thephoenix v welcome finance

[thephoenix]

thanks guys.
Our welcome agreement is for a secured loan on the property that was repossessed last year. We had indemnity insurance with the loan, (although we were unaware of that at the time of taking it out )
But in the small print, it say's the insurance only applies if welcome forclose on the property, as it was, platform forced closure. Oh... and yes platform is another issue.
There are brokers fee's added, when in fact we went direct to welcome for the credit bargain.

As for an unenforceable agreement, doesn't that entitle you to ALL the money back you have paid on the agreement, plus 8% plus charges plus damages.....etc???????

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

It does kind of...its very difficult to get that though and the majority of people within this situation want to get out of the contract and are happy to have paid back that which they owed (alledgedly) less the mental charges, interest and cons.

Maybe worth a look over on saynotoyes's site see if they have any information regarding these indemnity clauses - I believe the solictor they work with has previously had agreements deemed unenforceable because of just such a clause.

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

the solicitors using are 'Stephenson's solicitors' of sheffield.
We just had final response from LSC that the legal aid has been refused. :crazy:
the reasons being paragraph 5.4.2 of the funding code guidance provides that funding may be refused if there are ' others persons including those who might benifit from the proceedings who can reasonably bring or fund the case '

Stephenson's apparently specialize in welcome agreements but they have no one on their books who is in a position to go all the way the high court and risk everything, ie. mortgage, property etc.
We have nothing now, hence legal aid so we were willing to be first test case for them on this kind of issue BUT we have now been refused legal aid.
We ain't got the estimated £100k to go to trial nor 3 years to spare.

So we are a little stuck unless I go it alone in the small claims, which Stephenson's have done on numerous occasions and lost and requires going to the court of appeal, where they have been told, by a high standing QC, that they have a 80% chance of winning the next case. :rolleyes: How they come to that conclusion I don't know...but there you go.


I'm going on and on and on and on and Ariston.

hope you enjoyed the read and tune in next week when we take on .............:roll:

[Amethyst]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

so what are you doing with yours then - trying to get back everything paid ? or ''just'' nuke the agreement ?

[Paule]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

Have you got legal cover under your household insurance?

[Paule]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

, which Stephenson's have done on numerous occasions and lost and requires going to the court of appeal, where they have been told, by a high standing QC, that they have a 80% chance of winning the next case. :rolleyes: How they come to that conclusion I don't know...but there you go.

That seems crafty to me, they lose in small claims (doesnt matter no costs awarded), but will play in big league as they can have large costs awarded (supposedly payable by either you or the loser).
Ie they will play hard for £25k costs, but cant be bothered for £75 costs

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

could do with nuking the agreement ,as it stands at £15k now.
as for household insurance, yes we do but for whatever reason Stephenson's reckon it wont cover us.
Just dug out some paperwork from them. A few thing they mention:
- 'The agreement contains a mortgage indemnity fee (MIF) which is detailed as a charge. we consider that it is in fact part of the credit. If the MIF is misclassified the consequence is that the amount of credit would be wrong and as such the agreement would be unenforceable.'

- 'payment protection insurance was itemised on the agreement, was it optional or a condition of the loan?' As far as we are concerned we didn't want it.

- ' a charge of £1335, on the statement of account shows that this was disbursed to IBTR, which appears to be a fee to a broker.' as mentioned before, we went straight to welcome for this loan.

They also make reference to their previous case, GRIFFITHS V WELCOME FINANCE. I'm gonna search for the case law on this and try to pick to bits, as they lost this case.

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

could do with nuking the agreement ,as it stands at £15k now.
as for household insurance, yes we do but for whatever reason Stephenson's reckon it wont cover us.
Just dug out some paperwork from them. A few thing they mention:
- 'The agreement contains a mortgage indemnity fee (MIF) which is detailed as a charge. we consider that it is in fact part of the credit. If the MIF is misclassified the consequence is that the amount of credit would be wrong and as such the agreement would be unenforceable.'

