WELCOME FINANCE/FSCS
Discussion
I am in the middle of a situation with what has to be the worst finance company I have ever encountered in over 40 years in the motor trade.
It involves mis-selling to the point of criminality, the illegal seizure and disposal of motor vehicles using bogus bailiffs; the worst aspect being the total and utter incompetence of the police, in this case Leyland, who have stood by and done absolutely nothing. A firm of solicitors who constantly breach court rules and appear to get away with it on a regular basis. The court service who, by their failure to respond to numerous complaints cause and permit the situation to continue and the dishonest to prosper.
The complete intransigence of the FSCS who only add to the misery wreaked by these miscreants.
I need anyone on here who has had an agreement or experience with the above company to contact me with a view to taking out a collective action. Contact details on my profile. We also need to involve our MPs in this, as the FSCS is a public, non-profit making body who are accountable to us.
More details later.
J
It involves mis-selling to the point of criminality, the illegal seizure and disposal of motor vehicles using bogus bailiffs; the worst aspect being the total and utter incompetence of the police, in this case Leyland, who have stood by and done absolutely nothing. A firm of solicitors who constantly breach court rules and appear to get away with it on a regular basis. The court service who, by their failure to respond to numerous complaints cause and permit the situation to continue and the dishonest to prosper.
The complete intransigence of the FSCS who only add to the misery wreaked by these miscreants.
I need anyone on here who has had an agreement or experience with the above company to contact me with a view to taking out a collective action. Contact details on my profile. We also need to involve our MPs in this, as the FSCS is a public, non-profit making body who are accountable to us.
More details later.
J
GreigM said:
jith said:
Why is that then?
J
name/shame rulesJ
The problems with this company are well known and a matter of public record. As is the everyday issue of the police refusing to intervene in many circumstances where they claim that an incident is a civil matter, when it clearly is not.
For your own interest try Googling it; you won't believe what you will read.
J
Thanks for the response so far.
To save time I am going to post up the defence to the action against the person involved who is my daughter. She lives in Leyland, and please read the defence carefully, it has sustantial information in it, all of which took many weeks of research.
Please note she did not buy the car knowingly financed by Welcome.
Those of you who have e mailled me clearly have a vested interest in having this problem resolved, but we need a serious change in attitude, particularly from the police, who quite frankly have behaved abominably in many, many situations like this.
Read on.
"
In the County Court of Northampton
Claim Reference Number:- 1XYxxxxx
Welcome Finance (insolvent) - Claimant
v
Ms. Hxxxxxx Lxxxx – Defendant
NOTE OF DEFENCE
Background to facts in case:-
On the 12th of January 2008, the Defendant purchased a Hyundai motor vehicle registration number LT02 WRC from the showroom of CARCRAFT LTD in Rochdale, Lancashire. The sale price was £6,800.00.
The defendant was offered finance from a company known as U CAN CAR CREDIT of Portal Way, Liverpool. This finance was offered on condition that Payment Protection Insurance was included. This was a mandatory condition to the finance.
At no time was the company Welcome Finance mentioned and the documentation contained only the name U CAN CAR CREDIT. The deal was concluded with alleged Payment Protection Insurance, Shortfall Extra Insurance and Mechanical Breakdown Insurance. A full four years finance at 39.7% APR was added to the total amount, including the insurances and breakdown cover. At no time was it explained to the Defendant that the insurances would be added to the capital sum financed. The sum for breakdown cover, even without 39.7% finance added, is some 600% greater than that of full RAC or AA membership.
Despite repeated requests to Welcome Finance, the Defendant was denied documentation for the above insurances. There is no evidence that they actually exist. At no time was the Defendant supplied with policy documents or even policy numbers.
The agreement number of the Defendant’s account is 05184141. It is the sole agreement that the Defendant is party to.
Despite repeated requests to the Claimant for a pertinent and accurate Statement of Account pertaining to account number 05184141, the Claimant has failed to provide this.
On or around August 2008 the Defendant was made redundant. She made numerous submissions to the offices of Welcome Finance as to the procedure required to make a claim on the PPI insurance taken out at the time of purchase of the vehicle. There was no appropriate response from the Claimant and no method offered to enable a claim to be made.
The Defendant became deeply suspicious of the Claimant’s trading tactics, and made several complaints to them in an attempt to resolve the failures of the Claimant that were clearly relevant to the agreement. They failed to do so. The Defendant notified the Claimants that they were in breach of contract and would make no further payments until they supplied pertinent insurance documents and processed her claim.
The Claimant has failed to serve a relevant Default Notice relating to Agreement Number 05184141. The Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Repossession relating to Agreement Number 05184141.
At 14.30 hours on 23rd April, 2010 an individual named Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx entered the private property of the Defendant and affixed a wheel clamp to her vehicle whilst situated in the carport of her property. The Defendant was informed that he was repossessing the vehicle on behalf of Welcome Finance. He was acting alone and was driving a commercial recovery vehicle.
The police were called and attended the incident. The individual Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx claimed to be a Bailiff of the Court with the power from the Court to repossess the vehicle. The Defendant was extremely distressed and contacted myself in Glasgow by telephone. I have over 41 years experience in the motor trade. I spoke to the officer in attendance and explained to him that this individual was contravening criminal statutes and had no legal power to seize the vehicle. The point was made to the officer that bailiffs do not drive recovery trucks. Nor do they enforce orders singularly.
On a return call to myself some 10 minutes later the officer revealed that Fxxxxx’s Warrant Card had expired some two years previously; he had no documentation whatsoever in his possession empowering him to act on behalf of the Court; he had no documentation from Welcome Finance or U Can Car Credit. The officer was completely ignorant and unfamiliar with the laws of trespass, finance and repossession, and permitted the seizure of the vehicle. Some three months after purchasing the vehicle the Defendant was given the gift of a personalised number plate from the DVLA. Before the vehicle was taken the Defendant removed her registration plates from the vehicle. Despite this the DVLA refused to transfer her registration number unless she had possession of the vehicle. She has subsequently lost the registration number due to the illegal seizure of the vehicle.
The Defendant kept the vehicle in superb condition, but there is reason to believe it was disposed of for the sum of £1,390.72, some £3,000.00 less than its minimum trade value at the time. There has been no explanation as to how the vehicle was disposed of, or accounts relating to the disposal.
In the following months it became clear from the media that the company known as Welcome Finance was in serious financial trouble and was trading in an insolvent position. Several of their directors were suspended and a deficit of an unaccounted sum of £850m was reported in their accounts. This sum to date, has never been recovered. They were, and still are, the subject of criminal investigation. It then became unrealistic to raise an action against them for the losses the Defendant had incurred as they had no assets.
In the past few months however, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has set up an agreement with the co-operation of the banking industry to recompense those customers of Welcome Finance who were unlawfully sold Payment Protection Insurance. The Defendant has now lodged a claim for this and awaits process of same.
However, the fact still remains in law that this company is insolvent, rendering a defence against their action, and counterclaim against them impossible, as they have no assets in the event of a successful action by the Defendant, or indeed any defendant or claimant. The Defendant is raising this issue with the FSA, and compelling them to explain why they permit this company to trade in an insolvent position and commence litigation that is unlawful.
The failure of the police at the incident where seizure took place to recognize illegal activity and appropriately intervene and apprehend the offender, is now the subject of a complaint to the officer in charge at Leyland Police Station. The Defendant has asked the police to investigate his apparent impersonation of a Court Official. If a full explanation is not forthcoming the complaint will be elevated to the IPCC.
The individual Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx does not have, and has never held a license to operate a wheel clamp and is therefore in contravention of a criminal statute. The Defendant has reported this to the Security Industry Authority, the regulatory body who has the power to prosecute such individuals.
The company CC AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LTD trading as CARCRAFT who sold the vehicle and acted as agents for the finance company U CAN CAR CREDIT and Welcome Finance were the subject of an investigation opened by the OFT on May 2009 into alleged unfair practices.
In Paragraph 3 of its investigative findings the OFT found that CARCRAFT:-
“did not make clear to some customers the terms of motor finance, such as the level of repayments or that they were signing more than one finance agreement”.
In Paragraph 5 of its investigative findings the OFT found that CARCRAFT:-
“incorporated potentially unfair terms in the standard terms and conditions of its contract of sale and after-sale vehicle guarantee”.
The OFT found that CARCRAFT were trading in breach of consumer protection regulations including the CPRs, SoGA, SoG(IT)A, SoGSA and UTCCRs. The OFT warned CARCRAFT that it would consider applying to the court for an enforcement order, should satisfactory undertakings not be agreed.
The Defendant purchased the vehicle in question during the time period the OFT investigation states that CARCRAFT were trading illegally. The Defendant has contacted Trading Standards and is submitting details contained within this claim to them to add to the list of former complaints.
The firm of Howard Cohen & Co, the agents for the Claimant, are the subject of an investigation by the SRA due to numerous complaints against them, many of which relate to vexatious claims whereby they have virtually no documentation in relation to the history of the claim, and proceed straight to litigation without first contacting the Defendant. The Defendant in this case had no contact whatever from Cohens, or indeed any solicitor preceding or regarding this claim. I personally contacted Cohens on receipt of the Claim Form to enquire if they were aware that their clients were insolvent. They claimed to have no knowledge of this, nor did they have any papers or history of the complaints made by the Defendant regarding the insurance policies and the illegal seizure. They admitted they had made no submissions to the Defendant prior to raising the action. The Defendant therefore will be adding to the weight of complaints to the SRA.
POINTS IN LAW
a) The Defendant was unlawfully sold PPI insurance on an agreement by the Claimant’s agents. Said agents were found to be in breach of five sections of Trading Standards regulations at the time of the contract.
b) No legal documentation was sent to the Defendant subsequent to the point of sale from U CAN CAR CREDIT. No insurance documents were sent to the Defendant at any time. The Defendant found it impossible to claim on the PPI insurance due to the failings of the Claimant to process any claim. In the event of redundancy it would have been impossible for arrears to accumulate on the account if the insurance was in place.
c) The agreement number 3235369 does not relate to the agreement in writing between the two parties. The only agreement relevant to the Defendant is number 05184141.
d) No legally pertinent statement of account relating to Agreement Number 05184141 has been issued to the Defendant. No legally pertinent Default Notice relating to Agreement Number 05184141 has been served on the Defendant.
e) The Defendant had paid more than a third of the price of the goods, the agreement was unlawfully structured, the vehicle was parked in a carport in private ground and the Claimant had no Order of Court to repossess, rendering the seizure of the vehicle illegal and in contravention of The Sale of Goods Act 1974 S90,91,92,93.
f) Under the said Sale of Goods Act 1974 S91 the Defendant compels the Claimant to repay all sums paid to the Claimant.
g) Under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1974(revised 2007) S140a &b, The Defender craves the Court make an order thus:-
1. Find that the Claimant’s conduct has resulted in an unfair relationship greatly prejudicing the rights of the Defendant.
2. Order the Claimant to repay all sums to the Defendant plus the value of the cherished number plate, the value to be agreed by the DVLA.
h) Order that the Claimant pay all expenses plus interest at 10% to the
Defendant.
Footnote:- Whilst the following statement is of no direct legal significance, I would ask the Court to include it in the papers.
In over 41 years as a qualified Project Engineer in the motor trade with considerable legal and financial experience as it relates to motor vehicles, I can state categorically that I have never experienced greater levels of gross incompetence, patent dishonesty and a total disregard for the law as this case demonstrates.. I find it completely unacceptable that companies like this and their associates are permitted to trade in this country.
Signed ……………………………….
Jxxxx Lxxxx for the Defendant Hxxxxxx Lxxxx.
Date…………………………………."
There have been further developments that I will post up later.
J
To save time I am going to post up the defence to the action against the person involved who is my daughter. She lives in Leyland, and please read the defence carefully, it has sustantial information in it, all of which took many weeks of research.
Please note she did not buy the car knowingly financed by Welcome.
Those of you who have e mailled me clearly have a vested interest in having this problem resolved, but we need a serious change in attitude, particularly from the police, who quite frankly have behaved abominably in many, many situations like this.
Read on.
"
In the County Court of Northampton
Claim Reference Number:- 1XYxxxxx
Welcome Finance (insolvent) - Claimant
v
Ms. Hxxxxxx Lxxxx – Defendant
NOTE OF DEFENCE
Background to facts in case:-
On the 12th of January 2008, the Defendant purchased a Hyundai motor vehicle registration number LT02 WRC from the showroom of CARCRAFT LTD in Rochdale, Lancashire. The sale price was £6,800.00.
The defendant was offered finance from a company known as U CAN CAR CREDIT of Portal Way, Liverpool. This finance was offered on condition that Payment Protection Insurance was included. This was a mandatory condition to the finance.
At no time was the company Welcome Finance mentioned and the documentation contained only the name U CAN CAR CREDIT. The deal was concluded with alleged Payment Protection Insurance, Shortfall Extra Insurance and Mechanical Breakdown Insurance. A full four years finance at 39.7% APR was added to the total amount, including the insurances and breakdown cover. At no time was it explained to the Defendant that the insurances would be added to the capital sum financed. The sum for breakdown cover, even without 39.7% finance added, is some 600% greater than that of full RAC or AA membership.
Despite repeated requests to Welcome Finance, the Defendant was denied documentation for the above insurances. There is no evidence that they actually exist. At no time was the Defendant supplied with policy documents or even policy numbers.
The agreement number of the Defendant’s account is 05184141. It is the sole agreement that the Defendant is party to.
Despite repeated requests to the Claimant for a pertinent and accurate Statement of Account pertaining to account number 05184141, the Claimant has failed to provide this.
On or around August 2008 the Defendant was made redundant. She made numerous submissions to the offices of Welcome Finance as to the procedure required to make a claim on the PPI insurance taken out at the time of purchase of the vehicle. There was no appropriate response from the Claimant and no method offered to enable a claim to be made.
The Defendant became deeply suspicious of the Claimant’s trading tactics, and made several complaints to them in an attempt to resolve the failures of the Claimant that were clearly relevant to the agreement. They failed to do so. The Defendant notified the Claimants that they were in breach of contract and would make no further payments until they supplied pertinent insurance documents and processed her claim.
The Claimant has failed to serve a relevant Default Notice relating to Agreement Number 05184141. The Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Repossession relating to Agreement Number 05184141.
At 14.30 hours on 23rd April, 2010 an individual named Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx entered the private property of the Defendant and affixed a wheel clamp to her vehicle whilst situated in the carport of her property. The Defendant was informed that he was repossessing the vehicle on behalf of Welcome Finance. He was acting alone and was driving a commercial recovery vehicle.
The police were called and attended the incident. The individual Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx claimed to be a Bailiff of the Court with the power from the Court to repossess the vehicle. The Defendant was extremely distressed and contacted myself in Glasgow by telephone. I have over 41 years experience in the motor trade. I spoke to the officer in attendance and explained to him that this individual was contravening criminal statutes and had no legal power to seize the vehicle. The point was made to the officer that bailiffs do not drive recovery trucks. Nor do they enforce orders singularly.
On a return call to myself some 10 minutes later the officer revealed that Fxxxxx’s Warrant Card had expired some two years previously; he had no documentation whatsoever in his possession empowering him to act on behalf of the Court; he had no documentation from Welcome Finance or U Can Car Credit. The officer was completely ignorant and unfamiliar with the laws of trespass, finance and repossession, and permitted the seizure of the vehicle. Some three months after purchasing the vehicle the Defendant was given the gift of a personalised number plate from the DVLA. Before the vehicle was taken the Defendant removed her registration plates from the vehicle. Despite this the DVLA refused to transfer her registration number unless she had possession of the vehicle. She has subsequently lost the registration number due to the illegal seizure of the vehicle.
The Defendant kept the vehicle in superb condition, but there is reason to believe it was disposed of for the sum of £1,390.72, some £3,000.00 less than its minimum trade value at the time. There has been no explanation as to how the vehicle was disposed of, or accounts relating to the disposal.
In the following months it became clear from the media that the company known as Welcome Finance was in serious financial trouble and was trading in an insolvent position. Several of their directors were suspended and a deficit of an unaccounted sum of £850m was reported in their accounts. This sum to date, has never been recovered. They were, and still are, the subject of criminal investigation. It then became unrealistic to raise an action against them for the losses the Defendant had incurred as they had no assets.
In the past few months however, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has set up an agreement with the co-operation of the banking industry to recompense those customers of Welcome Finance who were unlawfully sold Payment Protection Insurance. The Defendant has now lodged a claim for this and awaits process of same.
However, the fact still remains in law that this company is insolvent, rendering a defence against their action, and counterclaim against them impossible, as they have no assets in the event of a successful action by the Defendant, or indeed any defendant or claimant. The Defendant is raising this issue with the FSA, and compelling them to explain why they permit this company to trade in an insolvent position and commence litigation that is unlawful.
The failure of the police at the incident where seizure took place to recognize illegal activity and appropriately intervene and apprehend the offender, is now the subject of a complaint to the officer in charge at Leyland Police Station. The Defendant has asked the police to investigate his apparent impersonation of a Court Official. If a full explanation is not forthcoming the complaint will be elevated to the IPCC.
The individual Bxxxxxx Fxxxxx does not have, and has never held a license to operate a wheel clamp and is therefore in contravention of a criminal statute. The Defendant has reported this to the Security Industry Authority, the regulatory body who has the power to prosecute such individuals.
The company CC AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LTD trading as CARCRAFT who sold the vehicle and acted as agents for the finance company U CAN CAR CREDIT and Welcome Finance were the subject of an investigation opened by the OFT on May 2009 into alleged unfair practices.
In Paragraph 3 of its investigative findings the OFT found that CARCRAFT:-
“did not make clear to some customers the terms of motor finance, such as the level of repayments or that they were signing more than one finance agreement”.
In Paragraph 5 of its investigative findings the OFT found that CARCRAFT:-
“incorporated potentially unfair terms in the standard terms and conditions of its contract of sale and after-sale vehicle guarantee”.
The OFT found that CARCRAFT were trading in breach of consumer protection regulations including the CPRs, SoGA, SoG(IT)A, SoGSA and UTCCRs. The OFT warned CARCRAFT that it would consider applying to the court for an enforcement order, should satisfactory undertakings not be agreed.
The Defendant purchased the vehicle in question during the time period the OFT investigation states that CARCRAFT were trading illegally. The Defendant has contacted Trading Standards and is submitting details contained within this claim to them to add to the list of former complaints.
The firm of Howard Cohen & Co, the agents for the Claimant, are the subject of an investigation by the SRA due to numerous complaints against them, many of which relate to vexatious claims whereby they have virtually no documentation in relation to the history of the claim, and proceed straight to litigation without first contacting the Defendant. The Defendant in this case had no contact whatever from Cohens, or indeed any solicitor preceding or regarding this claim. I personally contacted Cohens on receipt of the Claim Form to enquire if they were aware that their clients were insolvent. They claimed to have no knowledge of this, nor did they have any papers or history of the complaints made by the Defendant regarding the insurance policies and the illegal seizure. They admitted they had made no submissions to the Defendant prior to raising the action. The Defendant therefore will be adding to the weight of complaints to the SRA.
POINTS IN LAW
a) The Defendant was unlawfully sold PPI insurance on an agreement by the Claimant’s agents. Said agents were found to be in breach of five sections of Trading Standards regulations at the time of the contract.
b) No legal documentation was sent to the Defendant subsequent to the point of sale from U CAN CAR CREDIT. No insurance documents were sent to the Defendant at any time. The Defendant found it impossible to claim on the PPI insurance due to the failings of the Claimant to process any claim. In the event of redundancy it would have been impossible for arrears to accumulate on the account if the insurance was in place.
c) The agreement number 3235369 does not relate to the agreement in writing between the two parties. The only agreement relevant to the Defendant is number 05184141.
d) No legally pertinent statement of account relating to Agreement Number 05184141 has been issued to the Defendant. No legally pertinent Default Notice relating to Agreement Number 05184141 has been served on the Defendant.
e) The Defendant had paid more than a third of the price of the goods, the agreement was unlawfully structured, the vehicle was parked in a carport in private ground and the Claimant had no Order of Court to repossess, rendering the seizure of the vehicle illegal and in contravention of The Sale of Goods Act 1974 S90,91,92,93.
f) Under the said Sale of Goods Act 1974 S91 the Defendant compels the Claimant to repay all sums paid to the Claimant.
g) Under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1974(revised 2007) S140a &b, The Defender craves the Court make an order thus:-
1. Find that the Claimant’s conduct has resulted in an unfair relationship greatly prejudicing the rights of the Defendant.
2. Order the Claimant to repay all sums to the Defendant plus the value of the cherished number plate, the value to be agreed by the DVLA.
h) Order that the Claimant pay all expenses plus interest at 10% to the
Defendant.
Footnote:- Whilst the following statement is of no direct legal significance, I would ask the Court to include it in the papers.
In over 41 years as a qualified Project Engineer in the motor trade with considerable legal and financial experience as it relates to motor vehicles, I can state categorically that I have never experienced greater levels of gross incompetence, patent dishonesty and a total disregard for the law as this case demonstrates.. I find it completely unacceptable that companies like this and their associates are permitted to trade in this country.
Signed ……………………………….
Jxxxx Lxxxx for the Defendant Hxxxxxx Lxxxx.
Date…………………………………."
There have been further developments that I will post up later.
J
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
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
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
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
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
wiliferus said:
I wish you all the best OP with your action. One thing though that I can't get my head around.
If your daughter is intelligent(which i have no doubt she is), and has no issues with her credit rating, why in gods name of all things holy did she sign up for a car finance deal at 37.9%!!! Thats an insane amount of interest!
Surely if her credit reating was ok common sense would dictate a bank loan for 7k at 6.9% would have been a more sensible option, cheaper, and as it turns out, a damn sight safer!
I have much more information to post up this week, but you have to realise that she had no sight of the document that Welcome finally used to extract money from her.If your daughter is intelligent(which i have no doubt she is), and has no issues with her credit rating, why in gods name of all things holy did she sign up for a car finance deal at 37.9%!!! Thats an insane amount of interest!
Surely if her credit reating was ok common sense would dictate a bank loan for 7k at 6.9% would have been a more sensible option, cheaper, and as it turns out, a damn sight safer!
I have to say this, and please don't take it the wrong way; how can anyone on here read this post without it finally dawning on them that this is a huge con?: it is not legal or "normal" finance. Please read the defence thoroughly, particularly the parts about the garage that supplied the car and also signed up the documentation, and their subsequent investigation by the OFT. They were not just a dealer, they were affiliated to Welcome or its group of companies.
This is not just about my daughter. This has to be one of the biggest finance scams ever perpetrated. This affects thousands of people, not just a handful.
It has to be properly addressed, not accepted.
By the way wiliferus, are you implying that you know of a bank that actually lends people money to buy things?
J
mercfunder said:
Sorry, there's got to be more to this story than you are telling us. Carcraft have been around a long time and have always been a supplier of cars to the sub-prime market. Their whole marketing program is based around X per week, rather than stating the true price.
Why would somebody with good credit go to them?
£7k is hardly major league finance, provided you weren't over extended on credit cards etc, and in a decent full time job, I would imagine most high street lenders would loan you that.
Oh, believe me there's a great deal more to this. I will post the rest up when the time is right. But before you continue to insult my daughter's intelligence read this:-Why would somebody with good credit go to them?
£7k is hardly major league finance, provided you weren't over extended on credit cards etc, and in a decent full time job, I would imagine most high street lenders would loan you that.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement...
My daughter went to them because she passed them every day on her route to work, it's that simple, and saw a car she liked. Quite frankly, I should never have allowed her to do this, but she's a big girl now and she's in Leyland and I'm in Glasgow. Nothing whatever to do with bad credit.
I cannot believe that some of you still don't get it. This is not about any individual having to be aware of ludicrous APR levels or dealers or finance companies with dodgy reputations. It is about the disgraceful de-regulation of the finance industry in the Thatcher years and the resultant chaos.
The base rate is 0.5% for christ's sake, and finance rates have never been as high as they are now!! We have companies with ugly puppets advertising over 2000% APR! When are we going to waken up and put these cretins out of business and into jail!
Why in the name of god does the government allow this to go on? There are regulators that are supposed to control the manner in which these companies operate and they are totally impotent and ineffective. THAT is the problem; not my daughter or any other poor sod who gets shafted royally by con merchants.
Ray luxury yacht, if I have understood you properly you are paying money to a firm known as Welcome Finance. Are you aware the FSCS declared them in default, and that they are insolvent? Who are you paying this money to? Welcome are no longer permitted to trade. Let me very strongly suggest you get a solicitor involved in this and find out just who you are paying.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 April 10:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff