Jump to content



Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3358 days.

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

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

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I wouldn't worry too much I would expect some news tomorrow. Just thinl of all the welcome staff who are wondering what tomorrow will bring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I just point out that whoever takes on the book debt, as someone will, MUST also accept the liabilities. A simple fact that makes me think that anyone who does take it on must either be completely unaware of what the books represent in the way of mis-sold PPI & unenforceable agreements....or are completely stark raving bonkers

 

 

Is this a legal rule based on fact or just an assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I just point out that whoever takes on the book debt, as someone will, MUST also accept the liabilities. A simple fact that makes me think that anyone who does take it on must either be completely unaware of what the books represent in the way of mis-sold PPI & unenforceable agreements....or are completely stark raving bonkers

 

I believe this would probably have to be argued, an agreement can be sold with the benefit and without the burden.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This comes from a defence made by welcome on a claim from an agreement which was purchased by welcome

 

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] 3 WLR 408 states that a party may assign (that is, transfer) the benefit of the contract, but not the burden. The original parties remain liable for their obligations under the contract.

 

I am just thinking that if all these agreements get sold on then the new owner could potentially use this arguement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this would probably have to be argued, an agreement can be sold with the benefit and without the burden.:mad:

 

Are you sure, that doesn't sound very legal to me, for a start is morally repugnant and the courts would surly realise this...

 

How can you sell a debt that has an existing liability without honoring the liability...The consequencies in financial terms would be massive because every FRAUDLENT (innovative, creative) company would know that they could act recklessly and escape culpability

 

If what you say is fact LMH then the law is surly distorted:confused: and tilted in favour of the rich man...

 

Oh of course how silly of me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure, that doesn't sound very legal to me, for a start is morally repugnant and the courts would surly realise this...

 

How can you sell a debt that has an existing liability without honoring the liability...The consequencies in financial terms would be massive because every FRAUDLENT (innovative, creative) company would know that they could act recklessly and escape culpability

 

If what you say is fact LMH then the law is surly distorted:confused: and tilted in favour of the rich man...

 

Oh of course how silly of me...

 

Like I said, it would have to be argued. Good start here :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find some case law on the benefit without liability issue but...

 

I believe if an agreement is bought in good faith with due dilligence then the argument is sound. However, in this case due dilligence would fail on the basis of the clear unenforceability of so many of the contracts, together with the mis-selling issues already raised. Additionally, if Welcome were unable (or unwilling) to pass on the true executed agreement then a court would be unable to allow enforecement.

 

Just my opinion - I'll dig some more.

 

Otherwise Welcome would have mitigated the claims by selling the agreements to a mate... oh, hang on, they did didn't they?

Edited by T2upNorth
adding detail
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone let me know, do Welscum have the right to apply for default charges/leters sent whilst I am waiting for my SAR if it ever arrives? (whichI send Mid May and they have acknowledged)

 

Also Welscum local office have written to say they have cancelled HP agreement and are going to reposses the car, or take court action.

 

I am trying to reclaim my missold PPI, but they AIN'T listening!!:mad::mad::mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to find some case law on the benefit without liability issue but...

 

I believe if an agreement is bought in good faith with due dilligence then the argument is sound. However, in this case due dilligence would fail on the basis of the clear unenforceability of so many of the contracts, together with the mis-selling issues already raised. Additionally, if Welcome were unable (or unwilling) to pass on the true executed agreement then a court would be unable to allow enforecement.

 

Just my opinion - I'll dig some more.

 

Otherwise Welcome would have mitigated the claims by selling the agreements to a mate... oh, hang on, they did didn't they?

 

 

This seems logical and i would wager under case law would be the accpeted position but this only places the buyer of the agreement (WELCUMS EVIL PALS) with a defence to an equitable right, or remedy from a policy holder if bought in good faith.

 

Would this equitable right be to the detriment of the policy holer (me and you) i do not think so. Why should one equitable right destroy another especially when there is a clear and just argument that the policy holder should also have a right to action...

 

But then who would the policy holder bring an action against...

Edited by welcome finance warrior
Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems logical and i would wager under case law would be the accpeted position but this only places the buyer of the agreement with an equitable right, or remedy...

 

Would this equitable right be to the detriment of the policy holer (me and you) i do not think so. Why should one equitable right destroy another especially when there is a clear and just argument that me and you should also have a right to action...

 

But then who would the policy holder bring an action against...

 

 

Yes, I believe you are right. When a business purchases an agreement it purchases it in whole - it can't selectively choose which elements to take on and which to discard. It certainly can't change the fundamentals of the agreement which are guaranteed by law - ie CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems logical and i would wager under case law would be the accpeted position but this only places the buyer of the agreement with an equitable right, or remedy...

