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
I bought a car on finance through Welcome. Despite the direct debit coming out of my account they claimed they hadn't received the money. This happened several times. Eventually I got enough money together to pay off the balance so I sent a cheque by recorded delivery. It arrived, was signed for, and the cheque cleared.
I then got a succession of more and more threatening letters threatening to repossess my car.I suggested that, as I live in Scotland and a court order is required, they take me to court. Silence.
Two years later I sold the car to a scrapyard for scrapping (engine f
ked) I did an HPI check. It was still shown as being on finance!
That was 10 years ago. I doubt they've improved!
I then got a succession of more and more threatening letters threatening to repossess my car.I suggested that, as I live in Scotland and a court order is required, they take me to court. Silence.
Two years later I sold the car to a scrapyard for scrapping (engine f
ked) I did an HPI check. It was still shown as being on finance!That was 10 years ago. I doubt they've improved!
jith said:
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
They deserve all they get.
Good luck OP.
This firm has always been very aggressive and unreasonable. Everyone I knew in finance refused to ever deal with them.
What I do find frustrating is that the Regulators handsomely paid to protect the public have not done so for year after year after year after year. Despite literally thousands of substantiated claims. Every year. Year on year.
Textbook example of a finance business that could and should have been shut down years ago. But has not been and no one is to blame in the regulatory bodies. All paid for in good faith by the taxpayers.
Frankly it is not good enough. The blame free, money earning, salaries first and accept no responsibility, for total abject failure, approach beloved of our glorious leaders, is bad enough in Politics.
It is a complete disaster in regulatory work.
What I do find frustrating is that the Regulators handsomely paid to protect the public have not done so for year after year after year after year. Despite literally thousands of substantiated claims. Every year. Year on year.
Textbook example of a finance business that could and should have been shut down years ago. But has not been and no one is to blame in the regulatory bodies. All paid for in good faith by the taxpayers.
Frankly it is not good enough. The blame free, money earning, salaries first and accept no responsibility, for total abject failure, approach beloved of our glorious leaders, is bad enough in Politics.
It is a complete disaster in regulatory work.
Regulatory failure - I agree.
But the reasons are rarely down to the regulators alone who may actually want to get stuck in but are prevented by the law, politics, the government and a lack of resources.
To take away the credit licence of a company like Welcome would take swathes of evidence and years to do because the OFT do not really have the power to hit the switch just like that - everyone is entitled to a fair chance, don't ya know.
The government is making severe cuts to many regulatory bodies and indeed trying to take away powers, such as the right to do unannounced visits for some authorities. Its quite clear the Government would rather business flourish at the cost of complying with many laws.
PH believes in the market though - less interference from Government and let the market sort itself out. Which it does fine, by allowing dodgy companies to set up, take people for a ride and then close down.
But the reasons are rarely down to the regulators alone who may actually want to get stuck in but are prevented by the law, politics, the government and a lack of resources.
To take away the credit licence of a company like Welcome would take swathes of evidence and years to do because the OFT do not really have the power to hit the switch just like that - everyone is entitled to a fair chance, don't ya know.
The government is making severe cuts to many regulatory bodies and indeed trying to take away powers, such as the right to do unannounced visits for some authorities. Its quite clear the Government would rather business flourish at the cost of complying with many laws.
PH believes in the market though - less interference from Government and let the market sort itself out. Which it does fine, by allowing dodgy companies to set up, take people for a ride and then close down.
Recent FSA fines for the directors of Welcome's parent company:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/201...
I thought they got closed down years ago...
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/communication/pr/201...
I thought they got closed down years ago...
Rovinghawk said:
Yet you still did business with them???????
RH
The vast majority of people will do business with a company that will either screw them or just be knobs at sometime in their life.RH
I think his point is that they are NOW well know nfor being dodgy, probably not so much at the time when they were new and fresh and attracting large numers of new customers.
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
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.
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.
Edited by daz3210 on Thursday 19th April 11:00
[quote] ) 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.
[/quote]
Perhaps some legal person will confirm, but from my reading of a Welcome contract , seizure after more than one third of the price had been paid, without a court order was not also illegal, but cancelled the whole contract ,and imposed penalties on the Claimant .
[/quote]
Perhaps some legal person will confirm, but from my reading of a Welcome contract , seizure after more than one third of the price had been paid, without a court order was not also illegal, but cancelled the whole contract ,and imposed penalties on the Claimant .
After you pay more than 1 3rd on a HP agreement the item becomes protected. That means it cannot be re-possessed without a court order.
If it is seized without a court order then the debtor is entitled to the product back and a total refund.
As Welcome are no longer in business it may be impossible to get either though.
There is the added difficulty in that a court order does not, I believe, give th finance company the right to seize a car from private property - isntead they must wait til its parked on a road - worth checking though. I am not sure what the penalty for that is though - maybe just tresspass - which is civil.
If it is seized without a court order then the debtor is entitled to the product back and a total refund.
As Welcome are no longer in business it may be impossible to get either though.
There is the added difficulty in that a court order does not, I believe, give th finance company the right to seize a car from private property - isntead they must wait til its parked on a road - worth checking though. I am not sure what the penalty for that is though - maybe just tresspass - which is civil.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff