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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 4543 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

from the Welcome site

At Welcome, our corporate responsibility strategy is built on three cornerstones:

 

Being a responsible financial services organisation.

We treat our customers fairly and with respect, lending carefully and making sure that we understand each customer’s financial circumstances. In that way, we can be sure that we offer them the right product and don’t place an undue burden on them. Our goal is to have open and honest relationships with customers, offering them constructive support should they encounter difficulties.

 

Being a good people business

We aim to create an environment that is both motivating and stimulating. We treat colleagues with fairness and respect, listening to what they have to say and acting on their feedback. Looking outside the business itself, we strive to build strong bonds with the communities around us, because that’s where our customers and colleagues live and work.

 

Being environmentally responsible.

As a growing business we recognise that we have an impact on the environment. Our aim is to manage this impact and minimise it wherever we can - and at the same time raise environmental awareness among our colleagues. As well as meeting people’s expectations of the company, this helps us to operate more efficiently and reduce our costs."

Direct Auto Finance & DLC dispute ongoing.

Offer with confidentually agreement from DLC / DAF DECLINED :D

Please PM me if you have any cheap rate or 0800 number for DCA's to add to my list and also to my website

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

i had this posted on my thread could anyone tell me if this is true

regards:confused:

 

 

 

The letter states that "where the cca 1974 advises that you may put your account into dispute; this is only relevant to accounts held with Banking Institutions and therefore bares no significance to your claim with welcome".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought these suckers were going under?

 

Is it just a matter of time or are they gonna survive.

 

I need to know!

Welcome Finance PPI ***WON***£650

 

Black Horse PPI ***WON*** £1200

 

CL Finance-County Court Claim-***WON***(well sort of-stopped them continuing with the claims)

Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone tell me if below is true

 

Hi there

i put my account in dispute in September for failure to provide cca. I received a letter today enclosing my cca :Cry:. The letter states that "where the cca 1974 advises that you may put your account into dispute; this is only relevant to accounts held with Banking Institutions and therefore bares no significance to your claim with welcome".

 

electrik

 

regards edwi69

Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone tell me if below is true

 

Hi there

i put my account in dispute in September for failure to provide cca. I received a letter today enclosing my cca :Cry:. The letter states that "where the cca 1974 advises that you may put your account into dispute; this is only relevant to accounts held with Banking Institutions and therefore bares no significance to your claim with welcome".

 

electrik

 

regards edwi69

 

Hi edwi69,

I'm not an expert, but could they just be trying there luck to get money out of you?

 

Google cca 1974 and see what you can find, I have been reading up and I have not found anything mentioning 'only accounts held under banking institutions' ...yet!!

 

Once again I am not an expert!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

welscum signed for my cca request letter on the 2-10-09 and they signed for account in dispute letter on the 17-10-09.

i received a leeter from welscum saying they couldnt fulfill my request for a copy of my agreement and saying they should be supplying me with one.

But what i want to know is,is there another letter i need to send now telling them they havent complied with my request.

help would be much apreciated.

regards edwi69:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi edwi69,

I'm not an expert, but could they just be trying there luck to get money out of you?

 

Google cca 1974 and see what you can find, I have been reading up and I have not found anything mentioning 'only accounts held under banking institutions' ...yet!!

 

Once again I am not an expert!

 

If the agreement says "regulated by the consumer credit act (1974)" I can't see how they can argue it doesn't.

 

The only time it wouldn't would be for loans over 25K (?) - the CCA1974 doesn't apply to them.

Carpe Jugulum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of Welscum cherry picking and trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They are bound by Consumer Credit Act 1974 and amendments when they feel the need. So they are BOUND by them at all times.

 

F**k `EM that`s what I say! F**K `EM! What do you all say???

 

Cheers, MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

edwi69

this is more wf bull. nothing to do with banking, its all to do with the cnsumer credit act. Im sure I have seen a reference to this somewhere in cca1974, cant put my finger on it right now. it takes time but check through the act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello edwi and good evening. I sent the telephone harassment letter to compliance and telephoned my local branch and told them that the account is in dispute and I will only deal with compliance from now on. I told them not to telephone me or visit my home. I also told them that I will not make anymore payments towards the account until compliance sort out my account...I know it is hard but try notto let the local branch bully you and stand firm. It is not a crime to have financial difficulties and these bully boys will try anything they can to cover the awful tricks they pull...I know it is easier said than done but try and be strong with them !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news edwi, keep your spirits up. I was all doom until I followed advice on here and realised what a mug Welcome had made of me and then I became angry and determined. They will not fob me off again until they sort my account the legal way and I have been ripped off for too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4543 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...