Jump to content


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 4524 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

Request for repayment of charges

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxx

 

My request

 

I am writing to ask you to refund to me charges and related interest which you have levied from my account over the last three years.

 

I consider that the regime of charges you operate is unfair within the Regulations as they are not individually negotiated, they operate in much the same way as charges operated by other High street banks and therefore there is little alternative to myself but to agree to the charges. Furthermore the charges are contrary to the requirement of good faith and fair dealing as they lack basic standards of commercial moral practice and take an unfair advantage of the weak bargaining power of the consumer. They impose a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations between the contracting parties which is to my detriment. I also consider that the charges may be unlawful at common law.

 

Your responsibilities

 

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that I took the loan. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. Furthermore you are bound by the Banking Code to treat your customers fairly and it is evident that you do not so.

 

 

I consider that your repeated representations that your charges are unfair and reasonable are deceptive and that they have deceived me into agreeing to pay them.

Your concealment of the true nature of your charges has prevented me from asserting my right until now.

 

 

 

 

 

What I require

 

I calculate that you have taken £xxx from me in three years.

I enclose a schedule of the charges which I am claiming with this letter including 8% statutory interest and "capitalisation" that you apply.

 

 

In addition to full payment of the sum mentioned above, I require that you remove the default entry and adverse comments from the register. Please note that mere correction or amendment to the entry will not be acceptable. I would remind you that the misuse of personal data in this way is contrary to the Data Protection Act and is probably defamatory.

 

 

 

My targets to resolve this matter

I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you will prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets.

 

I am fully aware of the waiver which you are presently relying upon and which was granted to you by the FSA. However, this is an internal industry matter and has nothing to do with with High street banks test case brought by the OFT.

I consider your charges a penalty and not unlawful under English law. It is one-sided and I note that you continue to levy charges and to enforce them despite the weight of judicial and popular opinion against you.

 

I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment.

 

If you dispute that I am entitled to a refund of these charges, then please let me know within the above timescale the basis upon which you dispute together with the reasons why you consider your charges to be fair.

 

If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall either forward my complaint to the FOS for mediation or send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments.

 

After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

 

Yours faithfully,

Stewie

 

 

I had limited success with this before. You think this should do the trick on these flippen charges, just winds me up they can do what they like.

 

just make sure you inc a spreadsheet of exactly what you want back inc int at 8% stat.

 

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

Any chance someone can have a look at my thread with Welcome, could do with some help with these crooks !

 

 

link?

 

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

Request for repayment of charges

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxx

 

My request

 

I am writing to ask you to refund to me charges and related interest which you have levied from my account over the last three years.

.

.

.

After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall issue a claim at the expiry of the second deadline.

 

Yours faithfully,

Stewie

Stewie, I feel your letter isn't really the correct one to send in this circumstance. It is too much related to the bank charges situation, rather than charges on a loan account.

 

I would strongly worded letter specifically referring to UTCCR 1999 is what you need. Take a look at the letters here: Reclaim Credit Card Charges: Full guide to get £100s back..., they should give you the basis of what you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is milner that you cannot make accusations without proof - that is potentially libel. I am therefore removing your post (and mine related to it) until you provide some proof.

 

Hi Steven

 

Milner in reference to lewis group and welcome finance is not far off the mark in some respects - but i am not sure he is correct in all aspects.

 

Welcome finance collections and recovery dept is the lewis group. They answer phone as welcome and use the address and trading name of welcome - but they are the lewis group. And i have evidence and confirmation.

 

Dont know if it helps any ones case though - not sure how it does.

 

As for the evidence - i have names, positions and am willing to back up if needed - even in a legal dispute - on oath.

Edited by dadofholly
Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no welcome finance. its just Lewis Group acting as Welcome Finance trust me.

 

To clear up a few misunderstandings and to clarify matters before people get confused with all of this stuff I will state the following in support of Steven here:

 

(1) Welcome Finance can pursue legal action on accounts, however they use external solicitors to do this including Irwin Mitchell, LRC and The Lewis Group (Howard Cohen) - these legal actions include Charging Orders and Attachment of earnings BUT the account remains with Welcome and therefore is owned by Welcome, they can enforce CCJs.

 

(2) The Lewis Group and Welcome are two different companies under one umbrella (Cattles PLC) and are treated as seperate legal entities, BUT there are examples of TLG and Welcome sharing the same office space (In Nottingham for example) due to Cattles cost cutting exercises, however if you have a complaint about your Welcome account you need to complain to Welcome they are still trading and still exist.

 

(3) The pre legal action is not necessarily an empty threat and should be taken seriosuly BUT Milner has a point in that a lot of accounts are threatened with Legal action that for one reason or another (Agreement details, missing etc) cannot be taken any further. What happens is a team of administrators send a bulk load of defaults and letters and then picks through the accounts to see which ones can be taken through the legal process.

 

(4) On accounts where a secured loan has been taken out. there is normally a charge in place as this is part of the process of getting the loan (Signed legal charge) a little information here, Welcome have never repossessed a house and are unlikely ever to as its an expensive process and they have to pay off prior charges.

 

So in a sense Milner has raised some vaild points but it is important to understand that the quoted statement is not entirely accurate even if the sentiment is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(2) The Lewis Group and Welcome are two different companies under one umbrella (Cattles PLC) and are treated as seperate legal entities, BUT there are examples of TLG and Welcome sharing the same office space (In Nottingham for example) due to Cattles cost cutting exercises, however if you have a complaint about your Welcome account you need to complain to Welcome they are still trading and still exist.

 

To clarify my points earlier. Lewis are trading out of Welcomes office as welcome. They answer the phone as welcome, they call people as welcome - and if you talk to them on the phone they claim to be welcome.

 

My complaint about welcome - made to welcome compliance has - been passed to lewis Group pretending to be welcome.

 

Welcome told me that their compliance dept "only deals with mis-sold PPI" and that as my claim concerns "secret commissions" it has been sent to lewis who are dealing with my account.

 

When I asked for the number for Lewis i was given the same names, telephone numbers etc. of the exact same people that i had just spoke to ten minutes before - who said they were welcome.

 

Lewis employees are claiming to be welcome - fact. But i dont think this in itself will help anyones claim - but stand to be corrected.

 

The only problem i have now is who do i take to court welcome - Lewis Group - or both?

 

I assume it should still be Welcome no matter where they have passed my claim on too.

Edited by dadofholly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Just to point out something here. In one of Milner's first posts over in the debt collection industry part of the forum he/she states that they 'found' a bunch of Lewis Group bank statements belonging to clients next to their bin yesterday as 'post' ... And posted them back to Lewis, instructing them of it being a breach of Data Protection.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/99170-lewis-group.html

 

So, I am just wondering what it's all about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steven

 

Milner in reference to lewis group and welcome finance is not far off the mark in some respects - but i am not sure he is correct in all aspects.

 

Welcome finance collections and recovery dept is the lewis group. They answer phone as welcome and use the address and trading name of welcome - but they are the lewis group. And i have evidence and confirmation.

 

Dont know if it helps any ones case though - not sure how it does.

 

As for the evidence - i have names, positions and am willing to back up if needed - even in a legal dispute - on oath.

Dadofholly

 

Sorry for the confusion but this is not what I was asking milner for proof of. I have hidden the actual post this quetsion is referring to for legal reasons.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joncris,Thanks for the reply, I'm sorry to interject but I feel it is important, you may have misread the article as it refers to a Unilateral notice that Welcome refused to remove, repossession was taken by a different lender (Possibly the first mortgage holder) and Welcome basically held that their notice was valid and as such would take surplus proceeds from the sale rather than the client having the money to do with as they wish.

 

It is quoted in the article:

 

"Even the lenders who are seeking repossession from Ms L are appalled that the LR have not removed the charge that Welcome cannot prove"

 

So for other interested parties:

 

(1) You cannot repossess a property using a Unilateral notice as security, it is not legal (A unilateral notice by its very nature is a "One way" notification of an interest).

 

(2) To date Welcome Finance have not repossessed a home despite their empty threats, if you know my history, I am not offering an opinion here, I know this to be true an accurate although they of course do repossess cars and goods etc.

 

If you want to PM me with details I am sure I can address your specific case, more thn willing to help ;)

 

 

 

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joncris,Thanks for the reply, I'm sorry to interject but I feel it is important, you may have misread the article as it refers to a Unilateral notice that Welcome refused to remove, repossession was taken by a different lender (Possibly the first mortgage holder) and Welcome basically held that their notice was valid and as such would take surplus proceeds from the sale rather than the client having the money to do with as they wish.

 

It is quoted in the article:

 

"Even the lenders who are seeking repossession from Ms L are appalled that the LR have not removed the charge that Welcome cannot prove"

 

So for other interested parties:

 

(1) You cannot repossess a property using a Unilateral notice as security, it is not legal (A unilateral notice by its very nature is a "One way" notification of an interest).

 

(2) To date Welcome Finance have not repossessed a home despite their empty threats, if you know my history, I am not offering an opinion here, I know this to be true an accurate although they of course do repossess cars and goods etc.

 

If you want to PM me with details I am sure I can address your specific case, more thn willing to help ;)

 

 

 

;-)

 

No YOU misread the article the false charge was only there because a false loan had been created about which the consumer knew nothing & Welcome although they could produce no documents refused to accept that she didn't owe them anything & were about to evict the woman on Xmas Eve a matter of days away would you believe before someone intervened & got it stopped made them apologize AND pay compensation

 

Anyway the point is you stated they don't evict anyone & this proved they do. I also know of others where they have applied & obtained possession

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS they had already despite her protestation obtained a charging order

 

She could'nt believe what was happening & just knew it must be a mistake & like many assumed it would sort itself out after all she'd never been in trouble or debt before so expected the courts would never allow it would they all she had to do was tell the court.

 

She didn't realize its impossible to prove a negative particularly in todays property biased county courts. I mean if a firm like Welcome says you owe them money it must be true mustn't it:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Just a quick bit of advice if any one knows the answer.

 

I had an aggreement which contained PPI - managed to prove it had been mis-sold and welcome agreed to remove and re-write the agreement.

 

This was a straight re-write where they just took what i had paid on the old agreement off the new agreement leaving a balance to pay.

 

Now i understand their may have been an undeclared commission on the old agreement - but as that has been cacelled and replaced can i still go after them for it?

 

Also is there anything i should have been entitled to on the cancelation of the old agreement - apart from the straight swap of payments from one to the other?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dadofolly if you weren't in arrears YOU should have been paid the refund direct. It should not have been used to reduce the overall debt unless you agreed.

 

As the evidence of hidden commissions was concealed & not admitted by Welcome during the PPI negotiations you can bring a new claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

goto the homepage

 

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

dadofolly if you weren't in arrears YOU should have been paid the refund direct. It should not have been used to reduce the overall debt unless you agreed.

 

As the evidence of hidden commissions was concealed & not admitted by Welcome during the PPI negotiations you can bring a new claim

 

Thanks for that - very interesting - I have already done an SAR for these accounts but no commission paper work included - may re-issue and be more specific as to what i want from them.

 

Am realy annoyed that they should have paid the mony direct to me and not use it for a re-write. I did not agree to it as such as no alternative was ever offered - and i was not aware of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS they had already despite her protestation obtained a charging order

 

She could'nt believe what was happening & just knew it must be a mistake & like many assumed it would sort itself out after all she'd never been in trouble or debt before so expected the courts would never allow it would they all she had to do was tell the court.

