Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

[righty]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Ask Curlyben to have a look at your agreement

[pt2537]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Ok the agreement

In breach of the Consumer Credit Agremeent Regulations 1983 the agreement fails to state a heading in the form required by schedule 1 para 1

In breach of Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations, the agreement fails to contain certain lettering that affords more prominence than any other lettering


In breach of regulation 6 and schedule 6 the agreement fails to state the amount of credit correctly

that is enough to kill the agreement on its own, just have a look at the Walker vs SPPL case and also the House of Lords in Wilson and First County trust

[Judge mental]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Hi All:

I have been taking a look at these WF agreements for a friend, I have been unable to find any discussions anywhere about this particular subject so it may be that we have a previously unconsidered argument, which would render the whole agreemnt unenforceable.

Here is what I have got so far -

The PPI is added to the loan, if the loan is an unrestricted fixed sum type (not given for a particular use or purpose stated within the agreement) then the PPI constitutes a restricted use loan agreement, this effectively creates a Multiple agreement under section 18 of Consumer credit Act 1974 which would require each part to have its own signed agreement and terms/conditions to meet the prescribed terms. WF do not provided a separate agreement/terms for PPI and therefore the whole agreement would be unenforceable.

There may also be an argument that where any arrangement fees or broker fees are added to the loan, these to could be viewed as a restricted use loan also creating a Multiple agreement.

Section 18 is as follows-

(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement”) if its terms are such as—

(a) to place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreements so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

(b) to place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.


(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

There is another, more serious matter which I am reluctant to disclose publically at this stage just in case WF do lurk around here, but the implications are massive. I am currently carrying out further investigation, public disclosure will follow should it prove to be fruitful.

I suggest everyone with a WF agreement check the following, does the opening ‘capitalisation’ entry on your first statement include the any of the ‘charges for credit’ and/or PPI if it does you would (in my opinion only) have grounds to challenge the enforceability of the agreement.

I would also hope that if any of the knowledgeable people here think I am barking up a wrong tree, they could give their views/input.

[pt2537]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

you may need to look at the linked transaction provisions of the CCA 1974

the PPI may fall within the linked transaction provisions if it cannot stand alone without the main agreement.

Also Welcome do pay commissions which they do not disclose to you when you take out the loan

[righty]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

PT contact Paul Walton You'll be amazed what he's been sent in a SAR Having said that I think he may have already posted it on CAG

[Judge mental]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Thanks pt2537, sections 18 and 19 do appear to contradict each other in parts, I have no doubt WF will certainly claim it’s a linked transaction, however I offer the following points –

19 Linked transactions

(1) A transaction entered into by the debtor or hirer, or a relative of his, with any other person (“the other party”), except one for the provision of security, is a linked transaction in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement (the “principal agreement”) of which it does not form part if—

Relevant part highlighted, everything after that would be irrelevant as -

1) I called WF to throw a few questions at a lady who was a little hesitant in answering, (but I can be as persistent as they are) and she said the ‘PPI is agreed to when the application is made and no separate application/document/signature is necessary. This must therefore form part of the principle agreement and cannot be a linked transaction,

2) The PPI is part of the ‘Total amount of Credit’ for the principle agreement therefore cannot be a linked transaction


3) Credit (as defined by the Act) is given to finance the PPI and ‘charges for credit’ therefore they must come under one of the types of credit as defined by the Act, It is not un-restricted use credit so is a different category to the cash loan part of the agreement and therefore falls within the multiple agreements provisions.

4) The lady at WF also said 'the PPI T&C’s are given in a booklet' which would mean there is not a single document and the prescribed terms not complied with.

Maybe I'm still barking up that wrong tree, but I'm not letting this one go just yet. I will look around but anyone know of any case law relating to 'principle agreements v linked transactions'?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Sorry about the font, dont really know what happened there!

[postggj]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

i hope you dont mind me butting in on this

my understanding is the agreement will be crap if the acceptance fee is added to the ammount of credit before calculating interest wilson v fct

if its added to the total ammount of credit, its ok

i feel what you need to concentrate on is the undisclosed commission payments ref ppi etc

if these are not included on the agreement, it invalidates the agreement
to get the full sp, you would need the underwriting/commission sheets
welcome use a company called direct group who addmin the insurance, norwich union/aviva underwrite

welcome/norwich/direct group will not release these details claiming comercial sensativity

i feel the only way would be to request an enforcement order if welcome take you to court for the release of this data or go through the fos
that will take up to a year

just my understanding

corrected if wrong

[righty]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

From Cattles discussion board
“lets face it un suspention of the shares is pointless anyway the shares aren't worth the paper they are printed on ctt will most likely never make a profit again thee bad debt inside wfs is far worse than first expected £700 in extra provisioning is as at end of dec 08 there will be far more provisioning required for the period since then no matter what has been said everyone inside wfs knows that bad debt has got far worse since then and with no new lending since end of jan (almost none) the bad debt percentage must be well into the 50 if not fast approaching 60% mark ctt owe approx £2.8bill best way bad debt is 50% of £3.2bill even if it all pays back in the future (which it won't) then we would be £1.2bill short thats without all the PPI misale claims which we are currently stalling on and claims on un-enforceability of loans, unfair charges etc. Face it, its a case of collecting as much back in the next 3-6months to pay back as much of what we owe as possible then wind it down. Anyone that works in WFS operations should have realised that Wednesday when the new blueprint came out”


Oh dear:tung:

[Bankstormer]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Ok the agreement

In breach of the Consumer Credit Agremeent Regulations 1983 the agreement fails to state a heading in the form required by schedule 1 para 1

In breach of Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations, the agreement fails to contain certain lettering that affords more prominence than any other lettering


In breach of regulation 6 and schedule 6 the agreement fails to state the amount of credit correctly

that is enough to kill the agreement on its own, just have a look at the Walker vs SPPL case and also the House of Lords in Wilson and First County trust

So, what do i do then?

Is it like the bank charge procedure, i.e. writing a preliminary letter stating these points followed by a lba then court?

Is there a step by step guide i could follow, or even some templates?

[Bankstormer]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

Can anyone advise me please?

[Amethyst]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

It depends what you want to do - have a look at Luggerbugs thread (he has a faulty welcome agreement with ppi tho its post april 07) and have a read of ~~~ Consumer Credit Agreements - A Guide ~~~~ inc. Letters - Legal Beagles

Your friend already has a ccj and charge order on this ? (I should read back)

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

I think he meant a legal charge as it was secured on the friend's property?

Maybe I should go back and read again too.

[Amethyst]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

ahh yes you are right Lugger and that makes more sense.

So can either wait till they start court proceedings and defend vigourously on the unenforceable contract, or write and try get them to wipe it before it gets that far on the back of the shoddy cca...... or take them to court for a declaration of unenforceability.

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Welcome Finance - Unenforcable?

I'm trying the second option, but well prepared for the first.