Car recently repo'd by Welcome Finance...any advice gratefully received!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Sorry for the delay, these agreements are a nightmare to decipher!!

Ok, the reason welcome are saying you haven't paid a third is because of the insurances added to your agreement. When you make your payment part of it pays the insurance and the other part pays the car. Your third figure is a third of the total amount payable for the car not the insurances. So although you have made payments totalling more than the third figure some of that money has gone towards paying your insurance policy and so doesn't count towards the money being paid off the car

What welcome have done here is called a multiple agreement and unfortunately all the figures add up

 

I'm really sorry but according to these figures it doesn't look like you have a case for unlawful repo under section 90

 

Although you still have grounds for challenging other parts of the agreement, such as the adding of interest for the acceptance fee and misselling of PPI.

 

The default notice you have received is also invalid in that there was no numerical date. Did you make any further payments after receiving that DN??

If you did then they would've needed to resend an ammended DN before repossessing.

 

 

I'm sorry I couldn't give you better news but don't give up hope just yet

 

If you look back to the start of your thread the posts made by Emmck were very true and valid in your case.

 

If you need me to further explain the figures just let me know and we can do it by pm x

 

P.S. Just out of curiosity, where was the car parked when they took it? If it was parked on your property then you still have a case for unlawful repo

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I really think you should do a SAR and see what that throws up

[moneymeltdown]

aaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[moneymeltdown]

On Your Agreement There Will Be A Section Which States Once You Have Paid Xyx On The Agreement They Cant Take Back The Car With Out A Court Order

 

Forget About The Insurance And Hp

 

The Figure Stated On The Agreement Is What Counts

 

Ive Busted Welcome On This Long Ago

 

just been looking through earlier replies... see postggj above!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

just been looking through earlier replies... see postggj above!

I know, I saw that too. Personally I can't see how that can happen. They've done everything they're supposed to have done and put in all the right clauses. I read up on it for hours last night before I posted my reply. So unless he comes back and gives more information we'll never know.

 

It's not illegal to have a multiple agreement relating to HP for a car and associated PPI as long as it contains clauses to show that the two are treated separately, i.e. on the "repossession, your rights" section it states that the third amount is related to the goods and not the PPI. Unfortunately it does

 

Your third figure is a third of the total amount payable for the goods, not a third of the total amount payable for goods and insurances. If it had been put as a third of the total amount payable for the entire agreement then they are open to dispute of the enforceability of the agreement. But as it goes the figures are correct

 

I'm really sorry

 

Don't give up tho, you still have a case for missold PPI amongst other things

[moneymeltdown]

i feel sick

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I'm so sorry

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Where was your car when they took it??

[moneymeltdown]

it was outside on the street...thankyou for taking the time to have a look through it all.such a shame it's turned out like this !!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

It is a terrible shame But please don't give up, you still have a cast iron case for missold PPI and will at least be able to claim that back. If there's anything I can help you with I'd be glad to x

[moneymeltdown]

I'm not sure if this is relevant now but I did not receive any correspondence from WF informing me that the vehicle was going to be repo'd.

[moneymeltdown]

PS I am NOT giving up!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

PS I am NOT giving up!

Good for you!!! :grin: I was so worried

[postggj]

Multiple agreements falling within section 18 CCA 1974 - The Consumer Forums

 

 

HAVE A NOSE

 

CONFUSED HOW THIS THREAD HAS GONE

 

WHY HAS THE CAR BEEN REPO CORRECT

 

PLEASE EXPLAIN

[postggj]

Where Does It State On Any Welcome Agreement Out Of Your Monthly Payment

 

Xyz Goes To The Car

 

Xyz Goes To Insurance

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Taken from:

Francis Bennion's http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1999/1999-004-multiple-agreements.pdf

 

 

"Suppose a hire-purchase agreement also includes a provision (‘provision P’) financing a oneoff

premium payable by the debtor under a policy of payment protection insurance. Here the

agreement comprises two ‘parts’. One consists of provision P (including any implied terms

relating to it), together with common provisions of the agreement (such as names of parties)

applicable to provision P. The other consists of the express and implied provisions of the

agreement relating to the hire-purchase transaction, together with other common provisions

applicable to it.

The effect of section 18 in this example is to make it clear that the ‘total price’ for the

purposes of section 90 of the Act (which relates to the retaking of protected hire-purchase

goods) will not include the one-off premium under provision P. Equally the ‘paid-up sum’ for

the purposes of section 90 is limited to the payments under the part constituting the hirepurchase

agreement. This reverses Mutual Finance Ltd v Davidson [1963] 1 WLR 134, where

an agreement for the hire-purchase of a car, coupled with the advance of credit covering the

premium insuring the car, was mistakenly held to be wholly a hire-purchase agreement. As I

have explained, section 18 was designed to avoid the difficulties caused by erroneous

decisions of that sort."

