There is the temptation to ascribe Machiavellian intentions to Welcome's actions. Has it ever struck you that they may just be stupid?

Hi bustthematrix This is a very old thread and I have no idea if the posters are even still around. You might be better advised to start a new thread and ask the question again

Here are the figures calculated using the OFT DualCalc program. 1. The first loan was £23774 payable as 120 payments of £425. This gives an APR of 19.3% 2. As the PPI was mis-sold, it should not be included, so the first loan should have been £20000 payable as 120 payments of £357.53 (APR of 19.3%) 3. You made 12 payments, so, with statutory rebate, the settlement amount for the first loan at the end of 1 year would have been £19486.68 4. However, you overpaid because you paid £425 rather than £357.53 each month. Your overpayment was £809.64 5. The proper settlement figure is therefore £18677.04 (£19486.68 - £809.64) This is what the second loan amount should have been. You have two choices: EITHER keep the second loan as it is and demand that they repay you the difference between the loan amount and the real settlement figure, that is £3525.96 OR demand that they recalculate the second loan for the proper settlement figure of £18677.04 This second option should lead to a loan with repayments of £201.04 (with an adjustment for the fact that you have been paying £239 per month for 3 years)

The most usual reason for people being in this position is exactly as RI says - change of circumstances. If the DCA takes you to court, this may actually be the best result because the court will not force you to pay what you cannot afford. You can apply for a time order, backed up by a statement of income and expenditure. There will then be a court order confirming the payments which prevents the DCA coming back for more or hassling you. Using the CCA to buy some time is a valid thing to do and you can also use it to make sure that the DCA does everything by the book. Most of them are very sloppy and,as you say, don't care a jot. What often happens if you use the CCA and insist that they comply fully is that they suddenly realise that they are going to have to work for their money and send the account back to the original creditor. THen it all starts again a couple of weeks later. With some accounts I deal with, I have dealt with 4 or 5 DCAs, one after the other.

They keep a blank original and then just fill it in in response to the s77 request with details from their database.

Thanks for the info. To do the sums, I also need the dates - when the first loan was taken out and when it was refinanced. I need this to work out the statutory rebate. I was not accusing you of trying to get out of the loan - my comments were not directed at you at all but were general, prompted by RI's post, trying to lay out the situation as it now is (and to some extent, why)

I had exactly this situation - you may have declined PPI on the refinanced loan, but the principal from the original PPI is still clearly in the loan amount. What they did was to calculate the early repayment amount of the original loan and then sell you a second loan to pay it off, including the original PPI amount. What you should do is to put in a claim for repayment of the PPI payments you have made in both the original and refinanced loans, plus interest. Write to them and tell them that the PPI was mis-sold and that you want it back. I can calculate the amount but I will need the following information: Date of first loan, monthly repayment amount, number of months of the original loan, date when it was refinanced, date of second loan (if different from date when first loan was refinanced), monthly repayments for second loan, number of months of second loan

A lot of the advice about sending off for CCA's, etc dates back before the cases I referred to. What people need to realise is that the world has completely changed over the last 18 months in relation to consumer credit agreements. Basically, what the courts have said is that if you admit to borrowing money and the lender can show you under what terms you borrowed it, then that is all that is necessary for the agreement to be enforced. If you insist that you didn't borrow the money, the court will find on the basis of balance of probabilities. So, if you actually didn't borrow the money (for example, the creditor is chasing the wrong person), you can insist that they prove it (and they shouldn't be able to, of course) - that is your protection against DCAs. To insist that you didn't borrow the money when you in fact did, would be fraud. I think there is a slight misconception in what you posted. Asking for a CCA under sections 77 or 78 of the Act never really was a "protection against DCAs" in the sense that it never was a legitimate thing to do to try and get out of paying a debt on the technical ground that the DCA couldn't produce an agreement- although many tried it. CAG never encouraged it or supported it.

Over the last year or so, the law has been clarified regarding agreements. As things stand, a loan company can provide (and enforce) an agreement recreated from their records. In other words, they do not have to provide a copy, they do not have to provide anything with your signature. All they have to do is to provide a document which has the prescribed terms relating to your agreement (theta, is what is meant by a 'true copy')as they WOULD HAVE BEEN when you signed it and AS THEY ARE NOW. If you acknowledge that you actually borrowed money from them, this is all they need to enforce the agreement through the courts. If you deny that you ever borrowed any money, that is a different matter, although, if they can show that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that you did borrow the money, then the agreement will be enforced. The 'true copy' must show if there is PPI, etc.

