Jump to content


Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.


tightbum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4577 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi my daughter took out a loan with Welcome finance in 2007 for £2000 she paid 9 payments (£1546.320 and settled the load by paying £2649.57 in Sept 2007 which means she paid over £2000 interest for 9 months. This included PPI which she was told she had to have the insurance to secure the loan and she is now in the process of requesting repayment of PPI. The breakdown of the settlement is quite confusing as it states default interest/interest reversal £1546.32 interest on settlement £204.21 can anyone explain this as they wont even though we have written on numerous occasions, the latest 2 months ago and I was informed last week that they were short staffed and the letter that was received 2 mnths ago has not been scanned onto my daughters file because of the staff shortages but they were hoping to recruit in the next couple of months

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to start your own thread BP.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cattles PLC - Interim Management Statement

 

LINK DIDNT WORK

 

 

 

RNS Number : 1898M Cattles PLC 19 May 2010

19 May 2010

CATTLES plc

 

INTERIM MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Cattles plc ("Cattles") today provides its Interim Management Statement covering the period since 31 December 2009.

Cattles announced its audited results for 2008 on 12 May 2010 and intends to announce its results for 2009 in the near future. Shareholders should be aware that again Cattles will be reporting a significant loss for the year ended 31 December 2009 and a negative value for shareholders' funds. As stated on 16 December 2009, the shares are likely to have little or no value.

The cash collection performance of the Welcome Finance ("Welcome") loan book has been as forecast for the first quarter of 2010. Shopacheck and The Lewis Group have made satisfactory starts to 2010.

 

CURRENT TRADING

 

A summary of the performance in 2010 by each of the Group's businesses is set out below. All numbers are unaudited.

Welcome

Welcome has historically provided direct repayment loans to over 500,000 customers from a nationwide branch network. On 16 December 2009, the Cattles Board announced to shareholders its recommendation that there should be no further lending in Welcome and that instead the book should be collected out.

On 5 February 2010, Cattles announced the closure of circa 70 Local Management Branches and Local Collections Units nationwide. Welcome entered into a consultation process from that date with staff affected by the proposals, of whom approximately 450 received notice that they were at risk of redundancy and subsequently 382 will leave the business.

On 7 May 2010, Cattles announced a proposal to close 18 branches nationwide and a contraction in the current operations management and their support staff in line with the smaller number of branches. Welcome entered into a consultation process from that date, with staff affected by the proposals, of whom approximately 155 received notice that they were at risk of redundancy.

Welcome's cash collections in the first three months of 2010 were £145 million. Cash collections since this date are in line with management's expectations. Net loans and receivables at 31 March 2010 amounted to £1.1 billion (31 December 2008: £2.2 billion). The reduction reflects cash collected in the 15 month period with no significant further lending, and further impairment of the book.

Shopacheck

Shopacheck provides short-term home collected loans through a nationwide branch network and at 31 March 2010 had 222,000 customers (31 December 2008: 235,000 customers).

Shopacheck continues to lend to new customers. Shopacheck has made a good start to 2010 and its cash collections for the three months ended 31 March 2010 were £38.5 million. Net loans and receivables at 31 March 2010 were £58 million (31 December 2008: £80 million). The reduction in net loans and receivables reflects the seasonality of the lending and a tightening of credit criteria.

The Lewis Group

The Lewis Group, a UK leader in debt recovery and investigation services, provides these services to external clients and both Welcome and Shopacheck. In 2010, The Lewis Group has refocused its strategy on contingent debt collection and by the end of 2010 its commitments to acquire further debt will have been completed. Debt purchases in the three months ended 31 March 2010 were £5.5 million.

Cash collections in the three months to 31 March 2010 were £26.2 million. Purchased debt balances at 31 March 2010 were £144 million (31 December 2008: £154 million).

 

RESTRUCTURING

 

Cattles is currently engaged in ongoing discussions with representatives of its key financial creditors in order to progress proposals for a consensual restructuring. Those discussions have been constructive and demonstrate continuing progress towards a consensual restructuring.

On 12 May 2010, the Court of Appeal heard the appeal of Party A and the subsequent cross-appeal of the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc of the decision of the High Court on the application of Cattles to seek a determination in relation to whether the terms contained within certain cross-guarantee documentation operate to subordinate the Company's claims against its subsidiaries, including Welcome Financial Services Limited, to the claims of certain bank creditors. This appeal and a cross-appeal were brought as part of consensual discussions between all parties.

On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal unanimously handed down a decision that upheld the decision of the High Court which is explained in the Company's announcement dated 14 December 2009. The cross-appeal in relation to the Cherry v Boultbee issues was stayed.

After judgment was handed down, Party A sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did not give such permission and Party A has 28 days from 13 May 2010 to appeal to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.

 

ENQUIRIES

 

 

Margaret Young, Executive Chairman, Cattles plc Tel: 020 7269 7252

 

Jamie Drummond-Smith, Finance Director, Cattles plc

Paul Marriott, Financial Dynamics

This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All.

 

Who really cares where they move or who they are, they are one of many that have scammed us all and now the tables have turned, many more will go down if we all fight.

 

Keep up the good work, I am not paying them nothing.

 

Mash

 

XXXX

Link to post
Share on other sites

pointless threat-o-gram

 

be better if you post this on your existing? thread so we know the history

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 7 year secured loan I took out in 2008 has been marked as settled on my credit file?????

Not missed any payments and five years to go on it, thinking I may now be able to refinance it at a lower apr as my equity will now be more.

May even offer 50p in the pound on the outstanding debt.

Take Control

! Use excel to document all your income and outgoings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine went from default to settled 2 weeks ago - but i thought this was a a result of something else I had going on behind the scenes....perhaps not......next month the default will probably reappear with a new date!!

 

Though out of interest for them to add another default to my account would they have to send a new default notice etc???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though out of interest for them to add another default to my account would they have to send a new default notice etc???

Technically, yes they would. But since when have Welcome ever been any good at following the proper processes? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, yes they would. But since when have Welcome ever been any good at following the proper processes? :rolleyes:

 

Yes you are correct....only now there is no outstanding amount to default as Welcome and I did actually come to a settlement agreement....so in effect there is nothing for them to be able to default. There is no outstanding arrears.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is strange as many on here me included have had the same thing happen...and my rewrite...nowhere to be seen....

 

I've mentioned before on here that my refinanced loan with WF has not shown on my credit report.

 

Now here's an interesting thing for you....

 

Last week I got an alert from one of the CRA's talking about a new entry on my file from Progressive Finance, with the same reference number as my settled original loan. I thought "here we go" and checked my report only to find nothing has changed, no new entry. Nothing.

 

I wonder if there is a software conflict somewhere that's preventing a correct update :D.

 

Also, it's now 8 weeks since I last heard from them. Its been over 6 months since my last full monthly payment and still not defaulted.

 

I have no idea what's going on with them! :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have an alert that say status of account has changed - the alert shows the account to be in Satisfactory status i.e. no default no missed payment history but a balance still there - however the actual report shows as settled.

 

Very strange - and I'm sure that it won't stay like that forever but to know that they would have to send me a new default notice when there is now nothing to default gives me more confidence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has gone very calm. I'm £183 in arrears (job upsets of late) and I haven’t had one call or one letter chasing- strange. I know my local branch has closed and when I phoned to make a payment at the end of last month (I'm 1 month behind atm) nothing was mentioned about my arrears- the guy I spoke to sounded like he was very flustered and didn’t have a clue....

I've just landed a job with a lot more money but as a result of the transition between jobs things are going to be very tight next month and other payments take priority over the ****. I'm considering using this lull in their chasing to my advantage and evening myself out at the end of June....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good News !!!!

 

Taxi driver wins back late payment fees

 

Page last updated at 13:08 GMT, Friday, 28 May 2010 14:08 UK

 

By Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News _47939208_mikeparry.jpg Mike Parry, happy at the thought of getting back £502 A Liverpool taxi driver, Mike Parry, has successfully challenged late payment fees charged on a loan.

