Depends on a number of points. If you keep the car on a public road (or will still use the car) then you obviously must insure it. Until it is collected by Welcome it is still your responsibility to keep it safe and in good order. This means that if the car were to be stolen or damaged before it is collected then this will affect your ability to go through with the termination. I suppose the cost of having insurance for just a couple of weeks may be worth it should the worst happen - you can get short term policies that would servce this purpose, or if you explained the situation to your current insurers they may well cover both on the same policy for a short period of time - I was able to do this myself a few years back when the delivery of a new car crossed by a few weeks with the disposal of the old one.

postggj I think you might have dived in head first with that post. Post #3 seems to state that the OP bought a car from an independant garage and was therefore not supplied by Welcome. This is why I asked my previous question about the warranty. If the warranty was the garages own and sold by them then it is likely that Welcome did not know anything about it. I'm also not sure about your claim that cars are only at auctions because they are full of faults............most cars sold by used car dealers come from auctions. That is where fleets generally go to dispose of their vehicles - most of which have been fully maintained and have very little wrong with them.

Who provided the warranty, the dealer or welcome?

If the lender has got any brains they would accept a reduced payment arrangement from you, as the collapse of vehicle residual values is likely to be affecting them as much as it is affecting customers and it would therefore make sense for them to keep receiving money from you instead of taking a big loss on the car. Just remember though that if you were to reduce your payments then your arrears would increase which would not only affect your credit rating but also make it harder to terminate in the future because you woudl have to pay back any outstanding arrears.

I don't suppose there is any PPI on the loan that you can claim on is there?

Do you have proof of the ring's value?

Their worry is of people swapping wristbands on the night or the people with wristbands simply going and getting drinks all night for the people without. I can understand this. Have you found out how much the drinks are anyway? It might be worth just having a kitty with the money that would have been spent on the wristbands.

Asking the same question as postggj - how old is the agreement? When was it taken out and what was the original contractual term?

I'm afraid you've got the Competition Commission to blame for this. The CAB made a complaint to the OFT earlier in the decade and they in turn referred it to the CC due to concerns about the difficulty customers had in switching between home credit providers. One of the CC's solutions was to force each home credit company over a certain size to report their accounts to at least 2 CRA's. This became a requirement earlier this year.

I can confidently suggest that if the judge is a bloke then you do not call him 'Ma'am'. Hope that helps :grin:

Yes - sorry of my post was inclear. Let's say you buy the car for £5k and he owes £3k to the finance company. When you collect the car, give him £2k and send the rest to the finance company. At least you know that the car is paid off for definate.

As it says under Laura's name - "watch out there are claims touts about" !!!

If the seller has got a letter from the finance company confirming the settlement figure then it might be and idea that YOU send the money to them instead - at least you will definitely know that it has been paid off.

Your agreement is a hire agreement. Although still regulated by the CCA there is no amount of credit to display and no interest rate. The agreement is simply for the hire of goods over a period of time after which they are returned back to the company. As a hire agreement, it looks fine to me. As for their signature - if the copy you have posted is the one you were given at the time you signed it then it will not be signed by them. They should have sent you a further 'signed' copy afterwards once it had been accepted by the hire company. Do you still have the equipment under hire and if so have you tried negotiating with them for its return?

The website you got that from is a disgrace IMO, and should be investigated and probably closed down. It quotes heavily from Basil Rankine - anyone who believes the tosh he comes out with needs a serious reality check. The company affiliates itself to another company specialising in pyramid selling, but there is no contact details and the company, despite obviously offering a claims management service, does not appear to be authorised by the Ministry of Justice - who incidentally has recently put out a warning about the activities of just this type of company. It also advocates that if you cannot afford their 'fee' of £495, then taking out another credit card to pay the fee is a good idea. Disgraceful again. If what they are saying appears too good to be true then I guess you all know the rest.....

I assume that the £7700 figure is the gross balance before any settlement rebates? If you mean by 'top loading' you mean adding interest on at the start then this is not only allowed, but required in the case of fixed rate agreements. Only if the interest rate is variable under the terms and conditions can the total amount payable not be set at the beginning. Without knowing more about the loan (rate, term, monthly payment etc) it is impossible to comment about the unhappiness you have with your current settlement figure.

That would only apply if they didn't get a court order, and I doubt they would be dumb enough not to get a court order in that situation. The total amount payable under the contract includes your initial deposit, which means that you had already paid £2200 towards the £3.5k on the day you drove your car away In is unusual to find any lender willing to take an existing car as security for a loan unless you are talking about 'logbook loan' type companies, which I would avoid like the plague. You would need to look at an unsecured loan instead, but if your credit history is as bad as you say it is then in the current credit climate your chances may be slim.

Yes that is probably the case, it's just that it wasn't too clear which is why i was checking. I'm not sure, however, that there is any cause for alarm or complaint. R78 calculations acknowledge that more interest is payable in the early part of a loan (when the balance is greater) than the later part (when the balance is lower). From what i have seen in this example the OP doesn't appear to have been wrongly treated.

The £3702.20 figure is only payable if you let the loan run for its full term of 5 years. Instead you paid it off after 2yrs 7mths and paid £2687.90 in interest. The difference is the amount you saved by paying it off early, and would have been worked out as part of the settlement calculation (see my earlier post about Rule of 78). How much do you think you 'should' have paid? Would you prefer to have paid the full £3702.20? This is the bit I don't understand ! Whilst acknowledging LP's post about limitations, I see no reason in still providing the OP with answers to his questions.

I'm a bit lost here as to what the problem is. The original post says that 'all I saved was 1 months payment if that in the end', but the total amount paid was actually £1014.30 less than the original total ??? Am I missing something? This figure represents the interest saved by not letting the loan go over its full term. Back then they would have used the Rule of 78 in calculating the interest spread over the term and on this basis you appear to have done rather well out of it. Check it for yourself here Rule of 78 Loan Calculator

In that case I doubt that the information on here will be of much use as it is designed for policies that were sold alongside loans etc. If you actually went and bought a policy independanty it could be difficult to argue that you didn't know you were buying it etc. There is a widespread misconception that all PPI policies do not cover self employed, which is not always true. Assuming the company you bought it from knew that your husband is self employed then I would imagine that he will be covered, but check the small print anyway. The most obvious risk for self employed (sole traders) is the threat of accident or sickness preventing them from working. All PPI's cover this whether he is self employed or not - the evidence needed in the event of a claim comes from his doctor and not his employer! Please DO NOT cancel this policy without seeking proper advice. Sods law says that the day after you cancel it your husband could well be needing it. I doubt that those who would readily tell you to cancel it now would be prepared to take responsibility for the situation you would be in if you were left under insured should the worst happen. When you bought the policy you obviously saw the need, and I assumeof course that hasn't changed. Seriously - SEEK INDEPENDANT ADVICE !! Hope that helps.

IPT stands for Insurance Premium Tax - it is an amount that is charged on any insurance premium and payable to the government (a bit like VAT). It represents - I think - 5% to the cost of the insurance. It is not something that you can claim back seperately to the rest of the premium, but if you successfully claim back your premium then any IPT should be included in the refund.

Chinnygirl is this a stand alone policy that you bought independantly of a loan or credit agreement?

My pleasure....... Consumer Credit Act 2006 - BERR There is now a requirement for all lenders to provide annual statements, but this was not a requirement previously. Hope that helps.

Just to clarify an apparent misunderstanding here, the requirement to send annual statements on loan agreements actually started yesterday (1/10/08). This means that transactions after this date must appear in an annual statement which must be sent no more than on eyear of the date of the transaction.