Sixx Things have changed since some earlier advice on this site - IMHO, the thing about signing letters is far less important now since courts have ruled that reconstituted agreements are enforceable. reconstituted agreements don't need a signature at all. I have seen a number of Welcome agreements and they all comply with the 1983 regulations so there is no doubt about their enforceability, particularly since the recent rulings. What are you hoping to achieve? Plus, you didn't answer my question about insurance

I don't think they are entitled. In any case, you will only be one payment 'behind' - they are not going to issue a default for that if you carry on paying There isn't a letter but you could just write, in plain English, and point out that s77 of the CCA 1974 says that they may not demand payments whilst the account is in dispute and that means they cannot demand back payments one the account is no longer in dispute. Technically, yes as s77 says they must supply the agreement and a statement of account I would write a letter as in point 2 with the additional bit about the statement of account. Here is an outline of a letter you could send: 1. You wrote on such a date under s77 CCA 1974 2. They have only partly complied 3. THe account is therefore still in dispute 4. Whilst it is in dispute they may not ask for payment 5. You will resume payments once they have complied I have a further question - did you take out PPI or other insurance with the loan?

Can I remind all posters on this thread that personal insults, etc are not allowed under site rules. This thread should only contain help for sick as a chip. Take any other conversations somewhere else, please.

Getting the POC in is obviously your priority

THere are certain relationships which are fiduciary just because of what they are - for example, there is case law that says that, whereas the normal relationship between a bank and its customers is that of debtor and creditor, when a bank acts on a customer's paying instructions (eg by paying a cheque), the relationship is fiduciary. The relationship between a trustee and a trust is always fiduciary and so is the relationship between an agent and principal.

The witness statement I posted earlier effectively asks the court to declare the whole agreement void on the grounds that WFS acted fraudulently - this is because case law says that secret commissions are fraud. If the OP just asked for a refund of mis-sold PPI, that is a different kettle of fish and the repaid premiums can be used to offset the remaining debt.

WFS acted as insurance agent. IMO that puts them in a fiduciary relationship regarding their 'advice' about which policy you should buy. They had the duty to advise you what was best for you not what was best for them.

I have a couple of comments: what postggj says about multiple agreements is essentially true. However, like lots of other 'technical' faults in CC agreements, courts do not seem to give them any weight - 'technical' faults in CC agreements do not help us after the high court decisions of the last couple of years. Having said that, I do not believe that any rules say that PPI premiums should be part of the cost of credit - interest on them should be and so should any commissions paid to the agent by the supplier or by the agent to themselves since, either way, the customer pays them from the total amount paid to the loan company.

We believe that, even for later agreements, you don't have to go with FSCS but have the choice to go down the court route yourself. Given that FSCS are talking about 90% of the money back and no restitution, I know which way I would go.

good question dbabylon but I amsure that WFS is the correct defendant. About case law, etc, the way it is done is that, as jogs says, you prepare a witness statement or statement of case with your argument, including references and excerpts from all the case law and statutes you want to use. Once a court date is set, you prepare a court bundle with all the documents, etc you intend to rely on and file and serve before the hearing (I think it is 5 days, but I will have to check). This should include complete copies of any decided cases and statutes you want to use.

Yep

In that case, you do exactly as above but change CPR 31.16 to CPR 18 and change "in a proposed action" to "Claim No: xxxxxxx" Having said that, an alternative (and to my mind, better) approach would be to amend the N244 CPR 1.16 application to include a stay whilst the CPR 31.16 application is dealt with by the court. You could say this "best serves the overriding objective by ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly " Ring the court and ask them the best way to proceed - explain that you really need to see this document (which you know exists) to fully make your case.

It is best to provide a draft order, I didn't but the court was obviously expecting one - the judge typed it himself there and then. You need to provide a witness statement to accompany the N244. This is the one I used (slightly modified for your circumstances and to reflect my better understanding following the hearing: a draft order may be something like: You also need to prepare (and eventually file and serve) a schedule of costs. You can serve it by giving it to the Defendant's solicitor just before the hearing (if they turn up that is - otherwise you tell the judge you brought schedule to give to the defendant, but as they are not here....) EDIT Just looked at your edit. Why do you only have 14 days to submit a POC?

If you have not filed your POC, the correct way to go about this is to use CPR 31.16. You need to make an application on a N244 attaching a witness statement and pay a fee. The court will hear the case and then issue you with a court order for the underwriting sheet - this is what I did to get mine. Part 18 is to get additional information once a case is started but the process is essentially the same. The problem is that, if you start the case (ie file the POC) without the information, you may not get the chance to issue a part 18 as the defendants might move to have the case struck out under CPR3.4(2)(a) as showing no reasonable grounds. Remember, it is for the claimant to demonstrate the case. Therefore, the "correct" way to do this is to get an order under CPR31.16 for the underwriting sheet and then use that to build your POC. Believe me, the underwriting sheet is worth getting - it is really incriminating. The one I have shows that they made 660% profit on the personal accident plan (premium=£175, cost to Welcome £23), 288% profit on Lifecare 24 (premium £195, cost £50) and 82% on PPI (premium £585, cost £320). The average profit on the whole thing was 142%. Given that they told me none of this at the time, it clearly shows unlawful profit and secret commission (and case law says that is fraud).

Hi again LV The post by wonderbug you replied to was posted over 3 years ago - not sure if (s)he is still around

Hi LV, Welcome to CAG. You have posted on quite an old thread and the post you have replied to is over 5 months old. You might want to start your own thread. Also, I have made a slight edit to your post a we have very strict rules about language on the site and attempts to evade the swear filter.