A court in Liverpool has forced Close Premium Finance to repay him £502, including interest and costs.

Close had charged him an extra £30, on eight occasions, when he failed to make his regular repayments to the firm.

Close said it believed the court's decision was "founded on an administrative error" and would try to get the decision set aside.

But Mr Parry said: "I feel on top of the world."

"It's not a large amount of money, it was the principle of it," he added.

If any challenge to the court decision is unsuccessful, it could open the way for many other people to try to reclaim late payment charges they have had to pay on personal loans.

Test case Last year, the Supreme Court threw out a high profile challenge by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to the legality of bank overdraft charges.

In the light of that, the Judge at Liverpool struck out Mr Parry's original claim against Close, which had been on hold while the bank charges test case wound its way through the legal system.

Mr Parry then refined his claim, and argued that it should be reinstated.

He said that the Supreme Court ruling applied to bank overdraft charges only, not to ones imposed on other loans.

And that meant, he said, that the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations (UTCCR) could be applied to the late payment fees levied by Close, on the grounds that they were arguably unfair.

Close failed to submit a defence to this revised argument, and Mr Parry was awarded his claim by default.

This means the court did not make a ruling on his legal argument, but after bailiffs were authorised to seize property, Close agreed to pay up.

In the contract Between 2002 and 2008 Mr Parry borrowed between £2,000 and £3,000 a year from Close to pay his annual vehicle insurance premiums.

When he went overdrawn at his bank this resulted in some of his direct debits to Close being bounced.

Continue reading the main story

I didn't like their attitude, that they could justify anything by saying it was in the terms and conditions

Mike Parry

Even though the late payment fees were clearly stated in the loan's terms and conditions, Mr Parry decided in 2007 that he might be able to challenge their validity.

"At first I thought it was fair to cover their additional costs, but when I got interested in the bank charges campaign I realised it was very unlikely it cost them £30 each time to deal with me," Mr Parry said.

In 2007 Close offered to repay half the £240 fees as a gesture of goodwill, but he turned this down.

"I didn't like their attitude, that they could justify anything by saying it was in the terms and conditions," Mr Parry said.

Fairness Mr Parry was helped with his claim by the Consumer Action Group (CAG), a leading campaign group against bank overdraft charges.

Its spokesman, Marc Gander, said: "The OFT ought to come right out and tell people that the bank charges decision does not affect other types of late payment charges."

"All of these can be, and should be, assessed for fairness under the UTCCR.

"They are not covered by the exemption identified by the Supreme Court," he added.

Close Premium Finance said: "We have done everything appropriate to try to ensure a resolution to this case and have been in frequent correspondence with the customer."

"It is important to note that this judgement is not the final outcome of the case and that we are in the process of seeking to have the judgement set aside," it added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what has this got to do with welcome....

 

might be an idea to ditch all that and just put a link to the page.

 

and p'haps elsewhere.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what has this got to do with welcome....

 

might be an idea to ditch all that and just put a link to the page.

 

and p'haps elsewhere.

 

dx

 

Did that in a hurry while working.

 

It was this bit I wanted!!!

 

Mr Parry was helped with his claim by the Consumer Action Group (CAG), a leading campaign group against bank overdraft charges.

Its spokesman, Marc Gander, said: "The OFT ought to come right out and tell people that the bank charges decision does not affect other types of late payment charges."

"All of these can be, and should be, assessed for fairness under the UTCCR.

"They are not covered by the exemption identified by the Supreme Court," he added.

Close Premium Finance said: "We have done everything appropriate to try to ensure a resolution to this case and have been in frequent correspondence with the customer."

"It is important to note that this judgement is not the final outcome of the case and that we are in the process of seeking to have the judgement set aside," it added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me to a template letter to Welcome/Direct/Norwich Union for claiming back PPI please? I would really like to get this going but don't know where to start!

 

have you your own thread?

 

you need to do your spreadsheets first

then look at notes for claimants stickie on the PPI forum homepage.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4577 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...