Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.

[beyondhope]

hi voda cca request is £1....

 

looks ok to me

[Voda]

Hiya,

 

That's what I thought about the fee.

 

Must have been a misprint.

 

Glad you think it's OK as I don't want to miss anything and let them "Off the Hook " ...

 

Take care

 

Voda

 

hi voda cca request is £1....

 

looks ok to me

[beyondhope]

Yep CCA £1 gets u statement and copy of agreement....sar £10 gets you all they have on you which is what you are after never let them off the hook best of luck x

 

Hiya,

 

That's what I thought about the fee.

 

Must have been a misprint.

 

Glad you think it's OK as I don't want to miss anything and let them "Off the Hook " ...

 

Take care

 

Voda

[Voda]

Aha, thank you hun.

 

Then £10 it is ...

 

Nighty nite

 

Voda

 

xx

 

Yep CCA £1 gets u statement and copy of agreement....sar £10 gets you all they have on you which is what you are after never let them off the hook best of luck x

[edwi69]

DONT KNOW IF THIS MEANS MUCH BUT JUST SPOTTED IT

 

United Kingdom

July 7 2010

 

On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal in Cattles Plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd & Ors [2010] CA (Civ Div), upheld the previous ruling in this case. Although the case is also of interest in relation to the application of the English common law equitable rule derived from Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 My & Cr 442 case (regarding the right of quasi retainer), this article will focus on the court's contractual interpretation of the non competition clause itself.

The case concerned a claim brought by Cattles Plc ("Cattles") in order to determine various issues relating to debts it owed to different classes of creditors as part of consideration during a standstill period of its options to avoid insolvent liquidation. Cattles' principal assets were the amounts receivable by it from its trading subsidiaries, of which the largest amount was payable by Welcome Financial Services Ltd ("Welcome").

Cattles' financing liabilities included a number of credit facilities between Cattles as borrower and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the Bank") as lender. The Bank had the benefit of a group-cross guarantee by which Cattles, Welcome and other subsidiaries had each guaranteed the payment of all obligations owed by the others to the Bank. Cattles had also issued bonds which were not guaranteed.

The Bank's argument was that the terms of its facilities and cross-guarantee meant that Cattles was prevented from recovering its intercompany debts from Welcome and other group companies until each had satisfied their obligations under the guarantee in full. If this were the case this would mean that the assets available to the bondholders would be substantially depleted.

The case therefore centred on the terms of the relevant non competition clause (in particular Clause 6.2) of the guarantee which provided that:

"6. Until all claims of the Bank in respect of all of the Obligations of each Debtor have been discharged in full:

6.1 no Guarantor shall be entitled to participate in any security held by the Bank or money received by the Bank in respect of any Debtor's Obligations;

6.2 no Guarantor shall in competition with or in priority to the Bank make any claim against any Debtor or any co-guarantor or their respective estates nor make any claim in the insolvency of any Debtor or any coguarantor nor take or enforce any security from or against any Debtor or any co-guarantor; and

6.3 any payment received by a Guarantor in breach of clause 6.2 and any security taken by a Guarantor from any Debtor or any co-guarantor shall be held in trust for the Bank as security for the liability of the Guarantors to the Bank under this deed.”

As this was a cross guarantee, the terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" each included all group companies involved in the financing.

Cattles had submitted that this drafting terminology led to the conclusion that Clause 6.2 restricted only the making of any claim which a guarantor had arising out of its capacity as guarantor (such as a claim for counter-indemnity by the principal debtor or contribution from a coguarantor). The Bank had argued that this clause operated as a contractual prohibition on the claiming of any intercompany debt due between the companies party to it until all the guaranteed obligations to the Bank had been paid.

In upholding the original decision (supporting the Bank's position) the reasoning of the Court included the following which is worthy of note:

1. the purpose of such a clause is to preserve the Bank's claims and to prevent same from being diluted in event of the insolvency of one or more of those liable to it and it would not be "commercially rational" or "objective" to limit the ambit of the restrictions in Clause to claims by the relevant party as guarantor;
   
2. use of the defined terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" did not mean that only the relevant person's claims in such capacity were restricted by this Clause and did not serve to limit the operation of the words "any claim" and "in competition with or in priority to the Bank" in Clause 6.2;
   
3. the use of the words "any claim" in this context should be interpreted to mean any claim which the relevant party had and not just those in its capacity as a guarantor;
   
4. that the words "in competition with" did not mean competition only between creditors and guarantors in respect of the same debt but also encapsulated competition between competing creditors for different debts owed by a common debtor; and
   
5. that the phrase "under this deed" had been used elsewhere in the guarantee but not in the relevant clause and as such a clear intention of the parties could be inferred that claims should not be limited in such a way.
   

This case shows that the Court is willing to look at the purpose of the relevant clause in reaching a decision but that the specific drafting used will also play a big part in the determination of a particular issue such as this. On that basis, borrowers, guarantors and lenders will require to be well advised as to the exact wording used in such clauses, and in guarantees generally, in order to achieve the desired outcome.

While the above case relates to English law guarantees, it is likely that such a decision of the Court of Appeal, while not binding, would be considered persuasive in Scotland and that Scottish courts would consider this case in deciding similar issues.

 

 

 

 

[steven4064]

It means Cattles are in a bigger hole than they thought

[edwi69]

Thats Fantastic News:grin:

[Voda]

Evening Caggers,

 

Just a thought regarding my SAR which I will post to WF early next week.

 

By asking for the Underwriting Sheets ( to find out about undisclosed commissions ) can't they conveniently lose the damning evidence :idea:

 

Voda

 

Hi everyone,

 

I have copied the SAR template that Postggj kindly posted on this thread and have now adapted it to my case.

 

I thought that an SAR only costs £1.00 not £10.00

 

I am going to send the SAR myself rather than a lawyer ( who I am finding hard to find ).

 

Here it is what do you think?

 

 

 

 

WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICE

COMPLIANCE

RUDDINGTON FIELD BUSINESS PARK

RUDDINGTON

NOTTINGHAM

NG11 6NZ

 

 

 

 

[My address]

 

 

 

[their address]

 

 

[DATE]

 

 

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Subject access request

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx (or multiple numbers if more than one account)

 

 

Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time.

 

Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire period of my dealings with you.

 

The Subject Access is not limited to my transaction history and it is not limited merely to 6 years of historical information.

 

Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my financial business with you.

 

I require all information on details of all insurance products supplied by Welcome Financial Services. This is to include the statement of means, statement of price, details of all insurance premium tax paid, and underwriting sheets.

 

If mortage indemnity insurance has been added to the agreement, i require all details on who this premium was paid to, and who underwrites this insurance. (This is irrelevant and I will not include in my letter )

 

If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response.

 

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties or charges which are invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations against me, then I shall be reclaiming them together with any interest charges which you have levied on them.

 

As it is your wrongdoing and mishandling of my account which has created the necessity for this Subject Access Request, I shall also be reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee. ( I have highlighted this as I personally don't think that I should write this as it's inflammatory and at this stage I am not accusing them )

 

To sum up, apart from all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time, I require:

 

1) Readable copies of my two loan agreements

 

2) Copies of the Underwriting Sheet relating to my first loan agreement ( account no: xxxxxxxxxx )

 

3) Copies of all statements for both loans

 

4) Copies of all phone call notes

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable.

 

I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Voda

[steven4064]

By asking for the Underwriting Sheets ( to find out about undisclosed commissions ) can't they conveniently lose the damning evidence

Don't suggest it

[Voda]

Maybe I am being naieve, but surely they will smell a rat as I cannot be the first to ask ....

 

Don't suggest it

[steven4064]

I asked, got nowhere, so got the court to make them.

[beyondhope]

I asked and their response was basically

 

we dont have to give them to you! didnt even lie and say they didnt exist!

[dedogs******]

beyondhope I think I may have one its barely legible but you can see where they say add gardx to cash price( see gardx thread) as it came in sars writing to them for a legible copy not holding my brath tho

[steven4064]

I can tell you definitively that what they charge you is far in excess of what they pay Norwich Union (or whoever) - in one case I have seen, they charged the customer 4 times what they paid.

[IainHL]

It means Cattles are in a bigger hole than they thought

Trying to get my head round this, my take is that it means the bond holders are unlikely to petition to wind Cattles up, since the ruling says the bank(s) have first call on any monies available.

 

Would this interpretation be correct? If so it means, as postggj has said, that RBS are the ones pulling the strings now.

[Voda]

Hi Steven,

 

That's very interesting, thank you.

 

Looks like I am in for a battle then.....

 

Can't wait ....

 

Because of my financial status, I can get Legal Aid.

 

Is there a list of red hot solicitors that know about Welcome Finance's shannigans that is available to Caggers and if not, is there anyone else out there who knows of one. I live in Surrey by the way.

 

I know Steven that you cannot enter into PM's but other members, please pm me if you wish.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Voda

 

 

 

I asked, got nowhere, so got the court to make them.

[steven4064]

I don't mind PMs - it's just safer to give advice on the open forum where it can be checked/reviewed/added to by others

[BEBOBEBO]

Trying to get my head round this, my take is that it means the bond holders are unlikely to petition to wind Cattles up, since the ruling says the bank(s) have first call on any monies available.

 

Would this interpretation be correct? If so it means, as postggj has said, that RBS are the ones pulling the strings now.

 

I'm also trying to work the advantages/disadvantages of this if any, can anyone shed any light ?

[Voda]

Thanks Steven,

 

Will pm if required.

 

Have a nice day ...

 

Voda

 

I don't mind PMs - it's just safer to give advice on the open forum where it can be checked/reviewed/added to by others

[Voda]

Hi Guys,

 

Just an update.

 

My phone number has been changed and I am still ex-directory.

 

So no more harassment calls....

 

Just received a FINAL NOTICE BEFORE ACTION letter from Rockwell regarding my time expired debt ....

 

The usual crap in it saying a Judgement Order may be obtained and if this remains unsatisfied, enforcement of your debt may be sought by one or more of the following.

 

1)WARRANT OF EXECUTION BY BALIFFS AGAINST THE GOODS YOU OWN

 

2)ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDER

 

3)CHARGING ORDER ON ANY PROPERTY YOU MAY OWN

 

It really is high time that legislation was brought in to outlaw these slimeball firms who use methods that a back street loan shark uses.

 

Personally I think that Banks etc should not be allowed to sell on debts to 3rd Parties.

 

They took the risk lending the money and they should alone take the risk of the debt going bad.

 

This country in many ways still has bad laws regarding financial matters.

 

G' rrrrrrrrrrr

 

Voda

 

PS. Of course Rockwell know that the debt is time expired and can do nowt about it ......

 

PPS. Oh yes in the letter there was the usual threat of payment by the end of July to prevent legal action otherwise they will take immediate action against me.

 

 

 

 

Time for a rant, I feel, bit off topic but I am sure you will understand.

 

Over the last two week's I have received letters from Allied International Credit(UK)Ltd and Rockwell Debt Collection Agency relating to debts that are "Time Expired".

 

Of course, I ignore them (and in the past they go away and give up ) but then I get a phone call from Rockwell and put the phone down once they told me who they were.

 

I have now instructed my Phone Company to change my number.

 

It's time that Government legislated against these parasitic companies from contacting people after the debt is no longer valid.

 

The type of individuals who run and work for these firms should get proper jobs and not harrass individuals who have hit hard times.

 

So Debt Collection Agencies are at the top of my list of most hated organisations and people.

 

Have a great days folks and thank heavens for this forum ....

 

Voda

 

A debt would become expired after 6 years under the Limitation Act 1980.

 

The Limitations Act 1980 outlines the time limit within which a creditor can chase a debtor for outstanding debts. The Limitations Act 1980 only applies when no contact has been made between the creditor and debtor within the given time limit and only applies to residents of England and Wales.

 

Creditors are given a fixed period of time to chase their debtors, which is outlined in the Limitations Act 1980. The time scale mainly depends on the type of debt and can be extended at the courts discretion. The time limit begins when you last admitted owing the money or made a payment.

 

Should the creditor fail to maintain contact with the debtor, for a period of 6 years or more, it is possible to claim that the outstanding debt is "Statute Barred" under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980

 

Some info on Rockwell:

 

Name: Rockwell Debt Collection

Also Known As: Rockwell Southend on Sea, Rockwell Debt Dollectors, Rockwell Debt Agency Ltd.

Address: PO Box 66, Southend on Sea, SS1 2GX

Telephone: 0870 6060807 (but you shouldn't phone them)

Fax: Not known

Email: Not known

Extra Data: Apparently they are part of Tessera (q.v.)

 

Rockwell and the Truth About Your Debt

 

Rockwell Debt Collectors Limited is a debt collecting agency that has bought the debt from the original lender (or in some cases another debt collecting agency) for a small percentage of the original value of the account and is brazenly attempting to get the full sum of the original from you.

Rockwell Debt Collectors Ltd will use all sorts of nasty methods to extort money out of you in order to profit from you. You may already have experienced bad and terrifying experiences of them. They may phone you at strange times when they know it is inconvenient for you and on an unacceptably numerous number of occasions. They may send you official-appearing sternly drafted letters or cards threatening to send people round and collect the money in full or that they will take you to court for the full amount. Other strategies may include saying that they will make a charging order on your home or in some way bring about your homelessness or destitution.

So ask Rockwell for a copy of the original contract when you took out your loan or credit card.

Even better, start an unenforceable credit agreement application enquiry. It costs nothing to do this and you are protected by the consumer credit laws.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Voda

[traz39]

i had a recorded message yesterday saying your direct debit is due out your account in the next couple of days can u please make sure you have sufficent funds in your account i wouldnt mind but i have never missed payment

[teegee]

First post, sorry it's a long one but any advice would be welcomed. I came across the problem below whilst trying to tidy up my credit file.

 

I bought a car from an independant dealer and financed by Welcome Finance in October 2001 on a 3 year term. In September 2004 they say they registered a default, however this shows as being registered in Dec 2004 and settled in January 2005. In early 2005 they take me to court and as I understood it were awarded a decree in absence. (I'm in Scotland).

I mis-read the only paperwork that I have in relation to this as an application to have the decree recalled, however it was an application for recall of decree of dismissal. (This was thrown out by the court)

In September 2005 without my knowledge (the papers were served through the letterbox of a house I wasn't staying at during this period) they are awarded a decree in absence.

They say I finally called at the local office and settled the account on November 15th 2005.

They have sent me a piece of paper saying that I paid a settlement figure which appears to have been signed by me.

However I remember refusing the settlement figure offer as I wanted to be sure that there were no blemishes on my credit file. (the manager agreed to this) However in the letter I have received they say "You were notified that a ccj had been lodged on to your credit file in Sep 2005 whilst you were away on holiday despite making the full and final settlement to your account"

The figure I remember and the figure they are claiming I paid are £500 apart. (I don't think they would have accepted a lesser figure given that they had the decree).

 

They have removed the default but say they are powerless to help with the judgement as they say I paid outside the 30 days and they wont give me a letter saying it was obtained in error. The court say I'm out of time to have it recalled.

The dates they are quoting and the amount they say I paid don't seem right. What can I do? (I don't have any paperwork on the basis of the assurance he gave me and the office is now closed.)

[beyondhope]

First post, sorry it's a long one but any advice would be welcomed. I came across the problem below whilst trying to tidy up my credit file.

 

I bought a car from an independant dealer and financed by Welcome Finance in October 2001 on a 3 year term. In September 2004 they say they registered a default, however this shows as being registered in Dec 2004 and settled in January 2005. In early 2005 they take me to court and as I understood it were awarded a decree in absence. (I'm in Scotland).

I mis-read the only paperwork that I have in relation to this as an application to have the decree recalled, however it was an application for recall of decree of dismissal. (This was thrown out by the court)

In September 2005 without my knowledge (the papers were served through the letterbox of a house I wasn't staying at during this period) they are awarded a decree in absence.

They say I finally called at the local office and settled the account on November 15th 2005.

They have sent me a piece of paper saying that I paid a settlement figure which appears to have been signed by me.

However I remember refusing the settlement figure offer as I wanted to be sure that there were no blemishes on my credit file. (the manager agreed to this) However in the letter I have received they say "You were notified that a ccj had been lodged on to your credit file in Sep 2005 whilst you were away on holiday despite making the full and final settlement to your account"

The figure I remember and the figure they are claiming I paid are £500 apart. (I don't think they would have accepted a lesser figure given that they had the decree).

 

They have removed the default but say they are powerless to help with the judgement as they say I paid outside the 30 days and they wont give me a letter saying it was obtained in error. The court say I'm out of time to have it recalled.

The dates they are quoting and the amount they say I paid don't seem right. What can I do? (I don't have any paperwork on the basis of the assurance he gave me and the office is now closed.)

 

 

Hi teegee im not knowledgable enough on the ins and outs of scottish law to be able to provide advice but you may get more help if you were to post here

[Finito]

This is my first message on the consumer forum thread and my major concern here is not only that people are signing things without checking the small print, but quite simply there is no avenue to realistically go down for many except to agree to the terms....

 

I understood it all and simply had no choice! i.e. with some defaults I had nowhere else to turn and had to relocate for work so borrowed £1000 to help me move up country. I cringed at the fact the original loan would be paid off within 6 months yet I would be paying for 24, of which the last payment was last month ().

 

I was also told that I would have to take out PPI or not receive the loan, in fact I was encouraged to take it out against my will and send in the cancellation docs within the statutory 14 day cooling off period. Of course that just turned out to be downright impossible! Has anybody tried contacting these people once they have taken a loan...it's not just a challenge, it's near on impossible....

 

Even though my last payment has just been paid I am almost expecting something to go wrong before I am finally rid of them completely. I have received not a shred of paperwork to say the loan has finished and am now in a situation where my car is held together with masking tape (legally I might add!) and will probably have bits falling off it if I don't get it changed soon..... Will I go back to Welcome Finance? It has to be said, if one agrees to their outrageous terms and actually sticks to them, it can be a seemless process albeit an extremely painful experience....but the answer for sure is.....NOT ON YOUR NELLY!

 

That said my situation is such that I still can't get a loan from mainstream sources even having paid these outrageous fees without a single default.....so exactly where does somebody in this situation go to get a fair deal??

[steven4064]

Hi Finito

 

Welcome to CAG

 

I have put some coments on your post in red below

This is my first message on the consumer forum thread and my major concern here is not only that people are signing things without checking the small print, but quite simply there is no avenue to realistically go down for many except to agree to the terms.... that is the reason for the unfair terms legislation

 

I understood it all and simply had no choice! i.e. with some defaults I had nowhere else to turn and had to relocate for work so borrowed £1000 to help me move up country. I cringed at the fact the original loan would be paid off within 6 months yet I would be paying for 24, of which the last payment was last month ().

 

I was also told that I would have to take out PPI or not receive the loan, in fact I was encouraged to take it out against my will and send in the cancellation docs within the statutory 14 day cooling off period. Of course that just turned out to be downright impossible! Has anybody tried contacting these people once they have taken a loan...it's not just a challenge, it's near on impossible.... this constitutes mis-selling. You could claim back all the premiums and interest on the premiums on this basis (provided of course you haven't made a claim on the PPI)

 

Even though my last payment has just been paid I am almost expecting something to go wrong before I am finally rid of them completely. I have received not a shred of paperwork to say the loan has finished and am now in a situation where my car is held together with masking tape (legally I might add!) and will probably have bits falling off it if I don't get it changed soon..... Will I go back to Welcome Finance? It has to be said, if one agrees to their outrageous terms and actually sticks to them, it can be a seemless process albeit an extremely painful experience....but the answer for sure is.....NOT ON YOUR NELLY! I sympathise with that view. in fact you couldn't anyway as they have effectively gone out of business - couldn't happen to a nicer bunch

 

That said my situation is such that I still can't get a loan from mainstream sources even having paid these outrageous fees without a single default.....so exactly where does somebody in this situation go to get a fair deal?? Sorry, can't answer that. I can tell you where not to go, though