Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.

[lawfrodo]

should wf add the ppi amount to the loan and then charge interest for both?

[lawfrodo]

should wf add the ppi amount to the loan and then charge interest for both?

[andie_303]

they do lawfrodo

[lawfrodo]

is it right/legal for them to charge interest on the ppi?

[andie_303]

right is different from legal - yes it is legal

[b4bod]

**********************************************************

 

Hey guys!

 

Can someone point me in the direction of the letter I need to send to the ombudsman and the letter I send to Welscum to put my account into dispute pleeeeeeease? They've still got time to reply, but I want the letters ready to go for when they dont give me the answers I want

 

Thank you!

[lawfrodo]

i have sent a cca request on 31/07/2009 to compliance. now i would like to know, if wf do not comlpy within the 12+2 days, can i safely withhold payments considering that our loan is secured and in arrears?

 

would be grateful if someone can advise me on the legalities of this, or give advice based on their experience.

 

regards, lawrence.

[postggj]

lawfrodo

 

i can confirm that if welcome fail to send your agreement with in 14 days, you can with hold payment with out any enforcement

 

welcome think they a law unto themself so prepare for crap.

 

we are with you all the way

[lawfrodo]

thanks for the advice and support.

 

so i can withhold the payments legally? (just trying to clarify as our loan is secured on our house)

 

can they add the with held payments to the arrears?

[postggj]

no

they cant add any arrears

penalty charges

no enforcement what so ever

 

period

 

but prepare for a fight

 

get a telephone harrasment letter template ready

[lawfrodo]

will do.

 

do i need to send a letter to them saying why the account is in dispute etc?

 

i will also prepare an sar, as i want to reclaim the ppi and charges etc.

 

i am tracking the cca letter but as yet it has not shown as recieved.

[postggj]

wait to see if a cca comes back first then its stage 2

[lawfrodo]

ok. then if/when the cca comes back would you mind having a look at it also, to see if it is enforceable?

[postggj]

my pleasure:D

[lawfrodo]

thanks.

 

got to get ready for night shift now. will check thread in early hours on tea break or in morning.

 

regards, lawrence.

[snugglecheeks]

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find:

 

 

2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

t/a Welcome Financial Services

The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court

Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

26 July 2006

Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980

—mortgage indemnity fee — whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the

total charge for credit

Summary:

The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated

by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's

house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor

and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF,

the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale

of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge

for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the

agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total

charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in

the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94.

The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the

Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not

contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of

the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements)

Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable

under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge

be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act.

It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it

would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the

Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have

formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within

regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The

Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon

Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659.

Held:

That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable

under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not

provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the

Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the

criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to

receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 1:cool:.

Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23,

where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by

Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage

waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared

correct and applicable (paragraph 1:cool:. To treat the MIF as an item falling within

Page 4

1

 

now read this:

 

Mortgage Indemnity Charge

(sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee)

For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subseq

[snugglecheeks]

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find:

 

 

2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

t/a Welcome Financial Services

The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court

Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

26 July 2006

Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980

—mortgage indemnity fee — whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the

total charge for credit

Summary:

The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated

by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's

house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor

and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF,

the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale

of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge

for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the

agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total

charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in

the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94.

The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the

Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not

contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of

the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements)

Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable

under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge

be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act.

It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it

would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the

Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have

formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within

regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The

Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon

Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659.

Held:

That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable

under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not

provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the

Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the

criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to

receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 1:cool:.

Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23,

where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by

Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage

waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared

correct and applicable (paragraph 1:cool:. To treat the MIF as an item falling within

Page 4

1

 

now read this:

 

Mortgage Indemnity Charge

(sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee)

For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subseq

[postggj]

ill go through this later

looks like wilson v fct

 

having tea at the moment

back later

[snugglecheeks]

ok if you could, need more info. This is what welcome are throwing in my face. Am off to bed, up early to work at the salt mine.

[postggj]

funny that ive not come across this one

ill try and get the full case details

[Hampshiregirl]

Hi Lord Lee and those others considering a loan with Welcome :

 

I took out a loan with Welcome for £20k in 2004.

Somehow, I had an additional £6k in ppi AND insurance.

The payments would have been ok, but i then had problems with my nightmare mortage company which is another story.

 

The current situation is that i paid over £12k in 3 years, when i sold my house last year, they took the balance of that as it was a secured loan £28K! and are still after between £4k and £8k depending on who in the company you talk to

 

I am going to start a thread for advice on this.

[postggj]

Hampshiregirl

Please Do

Plenty Of Welcome Fighters Willing To Help

Me Included

[Hampshiregirl]

Hi PostGGI

 

Thanks for the quick reply,

I only just realised after posting that this thread was started in 2007.

I'm afraid I've only just joined (after reading with interest for nearly a year), and still finding my way around the site,

 

I will be posting about welcome over the next day, thanks for your support.

[welcome finance warrior]

Hi all

 

I have insurance on my welcome finance agreement that i believe was misssold, i have just V.T my vehicle but welcome are arguing i owe them over £1000 for insurances.

 

I agurged that these had been missold (trust me they had). Welcome have since sent me a letter saying that the issue is not with them because i bought the car from a dealership and therefore my issue is with the dealership...Is this the case or can i put the account on hold while i complaint to the FOS

 

Please can some one confirm my position...

 

cheers

[postggj]

Rollocks

Pure Rollocks

 

You Got The Car From The Dealership

Does That Mean They Are Responsable For Any Break Downs

I Think Not

 

trust Me On This One

 

ask The Dealership About The Misselling Of Ppi

then Let Them Know Its Welcome Who Your Beef Is With And If They Will Tell You How Much Commission They Received From Welcome Ref The Car And Ppi You Will Call It Quits

 

Then Lets See Welcome Squirm Out Of That One