Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.

[jdene]

this is the thread post its from my business that went through last January

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/239434-lloyds-business-overdraft-ccj.html

 

Thanks Ozzy only just got the hang of posting lol

 

all a little quiet, calm before the storm maybee?

[GhostDebt]

Is alright, had a DN off welcome now...

[mashmallow]

Me too, I have just written a letter asking for my original credit agreement and see what they come up with. Lets all join the club. Getting brave are they not.

 

Mashmallow

[littlemel]

Got a phone call today from Welcome saying that as I only have 11 more repayments to make, if I cleared the balance today, they would knock 10% off. I told her it wasn't worth it (I only owe about £1,100 now), so she then asked if I wanted to pay off more money each month to clear the balance sooner. She seemed quite desparate to get me to pay more than I currently do (about £100 a month).

Edited January 12, 2010 by littlemel
typo

[Voda]

They are getting desperate for cash now

[postggj]

been helping out a cagger who has just had his car repo by welcome

 

my opinion is that they are doing this, take the car direct to auction and sell for whatever

 

rbs must be starting to get nasty with cattles

 

be on your guard people

 

things are prob going to start to get dirty

 

i can see welcome closing up for good any time now

[edwi69]

Hi All

Can Anyone Tell Me How To Calculate My Ppi Refund.

Ppi Amount 1330

Ppi Term 60 Months

I Am 36 Months Into It

Just Need To Get My Figurwes Right So I Dont Get Shafted

Regards

[fat_controller]

I got a phone call today asking if I wanted to up my payments to pay it off faster, or get a discount if I cleared the loan all together - 20% off without too much pushing.

 

Worth hanging out to see if that discount rises any?

[edwi69]

7 guests today

must be getting desperate now

[fergal71]

there seems to be alot more guests than caggers.... I think cag should do something about guests and make it private club.... 1305 yesterday as guests with just 235 caggers

[Pitsy]

I've been sat on the side for quite a while reading with great interest the dealings of Welcome and how they conduct their disgusting business.

 

Welcome really are the slimey toe-rag outfit that everyone is reporting, I'am customer too and have never in my life dealt with such a shoddy incompetent company, they deserve what is coming to them and the sooner the better, I've no sympathy over any job losses cos these jokers have been leading 1000's of people a merry dance for far too long and now the boot is on the other foot!

 

My car loan was due to be clear at the end of Sept this year following a 48 month hpi agreement, unfortunately through a reduction in hours at work I now find myself 3 months behind on payments and them adding default sum interest, though I've been paying half each month to keep the wolf from the door!

One of the jokers at the Bistall HO is trying to persuade me to let the account go into 4 months arrears where he says I would then qualify for a a 25% settlement discount on the balance should I want to P/X the car (ie early settlement figure), seems they are seriously strapped for cash and pulling all sorts of strings to get cash into the bank sooner rather than later, even if it means silly discounts, though no doubt its more evidence of Welcome's dodgy dealing but this time to halt its demise!

 

The guy seems very keen for me to do this (uncomfortably so), but I dont like the idea of my credit file showing a further bump on payments if i go ahead.

Insurance policies on the agreement arre not a problem as I refused to take any on any of their stich up agreements at the point of signing up.

 

Anyway things are now looking up with work and now back to my normal hours of work, and once again able to afford full payments, I'm seriously looking to swop the car for a newer model if only to get out of Welcome's grip, should I take the Welcome offer, or maybe hang fire for Welcome going belly up?

The thing that concerns me is may be better the devil you know than the devil that take's on the WCF car debt book, who might come looking for the 3 months arrears or repo the car if I don't stump up?

 

Cant wait to be shot of this company!

[emandcole]

Hi Pitsy,

Welcome to Welcome . Yeah I know.

 

Personally unless my car was dangerous and/or falling apart I'd sit tight and wait for them to sink, they're pretty much at the 'Dammit, we've not got enough life rafts stage' at the moment and the desperation is kicking in.

 

As for them advising you to miss 4 payments just to qualify for a discount that just shows why they deserve to go under. Sit tight, look after your credit file and see what happens, after all if your credit file is tainted just as you're back on your feet you'll only end up getting a worse deal or no loan at all when you do want to change the car.

