Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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 Finance - This company needs to be banned.


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4600 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 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

don't you think they had enough of our hard earned dosh???

 

Not to help them out, to buy the debt portfolio. Then we either follow the superb Cattles business model or alternatively hire a civil servant to leave the data disk on a train somewhere. I've got nothing to do with Welcome but I'd chip in :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second would be to sell them to companies that are prepared to buy them, the latter being aware of the problems they are likely to be inheriting. It will be their call as to whether they think they will be able to collect enough money to make a profit on their purchase.

 

The last lot were sold for 2p per £1....they go to profit if they collect in 2%...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by IainHL

The second would be to sell them to companies that are prepared to buy them, the latter being aware of the problems they are likely to be inheriting

I seriously doubt that!

Really Steven? Can there be anyone in the debt collection industry that is unaware of the toxic bag that would be a Welcome debt portfolio?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last lot were sold for 2p per £1....they go to profit if they collect in 2%...

That is a gobsmackingly low percentage. :eek:

 

I think I'm with dawnytrish on this, it gives a starting point for a F&F. Thanks for the information gandalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really Steven? Can there be anyone in the debt collection industry that is unaware of the toxic bag that would be a Welcome debt portfolio?
It happens all the time - debts are sold off in lots of 100s or 1000s at a few perce in the pound. The buyer onlyhas to persuade a few punter to pay up to be quid in.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol...I don't think it quite works like that. They're in it to make a profit...the 2p:£1 ratio probably goes on the basis that to break even they need to collect in 2% of the entire book they've bought. So the assumption will be that they will want to collect 1:50 of the loans in its entirity to break even...don't forget they will only sell debts that would be too costly to continue persuing, overseas skips..amongst them.

 

Not to help them out, to buy the debt portfolio. Then we either follow the superb Cattles business model or alternatively hire a civil servant to leave the data disk on a train somewhere. I've got nothing to do with Welcome but I'd chip in :grin:.
i think you'd have to buy them in serious bulk to even have a sniff at a debt portfolio...:p

 

If you want to short settle, you're best speaking to the branches...though realistically they tend not accept less than 75% of the total balance....though they have gone lower. You are probably going to get more vigorously persued by MKDP as they ONLY focus on bad debts...best not to let it get that far.

Edited by gandalf haggins
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a message for anyone having trouble with Welcome

 

If the agreement you have includes insurance, we are pretty sure the agreement will be in big trouble.

 

The reason for this is that we are pretty sure that Welcome paid themselves a commission on that insurance - by that, I mean that they paid Norwich Union (or whoever) a certain amount for the policy but then charged you more.

 

Of course the agreement doesn't tell you that and therein lies their problem.

 

You see, the law is pretty clear. Hidden commissions are a big no no. They have the potential to make the whole agreement void (that's even better than unenforceable). Even if a court didn't declare the agreement void, they would have to declare it unenforceable anyway.

 

This is because, a commission is part of the cost of credit not part of the loan amount. THerefore, the loan amount, the cost of credit and the APR are all wrong on the agreement. They are also terms prescribed in schedule 1 of the Consumer Crecit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. the fact that they are wrong makes the agreement unenforceable under s61 of the CCA 1974.

 

Details of the amount Welcome paid for the insurance policy are contained in a document called the underwriting sheet. Ask Welcome for a copy. They won't give it you, but if push comes to shove you can get a court to order them to give it to you. Any case they might then try to make against you will go out of the window.

 

 

Glad to hear what some of us already suspected being more or less confirmed. Sounds like a fellow cagger may have got a bit of a result.

 

How does this work though if as in my case i had a hp aggreement for a car through a broker.

 

Welcome claim no misselling by them as it was the broker who sold the insurance and they only provided the finance. (not strictly true as the insurance was one of theirs and direct group have admitted this)

 

BUT - i do have evidence they provided the broker with a commission for the finance of the car AND the insurance.

 

can i still chase them for undeclared commission - and who do i go for the broker, welcome or both?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a result yet but my suspicions have been greatly increased (not proven yet mind - watch this space).

 

If you have evidence that the broker got paid a commission which is not declared then you should go after the broker for hidden commissions. It is the broker that has the position of trust and it is they that have acted unlawfullly if they broke that trust. have a look at the case of Wilson v Hurstanger

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a message for anyone having trouble with Welcome

 

If the agreement you have includes insurance, we are pretty sure the agreement will be in big trouble.

 

The reason for this is that we are pretty sure that Welcome paid themselves a commission on that insurance - by that, I mean that they paid Norwich Union (or whoever) a certain amount for the policy but then charged you more.

 

Of course the agreement doesn't tell you that and therein lies their problem.

 

You see, the law is pretty clear. Hidden commissions are a big no no. They have the potential to make the whole agreement void (that's even better than unenforceable). Even if a court didn't declare the agreement void, they would have to declare it unenforceable anyway.

 

This is because, a commission is part of the cost of credit not part of the loan amount. THerefore, the loan amount, the cost of credit and the APR are all wrong on the agreement. They are also terms prescribed in schedule 1 of the Consumer Crecit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. the fact that they are wrong makes the agreement unenforceable under s61 of the CCA 1974.

 

Details of the amount Welcome paid for the insurance policy are contained in a document called the underwriting sheet. Ask Welcome for a copy. They won't give it you, but if push comes to shove you can get a court to order them to give it to you. Any case they might then try to make against you will go out of the window.

 

 

This is correct and Postggj knows why I can't say how i know - but BELIEVE me I KNOW!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a call from Nottingham today to advise me that the Sunderland branch would be closing and my account moved to head office.

 

My reply to this news was "Happy Dayd" the guy on the other end of the phone didnt know what to say to that.

 

 

dum dum dum another one bites the dust.....*gladiator style lol*

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi my daughter took out a loan with Welcome finance in 2007 for £2000 she paid 9 payments (£1546.320 and settled the load by paying £2649.57 in Sept 2007 which means she paid over £2000 interest for 9 months. This included PPI which she was told she had to have the insurance to secure the loan and she is now in the process of requesting repayment of PPI. The breakdown of the settlement is quite confusing as it states default interest/interest reversal £1546.32 interest on settlement £204.21 can anyone explain this as they wont even though we have written on numerous occasions, the latest 2 months ago and I was informed last week that they were short staffed and the letter that was received 2 mnths ago has not been scanned onto my daughters file because of the staff shortages but they were hoping to recruit in the next couple of months

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to start your own thread BP.

 

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

Cattles PLC - Interim Management Statement

 

LINK DIDNT WORK

 

 

 

RNS Number : 1898M Cattles PLC 19 May 2010

19 May 2010

CATTLES plc

 

INTERIM MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Cattles plc ("Cattles") today provides its Interim Management Statement covering the period since 31 December 2009.

Cattles announced its audited results for 2008 on 12 May 2010 and intends to announce its results for 2009 in the near future. Shareholders should be aware that again Cattles will be reporting a significant loss for the year ended 31 December 2009 and a negative value for shareholders' funds. As stated on 16 December 2009, the shares are likely to have little or no value.

The cash collection performance of the Welcome Finance ("Welcome") loan book has been as forecast for the first quarter of 2010. Shopacheck and The Lewis Group have made satisfactory starts to 2010.

 

CURRENT TRADING

 

A summary of the performance in 2010 by each of the Group's businesses is set out below. All numbers are unaudited.

Welcome

Welcome has historically provided direct repayment loans to over 500,000 customers from a nationwide branch network. On 16 December 2009, the Cattles Board announced to shareholders its recommendation that there should be no further lending in Welcome and that instead the book should be collected out.

On 5 February 2010, Cattles announced the closure of circa 70 Local Management Branches and Local Collections Units nationwide. Welcome entered into a consultation process from that date with staff affected by the proposals, of whom approximately 450 received notice that they were at risk of redundancy and subsequently 382 will leave the business.

On 7 May 2010, Cattles announced a proposal to close 18 branches nationwide and a contraction in the current operations management and their support staff in line with the smaller number of branches. Welcome entered into a consultation process from that date, with staff affected by the proposals, of whom approximately 155 received notice that they were at risk of redundancy.

Welcome's cash collections in the first three months of 2010 were £145 million. Cash collections since this date are in line with management's expectations. Net loans and receivables at 31 March 2010 amounted to £1.1 billion (31 December 2008: £2.2 billion). The reduction reflects cash collected in the 15 month period with no significant further lending, and further impairment of the book.

Shopacheck

Shopacheck provides short-term home collected loans through a nationwide branch network and at 31 March 2010 had 222,000 customers (31 December 2008: 235,000 customers).

Shopacheck continues to lend to new customers. Shopacheck has made a good start to 2010 and its cash collections for the three months ended 31 March 2010 were £38.5 million. Net loans and receivables at 31 March 2010 were £58 million (31 December 2008: £80 million). The reduction in net loans and receivables reflects the seasonality of the lending and a tightening of credit criteria.

The Lewis Group

The Lewis Group, a UK leader in debt recovery and investigation services, provides these services to external clients and both Welcome and Shopacheck. In 2010, The Lewis Group has refocused its strategy on contingent debt collection and by the end of 2010 its commitments to acquire further debt will have been completed. Debt purchases in the three months ended 31 March 2010 were £5.5 million.

Cash collections in the three months to 31 March 2010 were £26.2 million. Purchased debt balances at 31 March 2010 were £144 million (31 December 2008: £154 million).

 

RESTRUCTURING

 

Cattles is currently engaged in ongoing discussions with representatives of its key financial creditors in order to progress proposals for a consensual restructuring. Those discussions have been constructive and demonstrate continuing progress towards a consensual restructuring.

On 12 May 2010, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal of Party A and the subsequent cross-appeal of the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc of the decision of the High Court on the application of Cattles to seek a determination in relation to whether the terms contained within certain cross-guarantee documentation operate to subordinate the Company's claims against its subsidiaries, including Welcome Financial Services Limited, to the claims of certain bank creditors. This appeal and a cross-appeal were brought as part of consensual discussions between all parties.

On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal unanimously handed down a decision that upheld the decision of the High Court which is explained in the Company's announcement dated 14 December 2009. The cross-appeal in relation to the Cherry v Boultbee issues was stayed.

After judgment was handed down, Party A sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did not give such permission and Party A has 28 days from 13 May 2010 to appeal to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.

 

ENQUIRIES

 

 

Margaret Young, Executive Chairman, Cattles plc Tel: 020 7269 7252

 

Jamie Drummond-Smith, Finance Director, Cattles plc

Paul Marriott, Financial Dynamics

This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All.

 

Who really cares where they move or who they are, they are one of many that have scammed us all and now the tables have turned, many more will go down if we all fight.

 

Keep up the good work, I am not paying them nothing.

 

Mash

 

XXXX

Link to post
Share on other sites

pointless threat-o-gram

 

be better if you post this on your existing? thread so we know the history

 

 

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4600 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...