Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Kafka - http://www.carcreditcomplaints.co.uk...showtopic=1980

If you want to double check that what me pam and tools have said.

Don't get caught up without talking to us first tho please- just thought u might like to have a second opinion before you get too excited or launch into anything.

They are not the simplest.

[Tools]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Did you get round to drafting a letter Kafka as we discussed?

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Did you get round to drafting a letter Kafka as we discussed?

I sent the copy agreement off to the other site mentioned above, where they say they offer to get the agreements checked by legal experts. So far I have heard nothing back so need to chase this.

I am planning to work on this over the weekend anyway, as I think I am clear what I need to include in this and the spreadsheet is provisionally done. I have informed WF about the dispute and that no further payments will be made, and haven't heard back.

[pam1]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Wouldn't it be awful if a company opened up a web site offering free checks and all along it was the companies them selves getting an eye full of the evidence and the first step in to who was about to stir it up.

Sorry just had a nightmare:shush:

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

OK
I have been speaking to carcreditcomplaints and they have been very helpful.
One of the services they offer is a free assessment of the agreement by a solicitors. I sent them the agreement and they responded as follows.

Many thanks for letting me look at your agreements.

Unfortunately I think there are less than 50% prospects of challenging these agreements - firstly, you say they have been paid off now, secondly the charges are all set out separately, which is the correct way for a lender to deal with them.

In relation to PPI it may be that this was inappropriate, you will have to look at the terms. I'm afraid that I cannot deal with PPI refund itself. However, there is some guidance available on Martin Lewis' website - www.moneysavingexpert.com

This is disappointing as they seem to have ignored the fact that the agreement was incorrectly drawn. Also, while the account has effectively been settled, WF still maintain that I owe them almost £1000 more.

I see the situation as two claims, one for PPI and the other for the rest.

PPI
There seems to be agreement that the PPI was mis-sold as I was self-employed at the time the agreement was taken out, and they requested details of all my banking income before agreeing the HP. A question has been raised about whether it was full PPI or just life cover and this is not explicitely stated, but by implication of the agreements and policy this was a full agreement.
Because of this I appear to have a case for misselling and intend to pursue this for a full refund of the premium.
The recommended route is to write to them requesting a full repayment + interest at 8%, then pursue it through the FOS.

OTHER CHARGES

Trade in
The trade-in value of 1000 was clearly readded on to the total amount payable and should therefore be reclaimable + 8%. However, with further checking I have noticed that the 2 total amounts payable for finance and insurances come to exactly 1000 more than the 48x the monthly payment. I am therefore unclear whether this trade-in of £1000 was included in the payments or not.

Charges for calls and letters
These amount to about 180 added for this and I intend to challenge them all by requesting actual or pre-estimated costs. I have a specimen recently where they charged me 10 for sending a template letter saying I hadn't contacted them about arrears despite having been paid as normal the day before.

Other charges

These account for about 700 added to the account in the past year, just as fees with no explanation and no notification.
I intend to challenge all of these.

SUMMARY
Claim 1
Letter for full refund of PPI + 8% by letter to them (template on carcreditcomplaints) followed by FOS route. Separating this off means that this part cannot be stayed as a penalty claim.

Claim 2
Normal penalty claim demanding the following.
1) Refund of 1000 +8% that should never have been included in the totals.
2) Removal of additional fees to cancel out the current balance that stands at almost 1000 according to them (with minor adjustment for small amount of about 100 still owing based on the 48 payments).
3) Confirmation that the account is settled so that the car (now unrepairable) can finally be scrapped.
4) Removal of any adverse CRA info that they have added as a result of this challenge (don't know of any nd have warned them not to)

I would really appreciate comments on this approach before I do anything, particualrly the fact that the 1000 may not have been readded after all.

cheers

[pam1]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Does anyone know if there has been any promising replies back from them?

These Welcome agreements are an absolute mess i can not believe they turned it away on a less than 50% chance of a resolve. I would like to see some figures of what they do work with as these are one of the worst

Are there any results on the net against the service they offer?

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Because of the uncertainties about a lot of the charges here I sent CCA request and SAR to Welcome in October.

They are already in breach of the CCA request and waiting now on the SAR.

Since being told not to contact me by telephone they have called me twice and sent a letter threatening legal action. msl:

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

OK

I finally received the CCA and SAR details from WF. Basically the agreements tally and there is nothing really new in this at all.

Although there is a lot of detailed of correspondence, there is nothing to clarify the 'fees' added to the account.

As I have already stated above
Trade in
The trade-in value of 1000 was clearly readded on to the total amount payable and should therefore be reclaimable + interest. However, with further checking I have noticed that the 2 total amounts payable for finance and insurances come to exactly 1000 more than the 48x the monthly payment. I am therefore unclear whether this trade-in of £1000 was included in the payments or not.

Even with the original paperwork, I am still unable to work out why the monthly payments add up to exactly £1000 less than the agreement figures for Total Amounts Payable for Finance and Insurance. My concern is that this is exactly the amount of the readded trade-in value.

I could include the 1000 as an item in the Prelim Letter along with other charges and fees to see how they react, but I want to be sure if this went to claim that the 1000 really has been included in the charges.

Any thoughts on this please?

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

without seeing the figures in full it will be incredibly hard to work out.....but heres my theory....fwiw.

Sell Car - take £1000 deposit (part ex whatever)
Dont take it out of the calculations for repayments until the end.
get interest and insurances on that extra £1000 until the end of the term.
At end of the term subtract the £1000, and calculate monthly repayment figure on the remainder.

Hence however many years paying interest and insurances on £1000 that was never loaned to you, and the monthly repayment figures appear correct discounting interest.

If you can work out the interest amount and insurances without the £1000 in at the beginning - see what the difference then would be.

Not an easy task me thinks.

What do you reckon ?

[Bakedalasker]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Hi Kafka,

First time I have had a look at your Welcome agreement and I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that the chances of it being unenforceable are slim. The confusion with the trade in issue I dont think will stand in a court. Mainly because all the preside terms are there and calculated correctly. Also the fact that your instalments over the 48 month period equals £7282 makes the Total Amount Payable section a none entity. Obviously not very professional to have it there but it does not come into the overall calculation of things as far as paying the agreement goes. I feel a court would look at it that way.

One argument I would consider though is the fact you have signed for 2 agreements under one signature. The HP agreement and the consumer credit agreement (insurances). A subsidiary agreement for insurances can be included in the same document as the conditional sale agreement (HP)without a separate signature box under Consumer Credit (Agreement) Regs 2(7A). This Regulation only permits Payment Protection Insurance and warranties to be included and does not permit GAP (shortfall) and breakdown insurance to be included. As a result, the inclusion of Gap and breakdown insurance on the subsidiary agreement means the insurance agreement is improperly executed under S61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and unenforceable without leave of the court under S65(1).

The problem you would have with this is proving to the judge that there are 2 separate agreements. Welcome would argue that each item has a letter of the alphabet against it making it one agreement. My argument would be that at the end of the agreement it refers to the HP agreement giving the impression there are 2 separate agreements with 2 separate APRs. I have put this to barristers in the past but have not had a good response from them. Risky one I know but................

Hope this is of help to you.

[Kafka]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

Well I had a call from a bloke at Welcome today. After abusing him he asked me to speak as he had something to tell me.

Apparently the Area Manager has decided to clear the account. It was obvious they would never get any more money from me and that I was planning to go after them. Anyway they will be writing to confirm that the debt is cleared, so all the charges, plus the small 'outstanding' amount will go.

I will also then be able to scrap the car because its unrepairable and currently stuck in a garage, as I can't scrap it while it is still tied to a credit agreement.

In the circumstances I will probably leave it at that because it was never clear I could get much back, even after the CCC's friendly solicitor checked the agreement. I was still struggling to frame the legal argument that could succeed in court. At least this clears the problem and gets rid of the car. The one other thing I need to check is credit rating, incase they have done anything.

There are few other cases to fight, so I think the time is better spent moving on to those now.

Thanks everyone for your help - it does pay to stand your ground. :okay:

[Nattie]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

Well done, kafka.

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

well done mate :roll::roll:

[Tools]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

Kafka, only just seen this marked as **RESULT**

Fantastic , well done.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance ***RESULT***

Well done Kafta, make sure you check the CRA's and your files as you have hinted at doing.