Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
    • Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
    • Peter McCormack says the huge investment by the twins will help Real Bedford build a new ground.View the full article
    • I emailed both. Tarry's came back "Please note that I have now left the business. Please contact Matthew Barnes ([email protected])  going forward" so will send to him.
  • 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 Claim FSCS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2139 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,

I applied for PPI from WFSL through the FSCS in November

 

just received their decision letter saying that yes they owe me PPI but because I owe WFSL an amount on another loan they will offset it.

 

WFSL have sold this account to PRA group for collection and it is also statute barred.

 

I have read on various threads that apparently the FOS has said that if a debt has been sold that the compensation cannot be used to offset the debt,

 

I have looked at the links in the threads but none of them take me to the relevant info and I cant find anything about it on the FOS website,

 

can anyone point me in the direction of where it states this on the FOS website

as I want to get all the information I can before I raise a complaint to the FSCS.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it’s welcome you won’t have nothing back cos of the scheme of arrangement they’ve entered into.

FSCS automatically offset.

 

My advice is chase to see if the purchasers have had the money.

 

In my case the purchasers reckon they didn’t have it and were chasing higher than owed.

 

I had already had it in writing last jan it would offset

 

yet money went Walkies for almost 6 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly not so with welcome.

 

the FSCS took on the welcome stuff and that's part of the waiver they signed up too.

 

now I would suspect that this 'other debt' IS linked to the one that they are refunding PPI from

so they can offset the 90%..

 

you need to tell us far more about your history with them please

 

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

Been there done that. All hands are tied. If you want to look at my thread feel free. Lots of stuff happened with me that’s probably not relevant to your case.

 

But sadly the only chance you have of getting money back from Welcome is pre 2005 ish.

 

Anything after it offsets.

 

Wait for dx he’s like a dog with a bone with Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

DX

 

I took out a loan with welcome in 2007 with PPI

(I was unaware of the PPI at the time) on it

 

once that was fully paid off

I took another one out with them under a different agreement number without PPI.

 

The second one is the one I fell into arrears with and it was subsequently sold on to PRA group.

 

I have had a few letters from PRA

 

I have sent them the Stat Barred letter and have had no further contact from them reference it apart from an annual statement.

 

If you need any other info please give me a shout.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

so not a chain

and ideally should NOT be offset because welcome have already poss reclaimed the tax and poss been repaid via their insurance scheme.

 

but that all might not have happened.

 

reply with a POLITE but very brief letter to the FSCS asking the question

: that as the debt has been sold

:was not part of any chain of loans, i'e the refunded PPI was NOT directly related to the sold loan to PRA

:how can they offset your PPI refund as they [welcome] no longer hold the rights toward it to do so.

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

Thanks DX

I am going to send the following to the FSCS

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for your decision letter but I wish to contest the decision to offset my PPI against an unconnected outstanding balance.

 

I am aware that Welcome Finance has sold this debt to PRA Group.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service has stated that in cases where the debt has been sold to a Debt Collection Agency then the monies owed cannot be used to offset the outstanding amount.

 

In light of this I request that the monies stated in your decision letter be paid to myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope write what I said.

 

don't contest it

 

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

but surely because of welcome not owning the debt anymore they cannot offset

thats what i was thinking, seeing what the fscs q&a says about offsetting 'amounts of compensation payable will be first set off against any outstanding loan balances you may owe to WFSL'

but then there is the fos saying 'That is because the consumer does not owe the business money – it owes money to the third party that bought the debt instead' ie nothing outstanding to wfsl as such. the fos says it wld then go to the business, but in wfsl the business no longer exists so it is with the fscs to deal with?

but i don't know, the guys have the experience on it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford, Welcome still do exist but the scheme under the FSCS means that they can no longer provide new loans

 

They can and still do continue to receive payments for existing customers

:thumb:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

well as a final update to this I got a reply from the FSCS saying that because of the waiver that welcome got the money goes to the DCA, but the account has been closed by PRA and I won't hear from them or anyone again and I have that in writing

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good win then

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...