Help with Welcome Finance

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Cyril, I think the problem here is that you may feel that the courts behave in the same manner as the FOS and Trading Standards. This is absolutely NOT the case, as I have tried to explain to you before now. The court have an obligation to uphold The Law whereas the rest of them tend to take the creditor's side and the totally ignorant "moral view".

 

Please, I am begging you to understand and stop unnecessarily worrying folk; THE COURT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS WRITTEN IN THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, CPR AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS; ADVISORY SERVICES DO NOT HAVE THAT OBLIGATION!!!

 

Look at my case, which I know you are familiar with. I stopped paying but it has absolutely NO BEARING whatsoever on The Law. The Law states that they are not lawfully entitled to enter my premises and repossess my car. The court absolutely cannot change the law based on some kind of moral standing! Just because someone stops paying doesn't mean the creditor then has the right to do whatever the hell they like! There are processes and protocols that must be followed, The Law is The Law is The Law!!

 

By your reasoning you could get someone off with murder by saying the victim deserved it, it simply does not work that way.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Just gotta show you something

[beyondhope]

I personally hold no regard for FOS where welcome are concerned, more so as they blatantly refuse to look at contract issues and have said the courts need to deal with these, which is fine if you have the knowledge to go to court without it I assume they presume you will sit back and be quiet, which is totally wrong! Especially given, here at least, there are only 2 consumer law specialist solicitor offices and neither will touch my case without being paid £115 + VAT an hr for a paralagel, given an estimate of 10 reading hours initially it just wasnt viable with a young family!

[beyondhope]

Just gotta show you something

 

I just read your thread and burst out laughing LOL

[beyondhope]

Sorry cab with all my blabbering on I forgot to say 'Morning'

[cab1ne]

nothing different then

 

i just got a little protective, "sorry" for being a bit naughty

 

cab

[beyondhope]

nothing different then

 

i just got a little protective, "sorry" for being a bit naughty

 

cab

 

was nice to have back up you are forgiven

[cyril1982]

Cyril, I think the problem here is that you may feel that the courts behave in the same manner as the FOS and Trading Standards. This is absolutely NOT the case, as I have tried to explain to you before now. The court have an obligation to uphold The Law whereas the rest of them tend to take the creditor's side and the totally ignorant "moral view".

 

Please, I am begging you to understand and stop unnecessarily worrying folk; THE COURT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS WRITTEN IN THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, CPR AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS; ADVISORY SERVICES DO NOT HAVE THAT OBLIGATION!!!

 

Look at my case, which I know you are familiar with. I stopped paying but it has absolutely NO BEARING whatsoever on The Law. The Law states that they are not lawfully entitled to enter my premises and repossess my car. The court absolutely cannot change the law based on some kind of moral standing! Just because someone stops paying doesn't mean the creditor then has the right to do whatever the hell they like! There are processes and protocols that must be followed, The Law is The Law is The Law!!

 

By your reasoning you could get someone off with murder by saying the victim deserved it, it simply does not work that way.

 

i do understand the difference between the way the fos and the courts work, my case with the fos was not upheld for the very reason that they said my complaint was one of a legal nature and while it had merit they were not a court and could not decide.

 

if i thought the courts worked the same way as the fos i'd hardley be thinking of starting a legal action, it would be a dead cert loser if the courts took the same view as the fos.

 

my intention was not to worry anyone and i apologise to beyondhope if i have worried you but what i would say about that is my comments were merely my own observations about how poor some of the early advice to you in this thread was, which you yourself have acknowledged is the case, it was not a prediction that you would lose your legal case, what do i know? i'm new to the whole legal route myself.

 

one other point to wannabe, your case is the same as mine in many respects, it's pretty cut and dry, the creditor can not repossess if one third has been paid or if the vehicle was on private land unless they get a court order permitting them to reposses, in both our cases the creditor broke this rule and the consumer credit act quite clearly states that we are entitled to at least all of the money we had paid towards the agreement back. while mine and your cases are very similar beyond's case is quite different to our two cases.

 

and i disagree with your murder analogy.

 

i am here to offer support to others, i have expressed some legitimate concerns about some of the early advice dished out and suddenly i'm public enemy number one, All i have to say on that matter is........ WTF!!!

[beyondhope]

i do understand the difference between the way the fos and the courts work, my case with the fos was not upheld for the very reason that they said my complaint was one of a legal nature and while it had merit they were not a court and could not decide.

 

if i thought the courts worked the same way as the fos i'd hardley be thinking of starting a legal action, it would be a dead cert loser if the courts took the same view as the fos.

 

my intention was not to worry anyone and i apologise to beyondhope if i have worried you but what i would say about that is my comments were merely my own observations about how poor some of the early advice to you in this thread was, which you yourself have acknowledged is the case, it was not a prediction that you would lose your legal case, what do i know? i'm new to the whole legal route myself.

 

one other point to wannabe, your case is the same as mine in many respects, it's pretty cut and dry, the creditor can not repossess if one third has been paid or if the vehicle was on private land unless they get a court order permitting them to reposses, in both our cases the creditor broke this rule and the consumer credit act quite clearly states that we are entitled to at least all of the money we had paid towards the agreement back. while mine and your cases are very similar beyond's case is quite different to our two cases.

 

and i disagree with your murder analogy.

 

i am here to offer support to others, i have expressed some legitimate concerns about some of the early advice dished out and suddenly i'm public enemy number one, All i have to say on that matter is........ WTF!!!

 

 

Thank you for pointing out the incorrect advice unfortunately it is too late for me but with any luck no one will take any notice of the drivvle that fills the first few pages I cant put what I really think about the earlier advice as my post would be cag-boted If only my case was as straight cut as yours and wannabe's although they have acted in exactly the same manner throughout both mine and wannabe's case even defending the same section of cca which wasnt alledged in the first place *rolls eyes into the back of my head* I dont think you have become public enemy number 1. Best of luck with your claim also

[cyril1982]

Thank you for pointing out the incorrect advice unfortunately it is too late for me but with any luck no one will take any notice of the drivvle that fills the first few pages I cant put what I really think about the earlier advice as my post would be cag-boted If only my case was as straight cut as yours and wannabe's although they have acted in exactly the same manner throughout both mine and wannabe's case even defending the same section of cca which wasnt alledged in the first place *rolls eyes into the back of my head* I dont think you have become public enemy number 1. Best of luck with your claim also

 

well thank you beyond, and here's hoping that the scummy little gits that have ripped you off get whats comming to them aswell.

 

i'll be watching your thread with interest as i am wannabe's and wishing nothing but success for you.

 

here's wishing you the very best luck...

[cab1ne]

totally correct on the 1/3rd, but don't forget the other reason. section 92 of the act.

 

oh and just a bit of bedtime reading

 

 

 

cab

Secret Commissions Act 1910.pdf

[beyondhope]

well thank you beyond, and here's hoping that the scummy little gits that have ripped you off get whats comming to them aswell.

 

i'll be watching your thread with interest as i am wannabe's and wishing nothing but success for you.

 

here's wishing you the very best luck...

 

Lets hope luck has nothing to do with it

[beyondhope]

totally correct on the 1/3rd, but don't forget the other reason. section 92 of the act.

 

oh and just a bit of bedtime reading

 

 

 

cab

 

Id love to use that as well shame they 'dont have to provide me' with the document

[cab1ne]

Id love to use that as well shame they 'dont have to provide me' with the document

 

why not, you never know. i never knew until the fos sent me a copy

 

cab

[beyondhope]

why not, you never know. i never knew until the fos sent me a copy

 

cab

 

Oh I could MAKE them if I wanted to thats what just their response when I said it was missing from SAR basically admitting there was one but refusing to provide me with it!

[cab1ne]

Oh I could MAKE them if I wanted to thats what just their response when I said it was missing from SAR basically admitting there was one but refusing to provide me with it!

 

Ahh see wot you mean, has it been mentioned in your bundle. (so to speak)

 

cab

[beyondhope]

Ahh see wot you mean, has it been mentioned in your bundle. (so to speak)

 

cab

 

its not mentioned in the claim because as cyril rightly said theres more than one way to skin a cat

[cab1ne]

its not mentioned in the claim because as cyril rightly said theres more than one way to skin a cat

 

very true, its just me being a greedy git. the lesson i have learn't from that saying is "theres more than one way". the more the merrier

 

cab

[beyondhope]

very true, its just me being a greedy git. the lesson i have learn't from that saying is "theres more than one way". the more the merrier

 

cab

 

absolutely!!! and given I already have two points in this case that dont touch on another 2 I could start on I have sufficient back up I feel All my eggs arent in this basket thats for sure

[cab1ne]

absolutely!!! and given I already have two points in this case that dont touch on another 2 I could start on I have sufficient back up I feel All my eggs arent in this basket thats for sure

 

"nice"

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Cyril, nobody is suggesting you are public enemy number 1 or any enemy for that matter. I know you have the kindest of intention, I am just worried that the way in which some of your posts come across is having a detrimental effect.

We all know the earlier advice on this thread has led to a great deal of problems but there is absolutely nothing we can do about that now and coming on to somebody's thread saying "I can't see what grounds you have gone to court on" and that there may have been advice "detrimental" to her case is going to come across to the reader to be very worrying indeed.

 

I'm sure you mean well but I am concerned that some of your advice may be a little over zealous, especially for the newbies on cag. It did also worry me what you wrote on the Car Repo thread about how you couldn't see any way of the OP keeping his car and he should try to take out a loan to make the final payment.

To you it may seem like just your opinion but to a newbie it could quite easily look like he has no options left. What worried me the most was that you voiced that opinion before even finding out if the agreement was regulated, how much had been paid, or looking into what rights the OP had at all. The OP left the thread and has not returned since you made those comments. That's very sad if he has gone away thinking there is no hope and he loses his car and is still liable for the 9K when there was an option available to keep it.

 

I know this an open forum and anybody can post what they like, my opinion is just be careful what you say because these are real peoples' lives we are interfering with.

[cyril1982]

Cyril, nobody is suggesting you are public enemy number 1 or any enemy for that matter. I know you have the kindest of intention, I am just worried that the way in which some of your posts come across is having a detrimental effect.

We all know the earlier advice on this thread has led to a great deal of problems but there is absolutely nothing we can do about that now and coming on to somebody's thread saying "I can't see what grounds you have gone to court on" and that there may have been advice "detrimental" to her case is going to come across to the reader to be very worrying indeed.

 

I'm sure you mean well but I am concerned that some of your advice may be a little over zealous, especially for the newbies on cag. It did also worry me what you wrote on the Car Repo thread about how you couldn't see any way of the OP keeping his car and he should try to take out a loan to make the final payment.

To you it may seem like just your opinion but to a newbie it could quite easily look like he has no options left. What worried me the most was that you voiced that opinion before even finding out if the agreement was regulated, how much had been paid, or looking into what rights the OP had at all. The OP left the thread and has not returned since you made those comments. That's very sad if he has gone away thinking there is no hope and he loses his car and is still liable for the 9K when there was an option available to keep it.

 

I know this an open forum and anybody can post what they like, my opinion is just be careful what you say because these are real peoples' lives we are interfering with.

 

on the subject of the other thread wannabe i'm afraid i don't share your optimism about the op's chances of getting a time order granted because his agreement is not a standard hp agreement, it is a fundamental part of his agreement that he has to pay a balloon payment (lump sum) at the end in return for lower monthly payments and not paying interest on the final 9 grand of the agreement over the agreed term of the hp.

 

it's not the same as getting to the back end of a standard hp agreement and struggling to keep up repayments and asking for an extension to allow you more time to pay, the op would efectively be asking a court to completly modify his agreement to change the balloon payment into interest free finance, 9 grands worth of interest free finance.

 

put it this way if he got a time order next time i bought a car i'd get finance with 10 grands worth of balloon at the end so that i could pay nothing towards it for the term of my loan then when i had finished making my agreed monthly payments just ask a court to allow me to pay it interest free for 3 years. i'd save myself a fortune.

 

courts are not consumer champions like you and me, we'd like to see all consumers get one over on the greedy corporate blood suckers i'm sure (well i would lol) but courts have to be fair to both sides and unlike my case, your case and beyonds case, unfortunately i can't see any real wrongdoing on the part of the creditor in this partcular chaps case, they gave him finance, he agreed to the balloon payment, the finance company want the final balloon payment, he can't afford to pay it it's tough, but it's not the creditors fault he can't pay it and being objective, as a court has to be, it's tough to see how he can do anything other than pay the balloon or hand back the car. if he gets repo'd he'll have the opotunity to appeal for a time order but i don't see any point in building up his hopes without any real reason.

 

i think he'd be refused a time order, you think he'd have a good chance, it's a difference of opinion, it doesn't mean we have to fall out.

 

of course i could have told the op his car was now a gift and to sue, sue, sue, but as you quite rightly state above this is peoples lives, not to mention bank balances, we are dealing with here so at times an air of caution is no bad thing. Not everyone who comes here has a case, nor is potentially expensive legal action always the best course of action.

[beyondhope]

AQ was handed in today, they DARE say it was late! They have decided that for a space of a month the office in the court that deals with the admin of the local court is only going to open 10am-1pm, yeah thanks for telling us grrrr so AQ and £200 cash put in a brown envelope and put through the letter box :/ not impressed!

[Dele]

hi beyondhope, just looking through your welcome issue and me and my partner had the same sort of problem with them, car finance and loan which they ripped us off with!

 

Save me going through the 88 threads i was wondering if you could tell me how you got on or are still getting on with them. Issue solved i hope

 

Dele

[beyondhope]

hi beyondhope, just looking through your welcome issue and me and my partner had the same sort of problem with them, car finance and loan which they ripped us off with!

 

Save me going through the 88 threads i was wondering if you could tell me how you got on or are still getting on with them. Issue solved i hope

 

Dele

 

The loan account is now under a payment arrangement with the lewis group no thanks to alot of misguided early advice given (please be careful what you glean from the first few pages of this thread)

The hire purchase account is in the process of litigation started by us, we are at allocation stage as they intend to defend (their defence is somewhat child like) they insist on submitting things late to the court at every opportunity and still continue to chase for payment in writing

 

Thats the short version anyhow, if you need any help start your own thread and give me a shout if i can help i will