Unbelievably useless response

Welcome Response

They say one day robots will replace humans in most areas. This theory has been around since the ’60s and, for the most part, it hasn’t happened yet, or has it? Looks like Nemesis45 may well be one of them robots replacing humans on Legal Beagles. In fact, a robot could do a much better job of processing information.

Here we have a newbie who’s clearly been through hell and back, had their home repossessed and their £17k loan now stands at £53k!!!! Totally-at-wits-end-with-Welcome-finance-HELP. What’s the response from Nemesis45? Send a CCA request!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!

As can be clearly seen below, Welcome Finance have taken this OP to court and obtained judgment, otherwise they couldn’t have obtained an attachment of earnings order. For a start, that means there is no longer a duty to respond to a CCA request, the judgment supersedes any agreement.

The OP also says “every six years they would take me back to court”. It’s not clear what this means, once you have a CCJ there is no need to obtain another one. As the OP mentions having several loans, maybe this refers to various loans and the £53k is the combined amount. Maybe he is referring to enforcement action, such as applying for an AoE order. One thing is clear: A CCA request will do this poor OP as much good as a pint of alcohol-free beer!

Welcome disaster

Was it regulated?

We don’t even know whether the Welcome loan(s) in question was/were regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. The bit about being taken to court “every six years” suggests this has been going on a long time. If a loan was taken out before 1998, it wouldn’t have been regulated if it was in excess of £15,000. Not all Welcome Finance loans were regulated. If it wasn’t, then the provisions of the CCA would have very little relevance.

Unsecured

The Land Registry hasn’t got much to say since it would appear the OP no longer owns any property. Any amount outstanding on the secured loans would have become unsecured after the OP lost their house  and, from what we can see above, were probably subject to one or more court judgments (CCJs). If the OP doesn’t own property, the CCJs cannot be secured with a charging order but can still be enforced via an attachment of earnings order.

Not even scratching the surface

There are so many questions that would need to be answered before anyone can even begin to advise this poor OP, yet Nemesis has done his bit by providing his stock robotic answer: “Send a CCA request, you’ll find the template in the green box, don’t forget to send £1 with it and mark it ