Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's the same council
    • Ok. Please check back  here for a reply tomorrow
    • In 2008 Barclays were challenged on unlawful charges.   Shortly after Barclays terminated the overdraft and the account was closed....apparently banks were known for this behaviour at the time.   Although a  termination letter was served Barclays never sought payment, nor did they enforce.   Barclays sent annual statements until 2019 and the overdraft was registered at the CRA as a "live" account with a status of 6 (the worst status)..   The bank decided to write the balance off in 2019 and update the credit file as settled, although the negative data remains.   In 2019 the bank was informed that the account was statute barred in 2014 and the negative data should not have been recorded on the credit file between 2014 and 2019 - the bank disagreed.   The credit file continues to show the negative data and will not drop off untill 2025.   The damage continues as a loan was declined last week.   Is it fair to damage an individuals credit status for 17 years?????....   Barclays seem to be in breach of the FCA 6th principle of treating customers fairly, the DPA 1998, and the GDPR.                    
    • God where did you get that useless war and peace from? should have ignored them totally until or unless you get a letter of claim.   its not a penalty its a speculative invoice . make 1000% sure pcm have your correct address either on a letter you have already written or a new one   they have 6 yrs   C an you please pop all those photos into one multipage pdf please read our upload guide carefully.  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Welcome: 'Don't have a valid PPI complaint'?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 496 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Good evening all.

A few weeks ago I remembered that 22 years ago I used Welcome Finance to buy a car.

I thought I remembered being cheesed off at the time with them adding some extras on but couldn't be sure.

I sent them a SAR and, unbelievable, they responded with my data (although actually just two PDFs, one with their privacy notice and one showing my old account.

 

However, I must admit that I don't seem to be able to understand it properly.

In the below PDF it shows that there were 'extras' (Insurance default, Old mechanical breakdown, collision call and Old shortfall / Gap insurance) added but it says in one page of the PDF that they were started 10/05/1998, ended at different dates but then shows 'cancel date' was 2/06/1998 - less than a month after they were added.

 

However, you will see on the second page, showing the account, that on 19/5/1998 'Insurance Premiums Advanced' of £236.03 were added as well as 'Disbursal of fees' of £55.

PDF here

 

In the second PDF they sent, it states:

Terminology Appendix

Please be aware that for the outcomes listed below, you don’t have a valid PPI complaint against

Welcome Finance.

Non-regulated - Pre June 2000 Sales

This policy was purchased prior to Welcome Finance’s voluntary membership of the General

Insurance Standards Council (GISC) which began on 27th February 2003.

 

The (then) Financial Services Authority agreed that any non-regulated insurance sales (that is, those sold prior to Welcome Finance’s membership of GISC) are the esponsibility of the insurance underwriter.

 

Due to the date on which this policy was purchased, the PPI mis-sale complaint must be referred to the underwriters of the insurance for it to be considered.

Unfortunately Welcome Finance does not hold records of underwriter agreements prior to June 2000 due to the time and as such we are unable to confirm the details or provide information about the underwriter of the policy.

 

When selling insurance policies, Welcome Finance was acting as an agent of the insurance underwriter under a signed contract.

The earliest contract signed by Welcome Finance and an insurance underwriter of which we have retained a copy is dated June 2000.

 

In terms a complaint for PPI mis-sale, as the insurance underwriter does not seem to have had a written contract with Welcome Finance, it considers itself to be outside of any regulatory liability obligations.

 

Although PPI-mis sale is the responsibility of the insurance underwriter and not the lender, any complaint pertaining to an unfair relationship due to the sale of PPI is the responsibility of the lender and as such, WFS will consider any such complaint where valid.

 

Out of Scope - Date Range

As you did not have an account open as of 6th April 2008, you cannot complain about an unfair relationship due to undisclosed commissions in line with the Financial Conduct Authority Policy Statement PS17/3, issued in March 2017.

 

Please can I ask for some advice on my perhaps naive question of - are they correct re any claim being out of scope?

 

Sorry for being confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

any possible PPI claim will be against the underwriters, who would have been regulated at the time. in most cases [check up] they were [eventually] aviva I believe. there would be no time limit.

 

welcome are then talking about the situation regarding a PLEVIN reclaim of unfair undisclosed commission they got paid by the underwriters for selling their product..this is why they are relating to the time limit, which does apply.

 

i'll read the letters later.

but the bottom line without the at least full agreement or statements , theres very little chance of reclaiming the PPI itself 

but the thinks they list, would all be classed as PPI regardless of the various 'names' they use to sc@m people out of money inc GAP which WAS ppi too.

 

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

only one Page...??

can you please not use a hosting site

put everything in one multipage pdf and attach it here by drop n drag in the bottom of every msg box .....choose files

 

though if there is an outstanding balance I cant see you getting anything anyway.

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

Apologies, it’s the only way I could see of providing the relevant parts.

I’m unsure how to edit the PDFs they sent me so as to not show the personal details?

 

The balance was / is zero, I just didn’t provide the whole 4 pages.

 

Any ideas as to how to redact the personal info from a PDF?

 

Here you go, all the relevant parts with my details removed.

Thoughts would be welcomed (not a deliberate joke)...!

 

 

 

 

welcome docs.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

bang shot yourself in the foot

why did you mention PPI in the sar request?

 

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

looks like you still paid for ppi. {£236.03}

 

unravelling the crap in the letter

it looks like your can make a PPI reclaim directly to welcome

even though they were not GISC regulated, they are saying the underwriters were, but they cant say whom they were, but from other threads here it should be easy to work that out if needs be 

 

so you had a loan of £2269.44 of which 236.03 was PPI

 

so ppi/loan*100=ppi%

 

236.03/2269.44*100=10.4%

 

so anything you paid 10.4% of it was for ppi

so statint sheet time

 

 

 

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

Two things to say;

1. I’m absolutely positive that I sent the standard DSAR template with zero mention of PPI!!!

2. Thank you for this unbelievable help, honestly, I don’t know where I’d be without you guys.

 

Just checked and I sent the standard DSAR template with absolutely no mention of PPI!!!

 

 

Forgive my nativity but doesn’t it say that the PPI, etc was cancelled after one month, but the invoice shows it was added and not cancelled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they owe you

 

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

Again, please forgive my niavity but I'm struggling to work out which is correct - on one page they say they were cancelled but another shows the account and where it was added but then I can't see it taken off? 

I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate here in case it comes to court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

they charged you for it..no sign of a refund in the statements.

quite typical of welcome of that era to remove all the vehicle related stuff as they were trying to get approval to GISC and that was one of the things spotted by the regulators ...they were to that point making gap/mec/col compulsory.

 

notice also it says insurance default..which means they were still making PPI compulsory and did so in certain geographical areas deeming it a risk area until they eventually got GISC approval when they then too removed the compulsory PPI as GISC said they couldn't do that after arguing for several years about it with the regulators .

 

its all in archive posts here from Postggi. 

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
  • 2 weeks later...

already answered in post 7

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

You claim section 69 interest (8%) on top of your final figure within your court claim...only a court can award 8% on top of the PPI claimed

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

they were not charged you..they were clearly removed in the docs you posted up?

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

well get the FOS CQ and the statint int sheet done first along with a covering letter

then they have 8 weeks

you cant just jump to court no.

 

you should know all this already.....

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

Maybe I should...but I have a hell of a lot on my plate, but thanks for the advice.

 

Re ‘should know this already’, I guess it depends on your frame of reference for ‘should’?

It’s been over eight years since I went the court route and have never made any reference to, or been part of a conversation about a ‘statint int sheet’, I don’t even know what one is.

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

well that's of your doing..

prioritise things that need to get done so you don't miss PPI timelimits.

the rest can wait..

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
2 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

well that's of your doing..

 

?? Family issues - Not of my doing.

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

aha..i was going by the amount of recent threads...:lol:

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...