[Pitsy]

Thanks for the advice, I'm just surprised Welcome have gotten away with it for so long!

[confusedbywcf]

hi

im 25 months into an 84 month contract after rewriting 2 years ago my car loan im approx 2 months in arrears due to a drop in hours these arent concurrent a case of 1 month last march and again in october, anyway the odious creep at gillingham knows i go in in person to pay cash at the end of the month as i dont trust them with my card details so why does he call me constantly asking when im going to pay and insisting on my card details not that ive given them to him and then to add insult to injury ive found on my statement he is charging me for these calls so instead on 302 in arrears im actually almost 600 in arrears

[Pitsy]

Seems Welcome know ever trick in the book to rake in cash, though as each day goes by their days are certainly numbered!

[emandcole]

Pitsy...Do you have your own thread for this yet? If not perhaps a good idea to start one and you can then link it to this thread in case anyone wants to divert to yours to learn or to offer some info.

 

Confused...you need to get on top of this right now.

 

Send a CCA request immediately to check your terms and conditions, do not sign it and post back here if you're unsure what you need to do.

 

Correct about your card details, they have no right to ask for them and it appears you have some sort of contract by conduct if you always visit the branch in person to make payment.

 

These costs appear to be pretty high so you need to know you have agreed to them beforehand before this all gets out of control. They may have reserved a right to call you in a collections capacity and charge you for it but that doesn't mean he can sit on the phone all day to you for example and rack up the costs, a level of 'reasonableness' would be expected.

 

Have you done anything about this yet?

 

Would also recommend starting your own thread

Edited January 14, 2010 by emandcole

[edwi69]

JUST A LITTLE READ IF YOU ARE BOARD

 

The construction of contracts remains difficult. The Supreme Court uses its view of the parties' commercial purpose to override words, but the Chancellor then rejects arguments based on commerciality and focuses instead on the words alone. Who is right, or have both gone too far?

Any decent guarantee provides that, until the creditor has been paid in full, the guarantor will not claim against the principal debtor in competition with the creditor. But in Mills v HSBC Trustee (CI) Ltd [2009] EWHC 3377 (Ch), the Chancellor construed a clause to this effect out of existence, dismissing an argument based on the commercial purpose of the clause as a mere "assumption" that was irrelevant to its construction. The Chancellor focussed solely on the wording in stark contrast to Re Sigma Finance Corporation [2009] UKSC 2 (see last month), which was all about commercial purpose to the exclusion of the words. The common feature of the two decisions is that they are both dubious. Senior judges were, however, shown the way forward in Cattles plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 3027 (Ch).

Mills v HSBC concerned the rule in Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 My & Cr 442. This provides that a person cannot take a share out of a fund without first bringing into account what he owes to the fund. In Mills v HSBC, the fund was the estate of an insolvent company. F issued notes to a trustee, the notes being guaranteed by an Icelandic-owned bank, KSF. F and KSF went into administration, and the trustee lodged claims against both for some £240m. F had loaned the proceeds of the notes to KSF, so F also claimed against KSF in roughly the same amount. KSF wanted to make a distribution. Prima facie, KSF was obliged to pay dividends both to the trustee and to F. Since the trustee was F's only creditor, the trustee (for the noteholders) would make a double recovery from KSF's insolvency.

The catch for F and the noteholders was that F was obliged to indemnify KSF for KSF's liability as guarantor. If the rule in Cherry v Boultbee applied, it would mean that KSF's assets would be deemed increased by the amount owed by F to KSF(again, around £240m), and any dividend due to F would be calculated on the basis of that increased asset pool. The sum actually paid to F would then be the dividend less the amount owed by F to KSF. Accordingly, F would receive nothing from KSF, and the noteholders could only make a single dip in KSF's insolvency.

The trustee argued that the rule in Cherry v Boultbee did not apply because clause 7.7 of the trust deed provided that KSF would not "(a) in respect of any amounts paid by it under the Guarantee, exercise any rights of subrogation or… any other right or remedy which may accrue to it in respect of the said payment; or (b) in respect of any other monies… due to [KSF] by [F], claim payment thereof or exercise any other right or remedy." The clause went on that if KSF did receive anything from F, it would hold it on trust for the noteholders. The parties accepted that if clause 7.7 applied, then any contingent debt owed by F to KSF could not be brought into account by KSF.

The trustee started by arguing that the commercial purpose of clause 7.7 was to ensure maximum recovery for the noteholders without competition from KSF. The Chancellor dismissed this as "an assumption" on Counsel's part. "The exclusion effected by [clause 7.7] depends on its proper construction, not on some a priori purpose." Given the dominant effect commercial purpose was recently allowed in cases such Re Sigma and Re Golden Key Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 636 – indeed, the insistence on finding a commercial purpose – this rejection of the concept is curious to say the least.

On pure construction, the trustee was in some difficulty with clause 7.7(a) because it refers to amounts "paid" by KSF, which had in fact paid nothing. The Chancellor refused to read "paid" as including "payable" and therefore said that (a) didn't apply. As far as clause 7.7(b) was concerned, the Chancellor considered that the contingent debt owed by F to KSF was not "due" to KSF for the purposes of that clause, nor was the application of the rule in Cherry v Boultbee a "right or remedy". It was something exercisable within KSF's insolvency, not a right against F's assets or remedy available to KSF as guarantor. Any intention to exclude a principle of law, like that in Cherry v Boultbee, must be clear, and the Chancellor took the opportunity to say that the wording was not sufficiently clear to satisfy him. ____________________________________________ Given the dominant effect commercial purpose was allowed in cases such Re Sigma and Re Golden Key Ltd – indeed, the insistence on finding a commercial purpose – the Chancellor's rejection of the concept is curious. ___________________________________________ The Chancellor's decision contrasts starkly with the decision of HHJ Cooke, sitting in the Chancery Division, in Cattles plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 3027 (Ch), given four days before Mills v HSBC. The issue was the same, though the clause was worded differently. It provided that a guarantor would not "in competition with… the Bank make any claim against any Debtor".

Judge Cooke was happy to accept that the purpose of the clause was to maximise the bank's recovery. Given this purpose, he thought that the rule in Cherry v Boultbee did involve a "claim" by one party against another (cf "right or remedy" in Mills v HSBC) and, further, that it prevented a claim of any sort, not just a claim arising from the guarantee itself.

The Chancellor referred to Cattles, contenting himself with commenting sullenly that different terms in different contexts may produce different results, and that, given this, the different conclusion he reached did not cause unacceptable uncertainty. But the real problem is the difference in judicial approaches. In Re Sigma, the Supreme Court took an aggressively purposive approach, ignoring the words; in Mills v HSBC, the Chancellor took an aggressively literal approach, ignoring the commercial purpose. Which is right, or can parties rely on middle way shown by the judge in Cattles?

[ozzywizard]

The plot thickens !!!!!

[Gram1]

anyone care to translate for the idiots among us?

[beyondhope]

anyone care to translate for the idiots among us?

 

 

My thoughts exactly lol

[pears23]

DITTO!!

[mark1arby]

anyone care to translate for the idiots among us?

 

You Mean you Don`t Quite Understand That???

 

Guess What My Friends!!!:confused::confused:I Don`t Think We Are Alone In That!!!

 

OZZY " The Plot Thickens " Wizard !!!

 

Could You Please Explain It To Us In English Then M8??? LOL

 

Cheers, MARK

[ozzywizard]

The Plot Thickens

 

hahaha I have not a clue, I did sit there and read every word and the only thoughts when finished was "The Plot Thickens" . . .

 

Too funny, it is a little confusing aint it !!!! . . I think you need to read it with a literal thinking . . .

[mark1arby]

hahaha I have not a clue, I did sit there and read every word and the only thoughts when finished was "The Plot Thickens" . . .

 

Too funny, it is a little confusing aint it !!!! . . I think you need to read it with a literal thinking . . .

 

Ozz, My First, Second And 27,000th Thoght Was " What "??? LOL:confused:

 

Good One Edwi!!! Do You Understand Any Of That Your Self???

 

What Is The Relevence To any Of Our Given Situations???8-)

 

Cheers, MARK

[ozzywizard]

its all about how you interpret it !!!