WELCOME FINANCE/FSCS
Discussion
Frix said:
You've got over 41 years of experience in this field but don't know that trespass, finance and repossessions are not criminal offences? Why would a police officer have knowledge of them?
What are these "criminal statutes" that were contravened then?
If trespass is premeditated with a view to committing a criminal offence it then itself becomes criminal. The intent is criminal. Wheel clamping the vehicle on private property is another criminal offence. Operating a wheel clamp without a licence is yet another.What are these "criminal statutes" that were contravened then?
Repossessing a vehicle without legal right to property is a criminal offence: it is contained in the Theft Act.
Impersonating a Court Officer, i.e. a bailiff, is a criminal offence, especially when the intent is to steal a motor vehicle. The individual involved had no court documents or papers with him; the officers at the scene knew this and let him take it. I gave the officer at the scene the actual statutes over the phone to check and he failed to do so.
This is all in the Note of Defence. Please read it properly before you make incorrect observations.
J
Miller First Line used to do their PPI many years ago.
IMHO if someone's finances are in such a state that they have to get credit from Unwelcome then maybe saving £600 for a tidy V reg Focus is a better solution for them, in fact chopping a leg off and getting a Motorbility car is preferable to using guaranteed finance.
No questions asked car credit is a tax on the stupid.
(Ex repossession agent and bailiff)
IMHO if someone's finances are in such a state that they have to get credit from Unwelcome then maybe saving £600 for a tidy V reg Focus is a better solution for them, in fact chopping a leg off and getting a Motorbility car is preferable to using guaranteed finance.
No questions asked car credit is a tax on the stupid.
(Ex repossession agent and bailiff)
mark1970 said:
Miller First Line used to do their PPI many years ago.
IMHO if someone's finances are in such a state that they have to get credit from Unwelcome then maybe saving £600 for a tidy V reg Focus is a better solution for them, in fact chopping a leg off and getting a Motorbility car is preferable to using guaranteed finance.
No questions asked car credit is a tax on the stupid.
(Ex repossession agent and bailiff)
Well my daughter has two degrees and is nobody's fool. If you read the bloody post properly, you will see that she was sold a finance agreement that was disguised as if it was from another company, NOT welcome. These people are criminals; that is a matter of record. How can you justify defending them?IMHO if someone's finances are in such a state that they have to get credit from Unwelcome then maybe saving £600 for a tidy V reg Focus is a better solution for them, in fact chopping a leg off and getting a Motorbility car is preferable to using guaranteed finance.
No questions asked car credit is a tax on the stupid.
(Ex repossession agent and bailiff)
She simply went out to buy a car, she had no problems with her credit rating.
Millions of cars in this country are on finance. Are you implying that all these people are stupid?
What we need is an inquisition on the finance sector and the law in this country. It is utterly rotten to the core, consisting of villians in fancy suits.
We are fortunate indeed that we don't have bailiffs in Scotland. One of the worst corruptions of the legal system.
J
daz3210 said:
If a vehicle is (re)possessed unlawfully, does that make it theft?
If the defendant in this case had sold the car, Welcome Finance would have been entitled to go and recover the vehicle from whoever it was now in the possession of.
If the OP (or his daughter) can PROVE that the taking of the vehicle was unlawful, surely the same rights should exist. The vehicle is effectively stolen, so the new 'owner' is not the owner.
Cars being repossessed unlawfully is not unusual but I've never heard of a case where the Police have done anything, other than arrest the protesting 'owner' for breach of the peace, they just resort to the "it's a civil matter" excuse.If the defendant in this case had sold the car, Welcome Finance would have been entitled to go and recover the vehicle from whoever it was now in the possession of.
If the OP (or his daughter) can PROVE that the taking of the vehicle was unlawful, surely the same rights should exist. The vehicle is effectively stolen, so the new 'owner' is not the owner.
I hope the OP does see his complaint through with Police.
Just a few quwations:
1. There is 'insolvent' next to the Claimain. Does the claim also state that or is it just your opinion? Has a liquidator or receiver been appointed?
2. What are they claiming exactly?
3. As you sure you can issue a defence to the court on behalf of your daughter? I would have thought it should be her defence, with your witness statement.
4. Are you sure a PPI policy actually existed? Could Welcome have charged for it and kept the money for themselves?
1. There is 'insolvent' next to the Claimain. Does the claim also state that or is it just your opinion? Has a liquidator or receiver been appointed?
2. What are they claiming exactly?
3. As you sure you can issue a defence to the court on behalf of your daughter? I would have thought it should be her defence, with your witness statement.
4. Are you sure a PPI policy actually existed? Could Welcome have charged for it and kept the money for themselves?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Just a few quwations:
1. There is 'insolvent' next to the Claimain. Does the claim also state that or is it just your opinion? Has a liquidator or receiver been appointed?
2. What are they claiming exactly?
3. As you sure you can issue a defence to the court on behalf of your daughter? I would have thought it should be her defence, with your witness statement.
4. Are you sure a PPI policy actually existed? Could Welcome have charged for it and kept the money for themselves?
Before I get any further comments about the content of the defence let me make something crystal clear. There are no opinions in it: everything stated is factual and is the result of months of very careful research and legal advice from several very interested parties.1. There is 'insolvent' next to the Claimain. Does the claim also state that or is it just your opinion? Has a liquidator or receiver been appointed?
2. What are they claiming exactly?
3. As you sure you can issue a defence to the court on behalf of your daughter? I would have thought it should be her defence, with your witness statement.
4. Are you sure a PPI policy actually existed? Could Welcome have charged for it and kept the money for themselves?
Your points:-
1.
I deliberately inserted the term insolvent to ensure that the court was aware of this. Welcome Finance was declared in default by the FSA because it had been trading in an insolvent position. Hundreds of millions of pounds of its assets were, and still are, missing. The FSCS then kept them afloat by declaring they would honour all PPI claims. They have told me that when this process is complete, Welcome will be closed.
To further compound matters, Howard Cohen and Co have been issuing writs to just about anyone they feel like to sue them for balances owed on old WF agreements. They do this with absolutely no knowledge of the account details, just a sum that comes from Welcome's archives. I am trying to find out if they have bought these debts and are simply trying to profit from it. They do this with the knowledge that this company is insolvent; no assets; impossible to countreclaim from or even defend because you cannot claim back your expenses. Totally outrageous and unacceptable behaviour form any firm of solicitors.
2.
They were attempting to sue my daughter for what they claimed was the balance on her account of £8416.00. This is a figure plucked out of thin air and relates to absolutely nothing. Bear in mind the purchase price was only £6800, she had paid well over a third of the vehicle, had it taken from her and disposed of and was refused the protection of PPI that she had paid for. Again outrageous and unacceptable.
3.
I prepared the papers for my daughter because she could not find a solicitor who would take on this case without requiring substantial costs up front. Had the case gone to trial we might have been required by the court to employ a solicitor at that stage. As it happens, after receiving the Note of Defence, the Pursuers dropped the case, issuing a Notice of Discontinuance. But we haven't. If they think we are going to walk away from this with no expenses and the loss of my daughter's car, they are wrong in the extreme.
4.
Well this is the big question. If Welcome was deliberately charging for PPI and keeping the money without issuing a policy document, then they are guilty of fraud, yet another CRIMINAL offence, not civil. There is no such thing as civil fraud. Perhaps the police need to be reminded very firmly of this.
They have never issued any policies for this, despite numerous requests.
J
jith said:
Impersonating a Court Officer, i.e. a bailiff, is a criminal offence, especially when the intent is to steal a motor vehicle. The individual involved had no court documents or papers with him; the officers at the scene knew this and let him take it. I gave the officer at the scene the actual statutes over the phone to check and he failed to do so.
Can you just clarify.If a bailiff turns up, what documentation should he present when he introduces himself?
Ahhhh, I thought this was an actual ongoing court case.
I seriously doubt that the solicitors have bought the claimed debt from Welcome. They must be taking instructions from someone. If the claimed debt was sold on the debtor is supposed to be told, but I know from personal experience that doesn't always happen.
Has your daughter checked her credit record? I would bet Welcome have recorded a Default against her .....
I seriously doubt that the solicitors have bought the claimed debt from Welcome. They must be taking instructions from someone. If the claimed debt was sold on the debtor is supposed to be told, but I know from personal experience that doesn't always happen.
Has your daughter checked her credit record? I would bet Welcome have recorded a Default against her .....
PurpleMoonlight said:
Ahhhh, I thought this was an actual ongoing court case.
I seriously doubt that the solicitors have bought the claimed debt from Welcome. They must be taking instructions from someone. If the claimed debt was sold on the debtor is supposed to be told, but I know from personal experience that doesn't always happen.
Has your daughter checked her credit record? I would bet Welcome have recorded a Default against her .....
The events I am talking about only happened last week. We are attempting to get the court to award expenses against Welcome. As you know, English Civil Procedure rules allow for this almost automatically when a Pursuer issues a Notice of Discontinuance.I seriously doubt that the solicitors have bought the claimed debt from Welcome. They must be taking instructions from someone. If the claimed debt was sold on the debtor is supposed to be told, but I know from personal experience that doesn't always happen.
Has your daughter checked her credit record? I would bet Welcome have recorded a Default against her .....
The case was transferred to Preston when the defence was lodged; god, are they hard work! Mistake after mistake.
I think her rating is fine at the moment. She has a very high CRB rating through working in the prison service and I would hate to see that spoilt by miscreants like this.
J
OP, just one question regarding the repo, just to make sure you have the thirds rule correct. It sounds like a nightmare situation for your daughter and I wouldn't want you to shoot yourself in the foot over an important point.
You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
TVR1 said:
OP, just one question regarding the repo, just to make sure you have the thirds rule correct. It sounds like a nightmare situation for your daughter and I wouldn't want you to shoot yourself in the foot over an important point.
You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
But also for the repo to be lawful, would she not have had to be served with court papers? And would the bailiff not have to have some kind of court papers too authorising him to act?You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
If the car was just lifted without the correct documentation, would that not be tantamount to theft?
Hence my earlier question, what does a bailiff have to show to be within the law?
daz3210 said:
TVR1 said:
OP, just one question regarding the repo, just to make sure you have the thirds rule correct. It sounds like a nightmare situation for your daughter and I wouldn't want you to shoot yourself in the foot over an important point.
You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
But also for the repo to be lawful, would she not have had to be served with court papers? And would the bailiff not have to have some kind of court papers too authorising him to act?You mentioned a couple of times that she has paid back well over a third of the purchase price of £6800? The thirds rule applies once a third of the total cost of the car has been repaid and not just the original purchase price. Given the interest rate, back of fag packet tells me the total cost of the car is around £12k (assuming a 4 year agreement? so she will have to have paid back £4k to have reached the thirds stage.
I know it sounds petty but it's the difference between the repo being lawfull or not. Either way, I wish you all the best sorting it out.
If the car was just lifted without the correct documentation, would that not be tantamount to theft?
Hence my earlier question, what does a bailiff have to show to be within the law?
The agreement is quite simply the worst I have ever seen. It is, quite frankly a joke.
They took the purchase price of the car, then added the whole amount of the PPI insurance for 3 years, then a monstrous £600 for breakdown cover then added the interest onto that compounded up for 3 years at 39.7%. The total payable according to them on the agreement was £19,088 for a car at £6800!!!
There has never been any documentation issued for the PPI or the breakdown cover, nor could they explain the calculation used to obtain that collosal figure.
What I wanted the court to do was to declare the agreement null and void as it is clearly just nonsense and unlawful. We never got the chance to do so as they withdrew the claim.
The individual who carried out the seizure had no documents whatever in his possession; simply because they do not exist. No default notice, no repossession notice, nothing. And the police let him take it! Thanks for that BIBs, it's one I won't forget in a hurry.
My daughter was not shown any ID from this individual, except something he showed in a wallet briefly. The police told me over the phone that he had a Bailiff's warrant card, but that it was 2 years out of date. In other words he had no lawful means of demonstrating that he had the right to take the vehicle. Incredible but true.
And yes, of course it's theft, and my own research has shown that they are doing this all over the country.
J
jith said:
They took the purchase price of the car, then added the whole amount of the PPI insurance for 3 years, then a monstrous £600 for breakdown cover then added the interest onto that compounded up for 3 years at 39.7%. The total payable according to them on the agreement was £19,088 for a car at £6800!!!
I know you said your daughter was intelligent - mine are too, but I'd never dream of letting them anywhere near a car dealership. It's a shame really, I tried it once for servicing and the garage tried to steal money off one of them.jith said:
I deliberately inserted the term insolvent to ensure that the court was aware of this. Welcome Finance was declared in default by the FSA because it had been trading in an insolvent position. Hundreds of millions of pounds of its assets were, and still are, missing.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/201...
What has a CRB check got to do with credit ratings?
Edited by mercfunder on Friday 20th April 20:39
jith said:
total payable according to them on the agreement was £19,088 for a car at £6800!!!
Couple of points:£600 for 3 years breakdown cover isn't "monstrous" it's expensive and probably not as expensive as you could pay.
If your Daughter signed a loan document (the agreement) then she signed it and so agreed to the repayment??
I 100% agree with all of your points especially the 'bailiff with out papers' but just thought I should mention the above.
One thing I very surprised is that Soovy hasn't commented
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff