Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.

[brassed-off-2]

Morning brassed off

 

Will see if I can copy and paste the relevant sections, read and interpret for yourself

 

May be this afternoon though, sorrY!

 

Thanks Dipply

 

Looking forward to it!

[jamesf104]

Millymo I am really puzzled now. If CCA1974 section 9 describes fees as the cost of credit and no interest can be charged, why is the fos seemingly in doubt about ineterst charged on fees. This seems to be a grey area, but as far as I am concerned the CCA1974 is very clear on this point or has a later amendment changed this? I have raised this point with WF but of course no reply yet, probably never get one either. They have been charging an extra £20/month interest on fees since 2003 which they are not entitled to. So you see my interest in this point.

[MarkieMark]

Hello all. I have been reading this forum since April and joined the other day. Have learned so much, thanks to everyone. Can someone advise me what are implied terms re. these Welcome contracts. I know what the prescribed terms are but cannot find reference to implied terms. Both my daughters contracts did not have the cost of credit brought out which is wrong, is this an implied term? I would have thought this was an important piece of info to have on the agreement, but its missing and I know it should be there according to CCA1974. Incidentally the first agreement was dated Aug 02 then wrapped into anther loan agreement in May 03. The muppets really saw them coming!

 

Contract - Express & Implied Terms

 

Contract: express and implied terms

How are terms incorporated into a contract? At first it looks like a silly question, because we’d usually expect them to be explicitly included in the contract. Express terms are terms that have been specifically mentioned and agreed by both parties at the time the contract is made. They can either be oral or in writing.

However, sometimes a term which has not been mentioned by either party will nonetheless be ‘included’ in the contract, often because the contract doesn’t make commercial sense without that term. Terms like this are called implied terms, and there are two main types:

• Terms implied by statute: the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The key provisions are:
  

• Section 12: the person selling the goods has to have the legal right to sell them.
  

• Section 13: if you’re selling goods by description, e.g. from a catalogue or newspaper advert, then the actual goods have to correspond to that description.
  

• Section 14: the goods must be of “satisfactory quality” – that is, they should meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as “satisfactory”. Also, if the buyer says they’re buying the goods for a particular purpose, there’s an implied term that the goods are fit for that purpose.
  

• Section 15: if you’re selling the goods by sample – you show the customer one bag of flour and they order 50 bags – then the bulk order has to be of the same quality as the sample.
  

• Terms implied by the courts…
  

• As a matter of fact. Something that’s so obviously included that it didn’t need to be mentioned in the contract. If I agree to pay you £50 for a lawnmower, it probably wouldn’t occur to us to write down that we mean fifty pounds sterling, as opposed to any other sort of pound. That’s obvious to both of us. (Beware of this point – it has to have been obvious to both parties – it’s not enough to show that one party thought it was included, or that the contract would have been more reasonable with the added term.)
  

• As a matter of law. This is about general considerations of public policy – the courts are laying down, as a matter of law, how the parties to certain types of contract ought to behave. For example, in one case, the courts held that landlords of blocks of flats ought to keep the communal areas (lifts, stairs etc) in a reasonable state of repair – so that term was implied into the rental contract.
  

• Customary terms. Some terms are generally known to be included in contracts in a particular trade or locality. Amongst bakers, “one dozen” means thirteen – they don’t have to include terms in every contract specifying that.
  

Do note that any of these terms implied by the courts can be excluded with an express term. If a bakers contract has a clear term in it that says “one dozen means twelve for the purposes of this contract”, then the courts can’t say that a dozen has to equal thirteen!

[andie_303]

Hi all sorry again for being off forum for so long but had lots of personal stuff going off at the moment.

 

Topped off with a broken arm! Sleep walking a cat and stairs do not mix

 

Was thinking about claiming on my PPI to watch them refuse my claim cos of pre-existing - wouldn't that be nice to show HMCS lmao

[andie_303]

Dad of Holly in response to you PM i would say PT2537 is a good shout.

[brassed-off-2]

Hi all sorry again for being off forum for so long but had lots of personal stuff going off at the moment.

 

Topped off with a broken arm! Sleep walking a cat and stairs do not mix

 

Was thinking about claiming on my PPI to watch them refuse my claim cos of pre-existing - wouldn't that be nice to show HMCS lmao

 

 

Good to hear from you Andi...sorry to hear about your mishaps though!!

 

you could always use your plastercast to clonk Mr p back to his senses!!! dress sense!!:lol: How long now to your rendezvous???

 

b-o-2

[andie_303]

Good to hear from you Andi...sorry to hear about your mishaps though!!

 

you could always use your plastercast to clonk Mr p back to his senses!!! dress sense!!:lol: How long now to your rendezvous???

 

b-o-2

 

3 weeks maybe I can get a little judicial sympathy

[dadofholly]

Dad of Holly in response to you PM i would say PT2537 is a good shout.

 

Thanks Andie... details have been forwaded to him via another member of site team.

[pt2537]

Thanks Andie... details have been forwaded to him via another member of site team.

has it????

 

 

no ones contacted me

[Dipply75]

Brassed off, late I know! This bit of the CCA 1974:

 

107 Duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement

 

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit in relation to which security is provided, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the surety and payment of a fee of £1 , shall give to the surety (if a different person from the debtor)—

 

(a) a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it;

 

(b) a copy of the security instrument (if any); and

 

© a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

 

(i) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor,

 

(ii) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due, and

 

(iii) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

 

(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amount and dates mentioned in subsection (1)© (iii), he shall be taken to comply with that sub-paragraph if his statement under subsection (1)© gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

 

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

 

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

 

(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the security, so far as provided in relation to the agreement; and

 

(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Dipply75
removed repealed section

[dadofholly]

has it????

 

 

no ones contacted me

 

Hi PT Steven4064 said he was going to forward you copy of my docs. If you have not received them let me know. Will gladly forward them to you.

Edited July 22, 2009 by dadofholly
spelling

[welcome finance warrior]

hi post ggj

 

sending you something via private message will you take alook

 

cheers

[Millymo]

Hi PT Steven4064 said he was going to forward you copy of my docs. If you have not received them let me know. Will gladly forward them to you.

 

Thank you for the e-mail and the info - this was exactly what I was looking for Fingers crossed the FOS agrees that interest should not be charged on acceptance fee.

 

Just out of interest - what would happen in the unlikely event that the FOS do agree and say interest should not have been charged on acceptance fee - would this still have to go to court for agreement to be deemed unenforceable?

[pt2537]

The FOS have no power to declare an agreement unenforceable.

 

so you will need a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable and that can only come from the Court

[EBOY]

Hi,

If you appeal a fos decision I believe goes to an independent review. Can anyone tell me who the independent review is?

[jamesf104]

MarkieMark thanks for the implied terms info, Im clearer now on that point.

[Dipply75]

Thank you for the e-mail and the info - this was exactly what I was looking for Fingers crossed the FOS agrees that interest should not be charged on acceptance fee.

 

Just out of interest - what would happen in the unlikely event that the FOS do agree and say interest should not have been charged on acceptance fee - would this still have to go to court for agreement to be deemed unenforceable?

 

The more I look into it the more I think they are stuffed on this one

 

CCA clearly states :

 

For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

So would that be just about every agreement they've ever written then pmsl?

[postggj]

bloddy hell dipply

 

where in the cca does it state this

 

cant believe ive missed this

[steven4064]

What it means is that something like an acceptance fee which is obviously part of the charge for credit can be paid over a period of time, often the period of the loan, but it cannot be part of the loan amount itself - in particular, this means there must be no interest added in respect of it.

 

Where Welcome fall down is in the area of insurance. This forms part of the loan and has interest added onto it. However, commission paid or received should be part of the charge for credit on this part of the loan. Welcome never declare it as such but include it in the premium - ie as part of the credit. Naughty, naughty

[Dipply75]

Double whammy then really. As Steven says, they are naughty with the Insurance side of it and the Acceptance Fee they LIST in the charge for credit....but we all know and have proof they then TREAT it like credit and charge interest:

 

Part II

Credit Agreements, Hire Agreements and Linked Transactions

 

 

8 Consumer credit agreements

 

(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (“the debtor”) and any other person (“the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

 

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000.

 

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “exempt agreement”) specified in or under section 16.

 

 

9 Meaning of credit

 

(1) In this Act “credit” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

 

(2) Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling, it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount.

 

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

This issue has been kicking about for ages and has nagged away at all of us (POst, Andie, Millymo, me! etc) The implications are huge!

 

hehe

[Dipply75]

bloddy hell dipply

 

where in the cca does it state this

 

cant believe ive missed this

 

You haven't post....you did start digging into this before, we could never get to the bottom of it though!

 

I may be disappear sometimes but am still here

[brassed-off-2]

Double whammy then really. As Steven says, they are naughty with the Insurance side of it and the Acceptance Fee they LIST in the charge for credit....but we all know and have proof they then TREAT it like credit and charge interest:

 

 

Part II

 

 

 

Credit Agreements, Hire Agreements and Linked Transactions

 

 

 

8 Consumer credit agreements

 

(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (“the debtor”) and any other person (“the creditor”) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount.

 

(2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000.

 

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an “exempt agreement”) specified in or under section 16.

 

 

9 Meaning of credit

 

(1) In this Act “credit” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

 

(2) Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling, it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount.

 

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.

 

(4) For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

This issue has been kicking about for ages and has nagged away at all of us (POst, Andie, Millymo, me! etc) The implications are huge!

 

hehe

 

i was skimming over this,.. earlier too! you know the old saying...great minds, think alike;)

[Dipply75]

Fantastic minds think alike

 

Can't wait to see how this plays out lol. Did you read the stuff about securities? Did you browse the sections round it about what happens if their paperwork is not right or they don't comply with your request?

[Millymo]

The more I look into it the more I think they are stuffed on this one

 

CCA clearly states :

 

For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

So would that be just about every agreement they've ever written then pmsl?

 

Hi Dipply - this is exactly what I was thinking. The more I look into this the more I think welcome have got this wrong. The debate over whether they do add interest to the acceptance fee is no longer the issue because we all know they do. They even state it in their agreements, which they will point out to you when you complain.

 

However, as you say it breaches section 9(4) of the consumer credit act to treat this as credit. Also the way they put the figures on the agreement to look as if no interest is added to me is confusing and misleading.

 

I am just getting all this info together for ajudicator at FOS now. Hopefully they will come to some sort of decision soon.

 

In response to PT - If the FOS can't deem an agreement unenforceable then what do they have the power to do and in this case would I have been better taking it straight to the court?

[EBOY]

The fos don't even have the power to refund to charges of fees. They say its up to the "goodwill" of welcome to refund them!