Well done Bebo, look forward to result. We all write letters of agreement in dispute but WF ignor this saying they do not follow the banking code and therefore the account in dispute letter is totally rejected. Can anyone direct me to actual regulations that we can quote. I do suspect there are none and the only dispute formula is through the FOS. WF are very slippery people to deal with throwing up all sorts of barriers.

Colin, I think we all will be very interested in what exactly comes back from WF. Seems you may have been done over very nicely! But plenty of guys on here to help.

Hi Mich, it's all very well them writing a loan of tosh and expectiong you to lie down. The fact is the amount payable written on the agreement is wrong which they have arrived at by adding D+E+H. This is wrong because D should not be added in at all. They talk about the 48 x payment equals the correct sum payable but that figure does not appear anywhere on the HP agreement and can only be arrived at by calculation, which is exactly what they have done.. What is more, the figure quoted for termination is based on the wrong figure and not the figure arrived at by payment x 48, work it out. So they are fiddling, ripping you off on the termination figure. On these agreements which are regulated all details must be correct and clear, the HP agreement is not. The PPI is also a restricted credit agreement but separate, so where is the total cost of credit? We have the interest but where is the fee? And there definitely would be brokers commission, so where is it? I would now go to FOS with all of this and ask them to investigate properly especially the PPI insurance, ask them to request an absolute disclosure about who the insurer is and who received the brokers commission and to what value, because if its Welcome Elite and they have kept the fees and commission secret, they have had it. Tell FOS you suspect a massive conflict of interest which has added to your debt i.e. fees and commission which should be part of the cost of credit (PPI loan)

Hi Mich, we have gone over this before I think. The HP agreement has the wrong total to pay because they have added in the £1300 previously deducted, the correct figure is £8338.56. You have here 2 separate agreements, one is HP and the other a fixed sum credit agreement for the PPI. Both have different interest rates so they are indeed separate and should be paid for separtely. You have even signed for these as separate agreements and yet they mix the two together. On the HP agreement they even compound their error by quoting termination rights based on the wrong total payable figure of £9638.56. The fact that they have the wrong amount payable renders the agreement unenforcible. Postggj agreed with me on this I believe. Have you challenged them on this because it is plainly wrong? We are not supposed to do calculations to arrive at figures which should be on an agreement.

as post would say, these letters are crap. The total charge for credit includes the arrangement fee which as part of the charge is not subject to interest and is allowed to be paid for over time. Sec 9(4) CCA1974. I understand from a post I have seen whuch was a reply from Welcome saying that the MIF is not an insurance. So its a fee that they just apply, I am challenging this myself The Wilson case refers to secret commision and fees withing the PPI insurance, these should be brought out but they are not and in the Wilson case the PPI was not payable. I have the same and am challeging it. Also your agreement should be a multi loan agreement because you have 2 catagories of loan mixed together, restricted is the PPI and unrestricted is the cash loan. These must be separate agreements signed for separately and even paid separately although may be collected together. see sec 18 CCA1974. I have not read all your thread but if the agreement is not executed properly and if it is secured, then you should get them to cancel the charge (read sec 105 and 106) In this case the MIF is then not applicable because there is no security attached to the loan and therefore an indemnity fee is not required. This my viewpoint

bebobebo, if your agreement is not properly executed then nor is the security instrument (Legal charge)and they have to return this immediately (sec 106 ineffective securities) it worked for me. Getting them to agree unenforcible may be difficult though. Try it.

Its not on ours either nor is the total interest payable, you have to calculate it! Unexecuted agreement!

I assume this figure includes MIF as well. Still a fee and yes you would pay back that much but still for the purpose of the act I would argue that your loan is still 25K and not over. The fees take it over 25K but are not counted as credit as they are part cost of credit. I am assuming that the argument is whether the loan exceeds 25K or not, I say it does not. Without going back over,I think this started as an MIF thing but it was established that MIF is a fee and not an insurance. Therefore MIF is cost of credit as post has said

In my view the fees, as they are part of the cost of credit, do not add to the actual credit which is the loan amount i.e. 25K The loan of 25K is the credit that the act refers to while the fees being part of the cost of credit together with the interest do not increase the loan amount, just as the interest applied to 25K does not increase the amount of credit, so do the fees not increase the credit either, the loan to which interest is applied is still 25K not 25K + fees. Sec 9(4) is clear on this I think. Its my opinion of course.

My view is that the MIF and the acceptance fee is part of the total charge for credit and is not credit and as such should not attract interest. These fees are both compulsory and clearly are a charge made for the credit advanced. Its clear now that MIF is not an insurance but just another fee that welcome have devised, therefore I would argue that this is part of the cost of credit without interest being applied but paid over time sec 9(4) says this I think

looking for that answer myself. in my case if the PPI an MIF are removed and the same level of payment paid then this loan is well finished. At present they still want more than 9k and rising.

Just a thought. If the agreement is deemed unenforcible and the security returned should not the MIF fee be returned also as there is no home to repossess. My opinion is that it should be. Anyone?

I am interested to see how yours runs, it would seem ours is similar, wrong figures on agreement which do not tally with statement. In our case the statement had the correct total loan figure while the agreeement had the wrong figure, took me a while to realise that they had screwed up, but it made the agreement unenforcible. Unfortunately according to WF the debt stands but we dont have to pay. I'll follow your thread with interest.

If you read CCA1974 sec 105 Form of security and then sec 106 Ineffective securities you will see what I mean. the loan is not cancelled but at least the home is safe, a major consideration I think. Sec 105 Form and content of securities (5) A security instrument is not properly executed unless— (a) where the security is provided after, or at the time when, the regulated agreement is made, a copy of the executed agreement, together with a copy of any other document referred to in it, is given to the surety at the time the security is provided, or (b) where the security is provided before the regulated agreement is made, a copy of the executed agreement, together with a copy of any other document referred to in it, is given to the surety within seven days after the regulated agreement is made. 106 Ineffective securities Where, under any provision of this Act, this section is applied to any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement, then, subject to section 177 (saving for registered charges),— (a) the security, so far as it is so provided, shall be treated as never having effect; (b) any property lodged with the creditor or owner solely for the purposes of the security as so provided shall be returned by him forthwith; The point is EXECUTED agreement. If the agreement is not executed then so is the security instrument ot executed and has to be returned, it works.

emanevs, I was interested in your post re the letter andys 123 should send. Unless I have missed something, you state that on the grounds that the agreement is unenforcible (non executed) andys123 can claim back all payments made before this date. Other posts I have read in the past says that payments cannot be claimed back and indeed WF have refused us and continue to lump interest on and increase the arrears. Ours is an agreed non executed agreement because of addition erorr but as this was a 2003 agreement you can imagine the other errors on this document which make this totally non compliant with CCA 1974. My interest is in your statement that we can actually claim back money paid on an unenforcible agreement, can you clarify please. In our case with a total loan amount in cash terms of £8800 over 3 loans a total of nearly £20000 has actually been paid and now stopped. This does not include PPI which is missold or the MIF which should not be there especially as the securiy has been returned.