 

She didn't realize its impossible to prove a negative particularly in todays property biased county courts. I mean if a firm like Welcome says you owe them money it must be true mustn't it:mad:

 

I agree that they have not been honourable, PM me details of cases where they have taken possession of a home, I can not go into depth on here but I am correct, I can happily provide you with proof but not on the forum otherwise I won't be able to continue doing work on here.

 

The article states that the prior charge is reposessing not Welcome, Welcome refused to let a privately agreed sale go through due to them insisting that their Unilateral notice is paid off from the proceeds (They said they had a £40k balance and £20k was left from the house sale after all known charges were to be settled).

 

Because Welcome refused to allow the sale to occur, the client was unable to pay her prior charges and the first mortgage reposessed the house, Welcome could arguabley be held responsible for this by refusing the sale but they did not instigate the repossession, another company did, they let it happen in the knowledge that they would get the surplus repossession proceeds on their falsley held Unilateral notice.

 

This type of thing happened a lot, in fact sales of houses where a lot of the time referred to a special department who rather clinically worked out whether or not they would be better to hold out for a prior charge repossessing or allowing the client to sell their home - like I said before not necessarily fair but when were Welcome ever deemed to be fair?!

 

Remember too this article whilst enlightening is also heavy on bias, whilst I don't doubt that the lady in question has acted honourabley, it goes to show that if you ignore court issued paperwork without fightining it when you have a right to fight you can be put in a worse position.

 

Think about this logically, if Welcome were to repossess a property and were 2nd, 3rd 4th etc in line, they immediately would have to pay off the prior charges, add in £5-£10k in legal costs etc and if they were owed say in the article £40k, the house is only making a £20k profit on prior debts being settled, less the say £5k costs, Welcome would get £15k back on a £40k loan but not guaranteed, if the house sells for less Welcome get less, all others get everything from Welcome so Welcome could repossess a house and get nothing back but shell out hundreds of thousands for the priveledge, they may be stupid but they ain't that stupid!

 

I need to reiterate that you cannot enforce repossession with a Unilateral Notice - Land registry can confirm this, CAB can confirm this, Direct Gov can confirm this too!

 

Jonchris, PM me if you want to discuss this further 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone with an intimate knowledge of the case I can say they only contacted her after obtaining the order. Also she didn't not do anything she contacted them repeatedly telling them she knew nothing of them or their debt & they refuse to accept it I understand she even went to CAB who in turn were ignored & they plowed on regardless. Also they knew that unless she paid the other lender she would be evicted so they were as much a party to it as the other. It took legal intervention to stop them

Link to post
Share on other sites

1pixel_spacer.gif

 

1pixel_spacer.gif

1pixel_spacer.gif

1pixel_spacer.gif

1pixel_spacer.gif

1pixel_spacer.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Published Date: 29 June 2010

 

ANGRY investors in troubled sub-prime lender Cattles today failed in their attempt to force key directors to resign.

Led by rebel shareholder Barry Dearing, the investors demanded justice after an accounting scandal at the Batley-based lender wiped out the value of their shares.

 

The shareholders called for the resignation of executive chairman Margaret Young, as well as non-executive directors David Haxby, Frank Dee and Alan McWalter at the firm's annual general meeting in the Queen's Hotel, Leeds.

 

They claimed non-executive directors let accounting errors go unnoticed.

 

Cattles urged shareholders to vote against the special resolutions, insisting they were not in the interest of the company or its stakeholders.

 

The resolutions were defeated by 60 per cent of investors.

 

Shareholders also voiced their anger that they are unlikely to get more than 1p per share from a possible scheme of arrangement which will see creditors take control of the company paying shareholders a total of £5.25m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that - very interesting - I have already done an SAR for these accounts but no commission paper work included - may re-issue and be more specific as to what i want from them.

 

Am realy annoyed that they should have paid the mony direct to me and not use it for a re-write. I did not agree to it as such as no alternative was ever offered - and i was not aware of this.

 

DOH - You have what you need - you sent it to me remember....and if you can pick up the insinuation I am now Welcome free :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4524 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...