Welcome Finance Agreement

[Jamesx81x]

In the Wilson v FCT case the judge deemed that the document fee should be part of the total charge for credit not total amount of loan. As FCT did not include it in the total charge for credit the persribed term was not met therefore he rendered the agreement un-enforceable.

 

If the acceptance fee welcome add is not added to the total amount of credit then the perscribed term has not been met and it also makes the APR incorrect. This goes for insurance premiums too.

 

Any High Court Ruling is precedent and binding on lower courts so any claim brought against Welcome for the acceptance fees, PPI not been added into the total amount of credit has to be ruled in favour of the consumer as per the Wilson v FCT case.

[emanevs]

I was perhaps thinking this:

 

1) They are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, without actually increasing the total amount of credit on the Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

Wilson interpreted S9(4) as specifically saying that the ‘charge for credit’ (including fees) was not credit. Following Wilson the fees must not be added to the total amount of credit.

 

2) If these fees added to the original cash loan and it would mean that the loan exceeds £25k, what legislation would prevent them from enforcing the agreement as loans or credit over £25,000 become an unregulated agreement.

 

Following Wilson fees must not be added to the amount of credit, so it will not be the case that such fees will push the amount of credit over £25,000.00.

 

3) What legislation states that they are allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit, charge for credit, then add interest to the gross total

 

Following Wilson they are not allowed to add fees to the total amount of credit (fees are part of the ‘charge for credit’) and they haven’t done so in your case, where the amount of credit is clearly stated to be £25000. Southern Pacific approved of interest being charged on such fees.

[Jamesx81x]

The total charge for credit consists of three parts, these are:

 

(1) The total amount of the interest

(2) Other fees such as legal fees, documentation fees, broker fees

(3) Any premium for an insurance policy payable by the consumer

 

Mrs Wilson's position was that the document in the prescribed form which she signed did not show the correct "amount of the credit",

 

Her loan was states as £5250. If the £250 documet fee was not part of the total charge for credit then this would be correct.

 

It was deemed unenforceable as the £250 should have been included in the total charge for credit. This is the perscribed term they refer to not showing the correct amount of credit.

 

As for PPI premiums refer to London North Securities Ltd v Tony James Meadows & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 956 (27 July 2005). Premiums should also be added to the total charge for credit.

[Jamesx81x]

It is important not to confuse the amount of credit and total charge for credit!

[emanevs]

So, in my case:

 

£25,000 on the total amount of credit.

£235 acceptance fee

£2750 mif

 

can you explain with these figures cos its spinning me out. must be tired?

[emanevs]

is my post 52 (in red) correct???

[andys123]

so, broker fee should be in the 'total charge for credit'?

acceptance fee should be in 'total amount of credit'?

[emanevs]

total charge for credit includes the acceptance fee and the mif, and interest charge of loan

 

total amount of credit states 25k and does NOT INCLUDE ACCEPTANCE FEE.

 

amount of credit for insurances states ZERO

 

Any legislation as backup??

[Jamesx81x]

Figures are not my strong point and tend to make my head spin too

 

Basically without referring too much to cases.

 

Acceptance/documentation fees, PPI etc should be added to the 'total charge for credit' not total amount of loan. The correct APR relies on the total charge for credit been correct. (Section 20 CCA).

 

The total charge for credit is a perscribed term which must be correct and listed on the agreement.

 

The Wilson case determined the documentation fee should not have been added to the total amount of loan. If it is part of the loan it then becomes credit. This is what is meant by the £250 fee was not 'credit' for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act.

[emanevs]

so, in my case:

 

the total charge for credit is made up of:

 

acceptance fee

MIF

Interest charge

 

However, it appears that the interest charge for the 25k EXCLUDES the acceptance fee and MIF.

 

Therefore, the acceptance fee and MIF does not have any interest levied on it, but is added to the total charge for credit.

 

does this make it unenforceable?

[Jamesx81x]

If it has been added to the total amount of loan then yes

 

If the fees have been added to the the total charge for credit then the agreement is correct.

[andys123]

if, in my case, the fees are added to the 'total charges' then why is there an interest charge on the fees, if they are not deemed as credit and they are supposed to be in the 'total' cost

[Jamesx81x]

Not sure about that one. Something to put to Welcome.

 

With regards to unenforcability its as i have previously said fees should not be added to total amount of loan but to the total charge for credit.

[emanevs]

whats confusing me even mo:

 

Is that I have had a secured loan statement stating that the 'total amount of credit is £27985, and has a different apr to that of my agrement.

 

This is why I think its unenforceable. Basically the agreement says a loan of £25k, but I have had a secured loan statement as required by the new changes in the law only to find that they now confirm that I have a total amount of credit of £27985, and an apr of 13.2, which is all incorrect.

 

I suppose they could just correct the statement, but where does this leave me????

 

confused as hell!!

[Jamesx81x]

Looks confusing to me too. Maybe worth asking them to explain then putting it in hands of FOS/Solicitor.

 

No legal whiz myself but what i have been saying regarding the fees is 100% correct and has been proved in case law.

 

Thats why i said earlier copy cases put forward to county courts have to be ruled in favour of the consumer as it has already been ruled in the High Court.

[andys123]

emanevs, do you have a total amount payable on your agreement?

also, how are you meant to do an apr comparison when I have two apr ranging from 26-34%

[emanevs]

can you expand on that "ruled in favour of the consumer as it has already been ruled in the High Court."

 

which case etc??

 

The sc*m have not responded, all with the FOS. Dont know what they can do tho???

[emanevs]

No total amount payable on my agreement.

 

I have "total charge for credit"

I have "interest charge"

 

I also have one "apr" (variable)

I also have one "rate of interest per annum" variable, giving me 14 days noice.

 

Even though I made a SAR, I got no terms and conditions.

[Jamesx81x]

The Wilson v FCT case was in the High Court (Quuens Bench Division).

 

The court ruled the £250 should not be part of the total amount of loan but should be included in the toal charge for credit.

 

Any ruling made in the High Court is precedent and becomes binding on all lower courts.

 

So basically anyone taking agreements to county courts for the same matter, the judge has no option but to follow the High Courts ruling.

[emanevs]

ta

 

what about post 68

[Jamesx81x]

Total amount payable is total amount of loan + total charge for credit.

 

Its a perscribed term which shoud be shown.

[andys123]

if youre correct on the fee/charges then I'm clutching at straws with the total amount payable, there isn't a figure for this

[emanevs]

NOT SHOWN, NO BOXES OR STATEMENT SHOWING TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE

 

I think its Schedule 1, (11) total amount payable.

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

 

But as this is a secured loan, does it make any difference to that clause??

[Jamesx81x]

It shouldnt do am not too sure will have to look at that one.

 

As far as am i aware any loan agreement should show the total amount payable.

[emanevs]

as this doesnt, would you agree unenforceable?