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Where Does It State On Any Welcome Agreement Out Of Your Monthly Payment

 

Xyz Goes To The Car

 

Xyz Goes To Insurance

 

They don't need to be shown as separate figures, as per my previous post, as they are classed as the same "type" of credit for purposes of section 18.

 

On page 1 of the agreement- “Any payment which is less than the payment due will then be applied towards payment of what is due in respect of the Goods and the Insurances in the same proportions as the total amount payable in respect of each bears to the total amount payable.”

It’s also on page 2 under the signature.

[postggj]

yes but the ppi etc have to have there own set of perscribed terms

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

If that's the case then the result would be that the agreement is unenforceable due to not containing all the prescribed terms; claiming unlawful repossession of protected goods under Section 90 has nothing to do with this. How do you recommend moneymeltdown progresses with this case and which part of the Act would she be able to rely on in court? If there's any way out of this mess for her I'd be really happy to see her get this sorted thanks

 

 

MONEYMELTDOWN

XXXX

XXXX

WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES

COMPLIANCE

RUDDINGTON FIELDS BUSINESS PARK

RUDDINGTON

NOTTINGHAM

NG11 6NZ

DATE

 

AGREEMENT NUMBER

 

DEAR SIR/MADAM

 

LAST MONTH MY VEHICLE WAS REPOSESSED BY XYX ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES.

 

AS YOU ARE NO DOUBT AWARE I HAVE PAID MORE THAN A THIRD OFF THIS AGREEMENT AND WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES WOULD NEED A COUNTY COURT ORDER TO REPOSESS.

 

EVEN WITH A COURT ORDER, ONLY A COUNTY COURT BALIFF CAN EXECUTE THE REPOSESSION WARRANT.

 

I MUST INFORM YOU THAT YOUR ACTIONS IN THIS MATTER HAS RESULTED IN

 

1/ A BREACH OF S.90 OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

2/ THE AGREEMENT AS SUCH IS NOW TERMINATED

3/ I AM RELEASED FROM ALL LIABILITY

4/ I AM NOW ENTITLED TO ALL SUMS RETURNED THAT HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

5/ INTEREST OF SAID SUMS AT 8 % PER ANUM

 

WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICES HAS FAILED TO ISSUE A DEFAULT AND TERMINATION NOTICE ON THIS ACCOUNT THAT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THE DEFAULT AND TERMINATION REGULATIONS

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561

It is now my contention to issue a claim through my local county court for the return of all payments made under this agreement, with costs and damages.

 

Under the circumstances, unjust enrichment does not apply.

 

I ask that you take this letter as a letter before action and i require a reply to my concerns within fourteen days.

[foxyley]

Hi not sure anyone can help, I took a car with welcome in 2004 missed no payments until made redundnat in 2005, refinanced took out the ppi and had my payments lowered, I missed a few payments but not many, cut long story short my ex took the on the car in 2007 stopped paying for it, he called me in june 08 to say welcome was repossing the car, heard nothing else untill begining of this year when welcome told me I still had to pay just over 9000.00. when I said they had repossed the car I was told he knew nothing about it there was a possession on the system for June 08 but nothing to say it had been collected,insisted I make payments again which I have. when I received the statment (which I was charged for)it went from 2006 to present day 4 yrs missing and still no responce to where the car has gone.This week I have been having phone calls from welcome telling me I have defulted on payments, I'm paying what I can afford,I dont remember having a letter about repossion and when I asked my ex he said they collected the car but they did'nt give him any paperwork to sign.I am going to ask them to send all documentation relating to the car from when I had it in 2004 on Monday, not sure what else to do. Any help be great.

[beyondhope]

Hi not sure anyone can help, I took a car with welcome in 2004 missed no payments until made redundnat in 2005, refinanced took out the ppi and had my payments lowered, I missed a few payments but not many, cut long story short my ex took the on the car in 2007 stopped paying for it, he called me in june 08 to say welcome was repossing the car, heard nothing else untill begining of this year when welcome told me I still had to pay just over 9000.00. when I said they had repossed the car I was told he knew nothing about it there was a possession on the system for June 08 but nothing to say it had been collected,insisted I make payments again which I have. when I received the statment (which I was charged for)it went from 2006 to present day 4 yrs missing and still no responce to where the car has gone.This week I have been having phone calls from welcome telling me I have defulted on payments, I'm paying what I can afford,I dont remember having a letter about repossion and when I asked my ex he said they collected the car but they did'nt give him any paperwork to sign.I am going to ask them to send all documentation relating to the car from when I had it in 2004 on Monday, not sure what else to do. Any help be great.

 

Hi fox make your own thread so more people will see it and offer advice you can do that by clicking HERE and scrolling under the notices to new thread I have some advice once you do