I used to have a weird noise in my car when cornering at speed. Turned out is was the wife.

Hi guzzleguts. Sorry to hear about your problems. As another poster appears to state with some knowledge, it seems that FCE do not deal with arrears very sympathetically. AFAIK FCE are a lender that only really operate at the very top end (known as Prime) of the market and expect their customers to pay on the nail. They know that if this is not the case then they canrecover the vehicle to mitigate their losses. I would imagine that the process of recovery would be even faster at the moment to offset the effects of rapid depreciation on cars (i.e. the quicker they sell the car the more money they get). One important thing to remember is that, if they terminate the agreement in order to recover the car THEN YOU WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOLUNTARY TERMINATE YOURSELF. As you appear to already be at the stage where you can do this, and FCE obviously don't appear to want to negotiate, if may be your best option to get your VT in first. Yes you will have to pay the arrears and you will lose the car, but this may be the better of two evils in the long run, because if they terminate the agreement the full balance will ultimately be payable. At the very least, it may motivate them into a more reasonable level of negotiation with you. Hope that helps.

Just to correct the last post slightly, most GAP policies pay out regardless of who was at fault - the only stipulation is that the policyholder must have fully comp insurance and the vehicle must be declared a total loss. IMO these policies are all but essential nowadays - the collapsing residuals of cars means that insurers often end up paying out much less than the amount of finance owed. Having read many posts claiming that these policies are 'worthless' (there is one above in this thread), I can't help but ask why finance companies would sell policies that do not pay out, when it is THEM that receive the money in the event of a claim!

If you use the shop regularly would a credit note be another alternative?

Has this guy actually issed an N1, or just threatened it? I would be amazed that he would stand up in court on a matter concerning the sale of fake perfume. Perhaps it would be worth advising him that you will be inviting your local Trading Standards Officer to accompany you in court

Welcome's personal loan agreements are monthly charge, which means that interest is added monthly instead of as a lump sum at the beginning. In order for them to be able to do this the interst rate must be variable, because if it was fixed then the total interest charge would be a known sum and therefore would need to be added at the beginning. Providing you are paying the monthly installments on time then you should see the monthly interest charge getting smaller each month, which means that more and more each month is going towards paying off the capital balance. On this basis, the loan should be cleared within the anticipated terms. If you have missed or been late with your payments then the picture changes because each month's interest after the missed payment is based on a balance higher than it would have been had the payment not been missed. This compunds the problem and would cause the term to overrun, hence the reaosn why the agreement states 'Minimum duration of....' Hope that helps.

Evidently as long as you are not Cattles staff? I'm not defending Charlie1! - as an employee he is either a) being loyal and trying to stick up for his employer or b) been brainwashed by the propoganda thrown at him by the corporate machine he is part of. Despite this, is he 'welcome' here or not? I'm confused.

I have had three Panasonics - my 42" Plasma is 3.5 years old and still going strong. I also had a 32" LCD which was sadly damaged by my young son by accident, and was replaced on the insurance with the latest model - the picture is fantastic. Definitely recommended.

I had exactly the same shower problem a few years ago, and thought it was going to cost a fortune to fix. However, when I removed the side panel of the shower tray, all that needed doing was the tightening up of a drainage pipe fitting, which had worked loose. It may be worth checking this first before you call anyone out. Once the leak is fixed you can properly assess any other damage after things have dried out.

Sounds like you have got balance of opinion on your side. You now need to write back to them and advise them that you do not agree with the findings of the RAC report (stating your reasons). You should supply a copy of your own report and also mention the industry standard for vehicle conditoins (as I mentioned before). Remind them of the mileage the vehicle has covered, and that the vehicle's condition can take this into account. Tell them what you are prepared to pay, assuming that there is still a sum outstanding in relation to your VT obligation, and then advise them that will be it. If they have got any sense they will accept this position and realise that they on a sticky wicket. They have no grounds to refuse your request to terminate, and you can them leave the vehicle at their nearest branch.

Like I said - the issue was with Norwich Union. Pleased you got sorted.

Yep - that is correct. Providing the APR is shown (together with the total interest charge and total amount payable in the case of a fixed rate agreement) on a Pre 31/5/05 agreement then it is not outside this particular aspect of the CCA.

Hi Simon, I probably can't post the link on here, but look up the BVRLA Fair Wear & Tear guide on t'internet. This is the voluntary code published by The British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association and allows everyone to know what to expect when returning a leased vehicle. Although I doubt Welcome subscribe to this code, it does set out the degree of expectation in respect of what 'reasonable condition' should amount to. For example, light scratches of no more than 25mm in length and not down to bare metal should be regarded as acceptable. If they are expecting you to pay for conditions outside of this then IMO they are being unreasonable/unfair, and you may well have grounds to challenge it. Hope that helps.

My new lease agreement is 7.9p per mile

Are you 100% sure that this is a bog standard HP agreement, or is it some sort of PCP or lease/hire agreement. HP does not come with a mileage clause, and the 'reasonable care' part of the terms does not restrict the mileage. You have stated, however, that there is a term stating that the mileage should not be more than 8500per year. This is the sort of thing that is designed to protect the future value of the vehicle at the end of the agreement term, and is generally only inserted into agreeemnts that are designed for the car to be returned at the end of the agreement. Are you sure that you actually VT's the agreement (i.e. after 50% had been paid) or was it the end of the contractual terms of the agreement that the vehicle had to go back? Because it is a term in the agreement, you probably are liable to pay this, but that assumes that the agreeemnt is not a standard HP. If it is a standard HP then I would personally view this term as unfair. I probably haven't explained the above very well, but I hope you get the jist.

Although it may be worth contacting the finance company, I doubt they would be prepared to discuss their account with you because you are not their customer. The Consumer Credit Act does give a degree of protection to innocent private purchasers, but this is reduced if you cannot prove that you bought the car 'in good faith' i.e. not in any way realising or should have realised that the car was not the property of the seller. A receipt would go a long way to prove this, but also the price paid, the circumstances surrounding the sale etc etc. Depending on the amounts involved it may be worth getting some legal advice, but the onus is on you to prove legitimate ownership I'm afraid.

Courts tend to be guided by what the customer signs for, unless there are compelling arguments to suggest other foul play. Where courts will find in a customers favour is if they could plainly have had no benefit from the policy because they did not qualify for the benefits of said policy. I doubt that anyone has yet been brave/dumb (delete as applicable) enough to stand up in court and say they were missold a policy that has been paying out under a claim for the last 3 years. In the (unlikely imho) event of the court finding in favour of the claimant then it would be reasonable for the claimant to be put back in the position they were in before the policy inception, which would include the claim payments being offset against the premiums. You can't have one without the other. My post was out of the genuine concern of the OP spending money on litigating in what I would consider to be an inherently flawed case. I retain my original view that the correct course of action should be against Norwich Union. Just my opinion - probably completely wrong - you guys are the experts after all.

Sorry to jump in here fellas, but I think my 2p worth may be of use. From what I can see - in Nov 2001 you took a loan out over 7 years. The PPI policy also appears to have a term of 7 years as indicated on the last page of the policy. Nov 2008 marks the end of that 7 years. At this point the policy would end. Whilst I dont think that this is related to the Norwish Union thing it is worth bearing in mind that the claim was being paid after 5 years had passed, so I'm afraid that I cannot agree with AA's advice about the cover only lasting for 5 years and I doubt you would get very far with a complaint in that direction. I would also not even think about court action in this case - let's assume you won.....putting you back in the position you were before you took out the policy would also require a return of all the claim payments you have had in the last 3 years. It looks as though the policy has been assigned to Norwich Union as part of a wholesale transfer of business (they wouldn't just take your policy in isolation). Whilst Hamilton were obviously satisfied enough to be making the payments it would seem NR weren't, which is why they sent their fella out. What you need to be finding out is what impression this guy went away with after his visit to you. To summarise - I dont think complaining about the policy itself is the way to go - it served its purpose and paid the loan for 3 years. What you need to find out (and the possibly complain about) is on what grounds NR used to decide to cease payments. If they wont tell you outright then I would suggest that you send them an S.A.R. and take it from there. Final thought - as the loan was originally due to finish in Oct/Nov 2008 do you actually know what the outstanding balance is? Hamilton are the insurance company arm of HFC, and before HSBC took over the whole business was owned (as was HFC) by the American Household International. They were/are based in Bracknell, Berkshire. Quite why Norwich Union is now involved is anyone's guess. Hope that helps.

Because the 2004 CCA Agreement Regs (which came into force on 31/5/05) added for the first time the requirement to show the annual rate on the agreement.

The requirement for lenders to sent written notification of any charges started on 1st October, for charges made after this date. They have to notify you within 35 days of the charge being applied.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my last post - the insurance settlement means the amount they will pay to settle the claim, which in their eyes will be the actual value of the car (although they often try and lowball this figure). You will still remain liable for the differences, but if you have GAP insurance then you seriously need to get on to them about this, as this could be the answer to your prayers because this type of insurance is designed to pay off the rest of the finance in the event of your car being written off. In fact, I would recommend speaking to the funding corp and giving them the full picture. I know they don't figure too highly in many peoples opinions on this forum but if you have got GAP then I would have thought that it would be in their own interests to help you get this sorted out. If your car is repaired instead then you are correct in saying that your payments would simply continue, but you also need to follow your PPi claim through as well - that is supposed to be the reason that these insurances are made available, to give you cover when you need it.

How bad is the damage? If it was fairly slight then the bus driver may not even have realised what he had done.

The £1000 difference will be a) because they will also incur recovery costs and auction fees and b) they will sell it to the trade, which will be for a lower price. They will not sell it to the public even if it gets them (and you) more money for it because they then incur S.O.G.A. liabilities to the new buyer. Sorry to hear that you've got such a shortfall between the car's value and the amount you owe. If the car is written off then the insurance company will probably pay their settlement to the funding corp. Have you got GAP insurance? This is supposed to pay the difference on your account, so you could come up trumps after all.

I think you have had a narrow escape thanks to your business banking manager, who will hopefully deal with the actions of the other chap internally so that he cannot go near a customer until he has spent the next five years refilling the branch leaflet dispensers and checking the ink in the biros.

You've lost me. What has that got to do with credit agreements, or PPI?