Andie it's so good to hear from you, you were always an inspiration to us I honestly don't blame you at all for settling, I can tell you that this case has damn near killed me at times! It has engulfed my life for the last 2 and a half years and deprived me of times I can never get back. The ironic thing is that I would've been happy to walk away after the appeal, I considered that my victory and I needed nothing else, but the other side were too contemptuous to agree. Well that was a one time offer and they threw it back in my face, they know they are wrong, they know they broke the law, they know they still have so much to hide but still they refuse to show remorse or an ounce of decency or integrity. It's mainly their arrogance that spurs me to go on, he still deliberately addresses me in lower case letters just to show his disdain for me! Needless to say I return the courtesy Today he asked me to withdraw my Part 18 app. but after he addressed me in lower case I felt ill-inclined to assist him! What the Hell I've come this far I might as well see it through to the end As for Mr P, I haven't heard hide nor hair of him since the trial! He didn't even show up for the appeal! I'm fairly sure I've got the measure of him; another keyboard warrior that has plenty to say on paper... Oh well, 2 more hearings to go and I can put this behind me, although I will always be on hand to assist anybody that finds themselves in a similar situation and I suspect that is welcome's biggest worry.....

Well I don't suppose there's any real reason now why I can't say... The trial window is set for 7th May to 24th May and there will be an interlocutory hearing next week to decide one or two outstanding issues We received directions back in Feb with regard to the final hearing, a DJ had reviewed the case and decided that all that was required to go forward with was a very brief general round up of the issues and listing questionnaires; no court bundles or further evidence or any of that nonsense. The other side dragged their heels, failed to co-operate and ended up being late filing. When I did eventually receive their LQ I noticed that they had ticked the box for additional directions required and applications attached, but they hadn't attached anything to the copy they sent me! Anyway, it then transpired that they had made an application to court to get the case transferred to Mercantile court and allocated to Mulit-track. I believe that they had deliberately tried to sneak this past me, and they didn't exactly fall over themselves to deny it shall we say! It appears they were attempting to get the case heard by a different High Court judge and had included as their supporting 'evidence' that the outstanding issues to be decided were those of agency relationships and fiduciary relationships. No bloody wonder they wanted to sneak it past me! The issues of agency relationships and fiduciary relationships had already been dealt with at the appeal and the only remaining issue left to decide on is Unfair Relationship; as was decided at the case management conference back in September last year Generally speaking, (in my opinion), they have never been able to stomach the fact that they lost at High Court to an LiP and effectually tried to get a second High Court Judge to overturn the judgment! Back to today....directions received from court. Application for transfer to Mercantile Court dismissed without a hearing, (they had requested a hearing to decide whether the case should be transferred). The case management is to remain with County Court There's so much more to the story, I could literally go on for ages! I made an application of my own not so long ago, a Part 18 request to clarify the exact details of the payment and receipt of secret commission. They failed to reply and so I had to apply to the court to enforce compliance. They then sent me some cobbled together nonsense which made no sense at all and labelled it a response! I told them it was limited, unsatisfactory and contradictory but they just ignored me. The court have also today decided that my application to enforce compliance under part 18 should be heard I have no reason not to attend, as far as I'm concerned they haven't fully complied with my request and I am quite content to let a judge decide what needs to be disclosed and what doesn't

Backfired! Not long now folks and this whole crazy story will be all over

Well it's certainly bought a smile to my face this evening It is a staggering lengthy & complicated story but yes, I will soon be back in court. To cut an extremely long story court I took welcome to court on unfair relationship justified by many reasons, on the day of the first trial they changed their story from their submitted defence and sprung Harrison on me. The DJ allowed them to do this and it was deemed that the relationship was not unfair, I got suitably cross at the injustice and appealed to the High Court. I was granted permission and won the appeal because the DJ had failed to adhere to the statutory regime governing consumer credit and the unfair relationships provisions, it has now been remitted back to County Court for them to "think again". Needless to say the other side are not pleased with me They still keep trying to use Harrison, even though it's not relevant and a Lord Justice told them that causation is not a defence. Still, it's made me smile that the Harrison's have been granted permission as they've done nothing but harp on about it for the last year and one of their last statements refers to an "important new development". That was long lived then eh?!! So funny A few short weeks and the final remit will be upon us. Following my success in High Court and now this with the Harrisons, it'll certainly be a very interesting final day in court

Thank you very much for posting that So, loosely speaking, the Supreme Court have realised that, even though the law was changed to assist the consumer in their fight against unscrupulous lenders, the realisation is that the lower courts will generally ignore the principles of S.140 and go out of their way to find in favour of the lenders. I'm sure the words 'Harrison', 'Supreme Court', 'Permission' and 'Unfair Relationship' will be well utilised in a court near me very soon

Well of course they did, they were obviously wrong no doubt about that. I'm sure that as soon as welcome realise they have erred they immediately apologise for the error and rectify it without delay. That's how it usually goes isn't it???

Well that was one of the reasons I went to appeal, the whole trial was farcical! The underwriting sheet showed the amount of commission on PPI paid to be £398 but Mr Palmer said under oath that it was only £26, the judge looked at the sheet, ignored it and went with what Palmer said There was no getting away with at appeal though, the Lord Justice saw straight through their lies Don't worry, I've done as much as humanly possible to highlight every single one of their lies in preparation for the final hearing. It is my sole mission in life to show them up for exactly what they are and I'm not done yet. I suppose there's always some element of deceit in every case, a criminal will always protest his innocence in the hope of getting away with it I presume.

A sweet deal indeed

Yes he did, he said he had an honest belief in its truth and then squirmed the whole way through it with many desperate looks to his pals for support

I know that tickled me too when I read it Oh yes I noticed that PPI claims had come to an end too following that decision ICOB only covers insurance, shame about the rest of it then eh?

Oh but Mr Palmer said on the stand at trial that 'Undisclosed' and 'Secret' were different things altogether and just because it was undisclosed it doesn't mean it was secret, in fact 'Secret' is a legal term apparently and didn't apply in this case, but then he also said that they only paid 2% commission so it's anybody's guess really!

Oh really? I'm off to DMOR then

I don't think they even care what they say any more, there have been so many different stories it must be impossible for them to remember what they said last let alone what they said first! Unluckily for them I happen to be the kind of person that remembers every tiny detail of everything anybody ever said to me, (ask my husband lol!), so as soon as a new version appears it triggers the "Contradiction Recognition Alert Procedure!!"

Oh I've had that one too! They love to be patronising, it's what makes them feel so good about themselves. Well if welcome sell an NU policy for £1000, for example, but NU give them £600 when they sell it and then they sell it to the customer for £1000, surely it works out that they have paid £400 for a policy and sold it to the customer for a £600 profit?? Who ends up getting stiffed and who ends up quids in??

Wait a minute, I'd better correct that one too! First they said they didn't pay any commission to anybody, then they said they only paid 2%, then they said they received 45% and paid 22.5% to the broker. I'll get it right in a minute, well it would be a lot easier to understand if they stuck to the same story from the beginning

Hang on, let me correct that one too! welcome NOW allege it was 45%, first they said it was none at all and then they said it was 2%, but hey who's counting??

Sorry I should correct that last post! I allege that the amounts of commission received by welcome from Norwich Union exceeded half of the actual cost of the policies, welcome allege it was only 45%

As far as I was aware, officially I didn't pay anything to anybody apart from welcome finance for the amounts they set out to include the cash price for the car and the cost of the insurances. But in effect, after much investigation, it appears I would have inadvertently paid half of the insurance premiums as commission to welcome and they then paid half of that amount to the broker, so in a roundabout kind of way I would have paid money to welcome and a broker to cover the amount of commission dealings that went on without my knowledge. This is one of the reasons I have always felt their behaviour was grossly unfair!

Just for the record, I have never made a claim against anyone regarding fiduciary or agency relationships or breach of fiduciary duty. I have made a claim against somebody that the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair to the debtor for several reasons, one of which being the payment of secret commission. It is my understanding that if one does not make an allegation then a defence to an allegation that was never made is not necessary. If I may be so bold to quote The Honourable Lord Justice Beatson: "The reference to secret commission and the absence of any reference to the regulatory regime and the unfair relationships provisions, suggest that the judge was not clearly distinguishing between an argument based on an agency relationship and one based on the statutory regime governing consumer credit." Even so, considering my very limited knowledge, I would have thought that if a person pays somebody to do something on their behalf the recipient would therefore act as an agent for the person that is making the payment??

I couldn't possibly say

Thank you I suppose what it comes down to in the end is whether the judges involved from here on forward stick to the facts or get their heads turned by legal teams as opposed to LiPs. But having said that, that's always been the main battle I've had to fight all along.

I'll pm you

It is! It's so exciting I can barely contain myself some days! I'll be the first to admit I have struggled terribly at times with the stress of this case, to such a point where I've been really ill. I suspect that's why they continue to underestimate me; the last time they saw me I will openly say I was a wreck throughout the entire hearing. Luckily, the appeal was delayed for 2 weeks due to problems with the transcript so I had time to get to the docs and get some help or I might not have seen it through at all! But here we are, almost a year later and I'm stronger and more determined than I ever was. Couple that with everything I've learnt about dirty tricks and all the support I get on here and I won't be walked over by anybody ever again, no matter who they are In fairness to the other side, I wouldn't have been able to get this far if they hadn't kept tripping themselves up and underestimating my capabilities If ever I didn't say thanks enough for the unfaltering support I get here I'll say it again now just in case.

Oh they've already tried that one! They listed this thread as part of their Standard Disclosure Well if the advice was that poor I'm sure a very well esteemed High Court Judge and Goode: Consumer Credit Law and Practice would not have supported my claims! After all these years spent fighting against them I'm phased very little by their tricks and games, in fact I expect nothing less from them. This last effort is especially despicable though, let's hope it doesn't end up backfiring on them eh??

The final, final hearing is in a few short weeks so all will hopefully be 100% decided then I am trying not to give too much away on here as I know my unwelcome guests are watching, but what I can say is that there have been several 'developments' since the appeal that show them for what they are. The only comment I feel it fair to make at this stage is; if anybody has ever had dealings with welcome and their legal team and as a result forms a certain opinion about them, multiply that opinion by a million and you will probably be somewhere near the truth. Unfortunately their 'efforts' are in vain with me, just call me Eagle Eyes! Sorry for being so cryptic, trust no-one