- 'payment protection insurance was itemised on the agreement, was it optional or a condition of the loan?' As far as we are concerned we didn't want it.

- ' a charge of £1335, on the statement of account shows that this was disbursed to IBTR, which appears to be a fee to a broker.' as mentioned before, we went straight to welcome for this loan.

They also make reference to their previous case, GRIFFITHS V WELCOME FINANCE. I'm gonna search for the case law on this and try to pick to bits, as they lost this case.

I n addition, a full SAR was done but stephensons have ALL the docs.

[thephoenix]

Re: Kafka v Welcome Finance

sorry, just realised i'm hijacking your post.
if someone could split my last 2 posts to a new thread, it would be less confusing for all.

sorry again.

[Amethyst]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

Do you have copies of your agreements etc or do Stephensons have everything ?

What are the terms of any contract u have with Stephensons ?

Also the indemnity clause you are fighting - is it regarding the payable upfront legal charges being deferred to the end of the loan (thus incurring massive interest). As stephensons stated the legal charge should be a charge and payable upfront - instead they include it within the amount of credit thus making the charge into credit - but still stating it as a charge within the indemnity clause. (does that make any sense whatsoever?)

Bascially when u think you got to the end of the loan you suddenly have to pay back this initial charge plus full extortionate interest from over the whole period and your £500 is suddenly £20,000.

Just thinking aloud really...I'm quite likely to be on the completely wrong track I can't really help I'm just interested....

[thephoenix]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

hi, I'm seriously hijacking this post, I'm gonna get a spanking very soon

Yes that sounds about right. I do have a copy of the agreement, t&c's and 2 settlement statements from last year in PDF format.

As for stephenson's, not 100% sure, I know they told me that no work will comence on the case until legal aid has been issued but they have spent time putting the case for legal aid together, so whether we're liable for those cost's, heaven knows.

the agreement was for 15 years, the PPI is for 5 years. didn't realise that until we started this.

ooopppss, just realised you've started a thread for me. thanx

[Amethyst]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

oooooo

not hijacking so I guess you forgoe the spanking

You dont fancy letting me see the agreements and what not u have ? delete any personal bits.

These agreements are too easy to sign and ruddy impossible to get out of....but people do and Stephensons do appear to have a lot of experience with Welcome, and Blemain and other alledgedly dodgy lenders.


So when you contacted Stephensons do they go through any contract or anything with you for them to take on your case, or do they do the legal aid application on spec. I assume they explained how legal aid works and your liabilities at the beginning ?

my email - amethyst@legalbeagles.info

again not saying I can particularly help just interested and discussing things often helps things seem clearer. And it might help Kafka too - cause I think he may have a wee battle to get whats owed to him.

[thephoenix]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

just sent it to you and thanks for this.
We signed the terms of engagement with stephenson's but I'm gonna have to go through all the literature they sent us to find out what exactly we are liable for.
I'm contemplating just ending it with stephensons now before any potentials cost's are increased. Or contact direct line and see what they say regarding the insurance cover we have with them. It does include contractual issues and covers for £100k, that way we can stay with stephenson's. :rolleyes:

[thephoenix]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

what's this i hear about welcome gone bust? is it true, is the letter gonna be posted up here?
sounds interesting

[thephoenix]

Re: thephoenix v welcome finance

just sent it to you and thanks for this.
We signed the terms of engagement with stephenson's but I'm gonna have to go through all the literature they sent us to find out what exactly we are liable for.
I'm contemplating just ending it with stephensons now before any potentials cost's are increased. Or contact direct line and see what they say regarding the insurance cover we have with them. It does include contractual issues and covers for £100k, that way we can stay with stephenson's. :rolleyes:

Hi Ame
sorry to be a pain in the rear end.. again. did you receive the bumf i sent you regarding the welcome agreement?