome I would want to be rid of them as soon as possible so for me I would be happy for them to set off and give me any residual amount.

 

So again we see Welcome changing goalposts....yes we uphold your complaint......oh, hang on we smell a broker.....ah well we have changed our minds.

 

Just have to wait for the fos decision and if it is not favourable then it can always be escalated to an actual ombudsman as opposed to a front line adjudicator.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely brilliant help ims as usual and thanks for your time in responding to my neverending questions.

 

It has all rather become frustrating on the PPI part and as you said,

I do want shot of this lot but then again wouldn't mind some extra cash in my pocket now.

I was surprised that they refunded all my fees and charges as I only decided a month or so ago to pursue this avenue.

 

I will just have to await FOS outcome and will keep the forum up-dated of any developments but can see this dragging on a bit.

 

g/l and atb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone challenged Welcome regarding the legality of charging a Mortgage Indemnity Fee and been successful in reclaiming ?

 

I have been searching various threads but most seem to end without any conclusion.

 

Any comments or advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I originally submitted a PPI mis-selling claim with Welcome Finance in which they originally up-held

then decided to pass details to Dial4ALoan (same address as Welcome),

 

who I then received a response stating that they were not regulated at time of sale (November 2003)

 

and therefore PPI claim rejected.

 

I had no prior dealings with Dial4ALoan or ever received any correspondence from them

but I do remember only dealing with Welcome who contacted me to confirm loan was successful.

 

So on that basis I submitted two SAR's, one to Welcome and the other to Dial4ALoan.

 

Firstly received details (lack of it) from Dial4ALoan, which consisted of a copy of a completed FOS PPI questionnaire that I had originally sent to Welcome (who had passed on to Dial4ALoan),

 

various internal commission sheets (some with Welcome Finance Services printed on them)

between them and Welcome and an internal processing sheet with no figures but with various abbreviations and notes.

 

There is some information on the sheet stating that loan had been reinstated with WFS ?

There are no original loan application details or anything confirming details sent to my address from Dial4ALoan ?

 

Secondly I received the Welcome SAR details and amongst various documentation,

I have located a A & T Finance Loan application dated September 2003,

in which I recall was unsuccessful due to lack of equity in my property at time.

 

I do also remember Welcome contacting me and selling the PPI product,

for the eventual loan to be successful but they never explained terms and conditions of policy,

and I have recently found out that is was only for 5 years and not to term end.

 

Does anyone know if Welcome Finance own Dial4ALoan as they are now no longer trading ?

Has anyone experienced a similar situation and can kindly shed some light on where I stand or what to do next ?

 

I am becoming rather frustrated with this lot as

 

today I have received a further letter from Welcome re SAR,

saying that they do not have to disclose or keep any information older than six years as per ICO website ?

They also state that data that was sent confirms that Welcome were not involved in the policy sale

and that it was sold by Dial4ALoan, who I had no prior dealings with.

 

Sorry for long post but any help would be appreciated.

 

 

 

I also sent a letter to Aviva / Norwich Union the Underwriters who also rejected complaint

as they were not responsible for the sale and that I should pursue Welcome as they were regulated in November 2003.

 

Any comments or advice would be very much appreciated.

 

g/l

Link to post
Share on other sites

sri didn't see this

 

gather from many sources

 

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

.

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

If it's any good, have a read of the OFT page at http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2004/202-04 - Dial4ALoan are shown there as being owned by Cattles PLC, which also ran Welcome Finance, CL Finance, Lewis Group and more.

 

Unless anyone has any better suggestions I would suggest a complaint to the FOS and send in a copy of their questionnaire so they can follow it through. Although Welcome provided the finance, Dial4ALoan customers have also had finance via other companies, so it wasn't an in-house operation as such.

 

But, more recent info shows that Dial4ALoan are still trading, having submitted an annual return to Companies House as recently as April this year. CH records them as

DIAL4ALOAN LIMITED Company no 03958533

Registered Address: Welcome Finance, Mere Way, Ruddington Fields Business Park, Nottingham, NG11 6NZ

Here's just one of the many on-line checkers: http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/dial4aloan

 

Some Welcome cases are being dealt with via the FSCS but it seems your own account is older than the ones they will deal with. Having said that, so was ours, and we managed to reclaim the PPI on a Welcome Finance agreement quite recently, although ours was signed directly with them through one of their own offices. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?415458-Welcome-PPI-claim-pre-2005&p=4480621

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hilliards for your response.

 

PPI claim is already with FOS but I am still trying to collate as much information as possible.

 

All seems a bit confusing as all parties including Underwriters are blaming each other.

Sale was done over phone and by post with Welcome but

 

prior to that we had completed an A & T Finance (presume they are a broker ?) application which was unsuccessful

but it somehow seems to have been passed to Dial4ALoan without our knowledge,

and there are some internal commissions between the two parties,

hence my question regarding their relationship.

 

FOS called me yesterday regarding complaint, and said that Welcome are not responsible for the sale of the policy as they are the lender ?

The only correspondences received are all from Welcome apart from an initial covering letter from

Progressive Financial Services / Welcome Financial Services / Dial4ALoan,

Registered address Kingston House, Centre 27 Business Park, Birstall Batley.

 

They also mentioned something would be required to connect Welcome and Aviva / Norwich Union the Underwriters

in order to pursue that route.

 

Any idea what would be needed to prove this

 

- would it be Underwriting sheets ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...