Welcome finance (again)

antrobus

steve811 wrote: »

Firstly it is not hearsay, it is direct evidence from me and can be backed up by testimony from my wife who was there, again not hearsay. Secondly this is civil not criminal law, and a court would decide on the "balance of probabilities" as the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases, and the accuser does not have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" their case. ...

No, the burden of proof remains on you, the claimant, and all you have is hearsay evidence. Do not confuse that with the standard of proof, which would be the "balance of probabilities".

steve811 wrote: »

...Given the large number of mis-sold PPI policies it may not take much to persuade a court that this was one, regardless of who was regulating at the time.

You might be right. But Wellcome Finance is insolvent. Rule number one of civil litigation is this; only sue people who have the money to pay you if you win.

steve811

I still do not see it is hearsay, but lets let that drop. I was not aware Welcome were insolvent, and that does change things, however I do note from the paperwork my contract was with Welcome Financial Services Ltd, and they (co number 00133540) are shown on companies house website as still trading. The question is, who regulated them in 2000?

antrobus

steve811 wrote: »

I still do not see it is hearsay, but lets let that drop. I was not aware Welcome were insolvent, and that does change things, however I do note from the paperwork my contract was with Welcome Financial Services Ltd, and they (co number 00133540) are shown on companies house website as still trading....

The Firm (and the Cattles Group) is insolvent but has reached an agreement with its financial creditors to restructure its liabilities. Given that it is insolvent, the firm has been declared in default.

Everything you always wanted to know about Welcome Financial Services Ltd - http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-for-welcome-financial-hn0qripj/

steve811 wrote: »

....The question is, who regulated them in 2000?

Unfortunately, I believe that the answer is that nobody regulated them prior to 27 Feb 2003 when Welcome signed up to the GISC.

steve811

Thanks, that all makes sense now. I suppose there is not much chance of going after the insurer?

[Deleted User]

steve811 wrote: »

I still do not see it is hearsay,

What you describe is by definition "hearsay". Do you really think your wife would be accepted as an impartial witness to what was said? You do not have direct "evidence" at all, just an accusation that the bank employee mis-advised you.

steve811 wrote: »

I suppose there is not much chance of going after the insurer?

That is what Welcome advised you to do. However, you still have only a weak hearsay complaint so expect nothing and you won't be disappointed.

jellie

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All of this is moot, of course, since even if a court found in your favour, Welcome is in no position to pay you.

This is actually not the case. Welcome are still in existence, collecting out their loan book. They are still paying out upheld PPI complaints.

Doesn't help op, as their loan is pre-regulation. However correction added for anyone searching for info on Welcome PPI.

[Deleted User]

jellie wrote: »

This is actually not the case.

Post edited accordingly.