 

Would this equitable right be to the detriment of the policy holer (me and you) i do not think so. Why should one equitable right destroy another especially when there is a clear and just argument that me and you should also have a right to action...

 

But then who would the policy holder bring an action against...

 

I am not saying it is right, I came up against this argument and used all the moral arguments I could think of to dismiss it.

 

I also used the CCA

 

Under sec 189 of the CCA 1974

 

Creditor “means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law.

 

For your reference “operation of law” is a Legal Term that indicates that a right or liability has been created for a party, irrespective of the intent of that party, because it is dictated by existing legal principles.

 

Unfortunately I withdrew my claim as I couldn't handle all the pressure of cost etc. (it was allocated to the fast track)

 

but.........

 

you could say I won in a way as Welcome wrote off the remaining balance and removed the default on my credit file. I am still gutted I didn't see it all the way to the end.:mad:

 

I just want people to be aware of what they may come up against. If i knew then what I know now who know what may have happened:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This comes from a defence made by welcome on a claim from an agreement which was purchased by welcome

 

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] 3 WLR 408 states that a party may assign (that is, transfer) the benefit of the contract, but not the burden. The original parties remain liable for their obligations under the contract.

 

I am just thinking that if all these agreements get sold on then the new owner could potentially use this arguement.

 

Just wanted to repost this in case anyone missed it and it may help.............or not:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wanted to repost this in case anyone missed it and it may help.............or not:-)

 

Oh O.K that clarifies things alittle now we have some context...

 

This is probably the begining of the law or legal principle established in some case presented at a later stage than this.

 

For example i would wager (before reading the case) that this was an argument based on buyer arguning that they didnt want to pay becasue the new owner of the contract was not an original party to the contract...clearly everyone could see that this would be a false dictum since there may be many reasonable circumstances when an ENFORCEABLE agreement can bre passed over and is therefore law...

 

I think you will find that all sorts of complcated mechanism kick in upon allegations of uneforceability...

 

But it still leaves us with the original question...

 

Like POST SAID in an issue seperate to this...i think we would persue the people who had equity in the sale of the agreement e.g RBS

Link to post
Share on other sites
what happened LMH...

 

In court?

 

I only went once for allocation hearing, after it got automatically placed in the fast track I argued it should be in small claims but it was a no go. I then received a load of directions which I had no idea what to do with. I had already decided to withdraw my claim if it went fast track.

 

The problem with my claim was I made it too complicated. If I was doing it all over again I would change alot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could someone let me know, do Welscum have the right to apply for default charges/leters sent whilst I am waiting for my SAR if it ever arrives? (whichI send Mid May and they have acknowledged)

 

Also Welscum local office have written to say they have cancelled HP agreement and are going to reposses the car, or take court action.

 

I am trying to reclaim my missold PPI, but they AIN'T listening!!:mad::mad::mad:

 

 

ANYONE with any help on this question please??:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANYONE with any help on this question please??:confused:

 

lol since no one else is talking...

 

i'm no expert, others could advise you better...but i do know this.

 

If you haven't decided to stop paying the agreement completely now, then you bloody well should.

 

Send them in a letter saying that you are putting the account into dispute. this will automatically mean that the account freezes until they provide you with the information. also make a complaint to the FOS in writing telling them that you have put the account into dispute due to non compliance...

 

You can find an excellent template on hear that will do the job...

 

Yoour questions:

 

Will this shut them up?

 

No, they will just ignore you and keep sending the letters but can't enforce the agreement without a court order which they wont do because otherwise they will have to realease information on the SAr and they know this. So this begs the question why not realese the SAR in the first place...something to hide i'll wager. You are in a strong position dont roll over.

 

Anyone else please feel free to add what i have missed...

Edited by welcome finance warrior
Link to post
Share on other sites
lol since no one else is talking...

 

i'm no expert, other could advise you better...but i do know this.

 

If you haven't decided to stop paying the agreement completely now, then you bloody well should.

 

Send them in a letter saying that you are putting the account into dispute. this will automatically mean that the account freezes until they provide you with the information. also make a complaint to the FOS in writing telling them that you have put the account into dispute...

 

You can find an excellent remplate on hear that will do the job...

 

Yoour questions:

 

Will this shut them up?

 

No, they will just ignore you and keep sending the letters but can't enforce the agreement without a court order....

 

Anyone else please feel free to add what i have missed...

Spot on mate, i followed the same procedure with my Welscum account....but to no avail no questions answered and low n behold i was totally ignored !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3358 days.

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

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

Thank you

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...