Welcome Finance - This company needs to be banned.

[dadofholly]

Hello,

Am new here so not sure if i'm in the right place. I've got a problem with welcome finance in which I've cancelled my dd on the personal loan that I took out, because the payments were so high and I couldn't afford them. I've written to them with a more reasonable offer of repayment and they have been ringing me every day up to 9 times a day off various numbers. What can I do?

Thanks:-x

 

Hi ecf

 

First thing to do is send them a harrasment letter. Click the link and amend the letter for your own circumstances.

 

Send it be recorded delivery -and DO NOT sign it.

 

If you have any other problems with welcome - or you have any insurances with them, it's best to start your own thread.

 

Best of luck.

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/52-harassment/135--harassment-by-telephone-response-letter-

[pears23]

Looks like CITI group may be interested in Cattles..............

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:CTT.L&display=news&it=le

Edited July 7, 2010 by pears23
forgot link

[IainHL]

high voda

 

big appeal in the supreme court tomorow

 

our old friend

 

interest on fees

 

acceptance/mif etc etc

 

this could be the final nail

Is there any news on the outcome of this?

[Dizzle]

3 months since I last heard from WF.

 

4 months since my last token payment

 

9 months since my last full regular payment.

 

Still nothing on my credit files.

 

Bizarre! :-|

[scoobyd77]

IanHL#They lost the case

Dizzle#suspect they have been stopped from reporting to CRA

 

"Until all claims of the Bank in respect of all of the Obligations of each Debtor have been discharged in full... No Guarantor shall in competition with or in priority to the Bank make any claim against any Debtor or any co-guarantor... nor make any claim in the insolvency of any Debtor or any co-guarantor nor take or enforce any security from or against any Debtor or any co-guarantor."

 

 

source

Court of Appeal considers efficacy of subordination provisions in group guarantees - International Law Office

[Dizzle]

This loan has never been reported to the CRAs since it replaced the old one last July, which shows as settled on my file.

 

I should definitely have received a default notice by now (dodgy or otherwise) considering how far behind I am.

[Voda]

Hi everyone,

 

I have copied the SAR template that Postggj kindly posted on this thread and have now adapted it to my case.

 

I thought that an SAR only costs £1.00 not £10.00

 

I am going to send the SAR myself rather than a lawyer ( who I am finding hard to find ).

 

Here it is what do you think?

 

 

 

 

WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICE

COMPLIANCE

RUDDINGTON FIELD BUSINESS PARK

RUDDINGTON

NOTTINGHAM

NG11 6NZ

 

 

 

 

[My address]

 

 

 

[their address]

 

 

[DATE]

 

 

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Subject access request

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx (or multiple numbers if more than one account)

 

 

Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time.

 

Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire period of my dealings with you.

 

The Subject Access is not limited to my transaction history and it is not limited merely to 6 years of historical information.

 

Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my financial business with you.

 

I require all information on details of all insurance products supplied by Welcome Financial Services. This is to include the statement of means, statement of price, details of all insurance premium tax paid, and underwriting sheets.

 

If mortage indemnity insurance has been added to the agreement, i require all details on who this premium was paid to, and who underwrites this insurance. (This is irrelevant and I will not include in my letter )

 

If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response.

 

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties or charges which are invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations against me, then I shall be reclaiming them together with any interest charges which you have levied on them.

 

As it is your wrongdoing and mishandling of my account which has created the necessity for this Subject Access Request, I shall also be reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee. ( I have highlighted this as I personally don't think that I should write this as it's inflammatory and at this stage I am not accusing them )

 

To sum up, apart from all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time, I require:

 

1) Readable copies of my two loan agreements

 

2) Copies of the Underwriting Sheet relating to my first loan agreement ( account no: xxxxxxxxxx )

 

3) Copies of all statements for both loans

 

4) Copies of all phone call notes

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable.

 

I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Voda

[beyondhope]

hi voda cca request is £1....

 

looks ok to me

[Voda]

Hiya,

 

That's what I thought about the fee.

 

Must have been a misprint.

 

Glad you think it's OK as I don't want to miss anything and let them "Off the Hook " ...

 

Take care

 

Voda

 

hi voda cca request is £1....

 

looks ok to me

[beyondhope]

Yep CCA £1 gets u statement and copy of agreement....sar £10 gets you all they have on you which is what you are after never let them off the hook best of luck x

 

Hiya,

 

That's what I thought about the fee.

 

Must have been a misprint.

 

Glad you think it's OK as I don't want to miss anything and let them "Off the Hook " ...

 

Take care

 

Voda

[Voda]

Aha, thank you hun.

 

Then £10 it is ...

 

Nighty nite

 

Voda

 

xx

 

Yep CCA £1 gets u statement and copy of agreement....sar £10 gets you all they have on you which is what you are after never let them off the hook best of luck x

[edwi69]

DONT KNOW IF THIS MEANS MUCH BUT JUST SPOTTED IT

 

United Kingdom

July 7 2010

 

On 13 May 2010, the Court of Appeal in Cattles Plc v Welcome Financial Services Ltd & Ors [2010] CA (Civ Div), upheld the previous ruling in this case. Although the case is also of interest in relation to the application of the English common law equitable rule derived from Cherry v Boultbee (1839) 4 My & Cr 442 case (regarding the right of quasi retainer), this article will focus on the court's contractual interpretation of the non competition clause itself.

The case concerned a claim brought by Cattles Plc ("Cattles") in order to determine various issues relating to debts it owed to different classes of creditors as part of consideration during a standstill period of its options to avoid insolvent liquidation. Cattles' principal assets were the amounts receivable by it from its trading subsidiaries, of which the largest amount was payable by Welcome Financial Services Ltd ("Welcome").

Cattles' financing liabilities included a number of credit facilities between Cattles as borrower and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc ("the Bank") as lender. The Bank had the benefit of a group-cross guarantee by which Cattles, Welcome and other subsidiaries had each guaranteed the payment of all obligations owed by the others to the Bank. Cattles had also issued bonds which were not guaranteed.

The Bank's argument was that the terms of its facilities and cross-guarantee meant that Cattles was prevented from recovering its intercompany debts from Welcome and other group companies until each had satisfied their obligations under the guarantee in full. If this were the case this would mean that the assets available to the bondholders would be substantially depleted.

The case therefore centred on the terms of the relevant non competition clause (in particular Clause 6.2) of the guarantee which provided that:

"6. Until all claims of the Bank in respect of all of the Obligations of each Debtor have been discharged in full:

6.1 no Guarantor shall be entitled to participate in any security held by the Bank or money received by the Bank in respect of any Debtor's Obligations;

6.2 no Guarantor shall in competition with or in priority to the Bank make any claim against any Debtor or any co-guarantor or their respective estates nor make any claim in the insolvency of any Debtor or any coguarantor nor take or enforce any security from or against any Debtor or any co-guarantor; and

6.3 any payment received by a Guarantor in breach of clause 6.2 and any security taken by a Guarantor from any Debtor or any co-guarantor shall be held in trust for the Bank as security for the liability of the Guarantors to the Bank under this deed.”

As this was a cross guarantee, the terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" each included all group companies involved in the financing.

Cattles had submitted that this drafting terminology led to the conclusion that Clause 6.2 restricted only the making of any claim which a guarantor had arising out of its capacity as guarantor (such as a claim for counter-indemnity by the principal debtor or contribution from a coguarantor). The Bank had argued that this clause operated as a contractual prohibition on the claiming of any intercompany debt due between the companies party to it until all the guaranteed obligations to the Bank had been paid.

In upholding the original decision (supporting the Bank's position) the reasoning of the Court included the following which is worthy of note:

1. the purpose of such a clause is to preserve the Bank's claims and to prevent same from being diluted in event of the insolvency of one or more of those liable to it and it would not be "commercially rational" or "objective" to limit the ambit of the restrictions in Clause to claims by the relevant party as guarantor;
   
2. use of the defined terms "Guarantor" and "Debtor" did not mean that only the relevant person's claims in such capacity were restricted by this Clause and did not serve to limit the operation of the words "any claim" and "in competition with or in priority to the Bank" in Clause 6.2;
   
3. the use of the words "any claim" in this context should be interpreted to mean any claim which the relevant party had and not just those in its capacity as a guarantor;
   
4. that the words "in competition with" did not mean competition only between creditors and guarantors in respect of the same debt but also encapsulated competition between competing creditors for different debts owed by a common debtor; and
   
5. that the phrase "under this deed" had been used elsewhere in the guarantee but not in the relevant clause and as such a clear intention of the parties could be inferred that claims should not be limited in such a way.
   

This case shows that the Court is willing to look at the purpose of the relevant clause in reaching a decision but that the specific drafting used will also play a big part in the determination of a particular issue such as this. On that basis, borrowers, guarantors and lenders will require to be well advised as to the exact wording used in such clauses, and in guarantees generally, in order to achieve the desired outcome.

While the above case relates to English law guarantees, it is likely that such a decision of the Court of Appeal, while not binding, would be considered persuasive in Scotland and that Scottish courts would consider this case in deciding similar issues.

 

 

 

 

[steven4064]

It means Cattles are in a bigger hole than they thought

[edwi69]

Thats Fantastic News:grin:

[Voda]

Evening Caggers,

 

Just a thought regarding my SAR which I will post to WF early next week.

 

By asking for the Underwriting Sheets ( to find out about undisclosed commissions ) can't they conveniently lose the damning evidence :idea:

 

Voda

 

Hi everyone,

 

I have copied the SAR template that Postggj kindly posted on this thread and have now adapted it to my case.

 

I thought that an SAR only costs £1.00 not £10.00

 

I am going to send the SAR myself rather than a lawyer ( who I am finding hard to find ).

 

Here it is what do you think?

 

 

 

 

WELCOME FINANCIAL SERVICE

COMPLIANCE

RUDDINGTON FIELD BUSINESS PARK

RUDDINGTON

NOTTINGHAM

NG11 6NZ

 

 

 

 

[My address]

 

 

 

[their address]

 

 

[DATE]

 

 

 

Data Protection Act 1998

 

Subject access request

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx (or multiple numbers if more than one account)

 

 

Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time.

 

Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire period of my dealings with you.

 

The Subject Access is not limited to my transaction history and it is not limited merely to 6 years of historical information.

 

Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my financial business with you.

 

I require all information on details of all insurance products supplied by Welcome Financial Services. This is to include the statement of means, statement of price, details of all insurance premium tax paid, and underwriting sheets.

 

If mortage indemnity insurance has been added to the agreement, i require all details on who this premium was paid to, and who underwrites this insurance. (This is irrelevant and I will not include in my letter )

 

If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response.

 

I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties or charges which are invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations against me, then I shall be reclaiming them together with any interest charges which you have levied on them.

 

As it is your wrongdoing and mishandling of my account which has created the necessity for this Subject Access Request, I shall also be reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee. ( I have highlighted this as I personally don't think that I should write this as it's inflammatory and at this stage I am not accusing them )

 

To sum up, apart from all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time, I require:

 

1) Readable copies of my two loan agreements

 

2) Copies of the Underwriting Sheet relating to my first loan agreement ( account no: xxxxxxxxxx )

 

3) Copies of all statements for both loans

 

4) Copies of all phone call notes

 

If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable.

 

I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Voda

[steven4064]

By asking for the Underwriting Sheets ( to find out about undisclosed commissions ) can't they conveniently lose the damning evidence

Don't suggest it

[Voda]

Maybe I am being naieve, but surely they will smell a rat as I cannot be the first to ask ....

 

Don't suggest it

[steven4064]

I asked, got nowhere, so got the court to make them.

[beyondhope]

I asked and their response was basically

 

we dont have to give them to you! didnt even lie and say they didnt exist!

[dedogs******]

beyondhope I think I may have one its barely legible but you can see where they say add gardx to cash price( see gardx thread) as it came in sars writing to them for a legible copy not holding my brath tho

[steven4064]

I can tell you definitively that what they charge you is far in excess of what they pay Norwich Union (or whoever) - in one case I have seen, they charged the customer 4 times what they paid.

[IainHL]

It means Cattles are in a bigger hole than they thought

Trying to get my head round this, my take is that it means the bond holders are unlikely to petition to wind Cattles up, since the ruling says the bank(s) have first call on any monies available.

 

Would this interpretation be correct? If so it means, as postggj has said, that RBS are the ones pulling the strings now.

[Voda]

Hi Steven,

 

That's very interesting, thank you.

 

Looks like I am in for a battle then.....

 

Can't wait ....

 

Because of my financial status, I can get Legal Aid.

 

Is there a list of red hot solicitors that know about Welcome Finance's shannigans that is available to Caggers and if not, is there anyone else out there who knows of one. I live in Surrey by the way.

 

I know Steven that you cannot enter into PM's but other members, please pm me if you wish.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Voda

 

 

 

I asked, got nowhere, so got the court to make them.

[steven4064]

I don't mind PMs - it's just safer to give advice on the open forum where it can be checked/reviewed/added to by others

[BEBOBEBO]

Trying to get my head round this, my take is that it means the bond holders are unlikely to petition to wind Cattles up, since the ruling says the bank(s) have first call on any monies available.

 

Would this interpretation be correct? If so it means, as postggj has said, that RBS are the ones pulling the strings now.

 

I'm also trying to work the advantages/disadvantages of this if any, can anyone shed any light ?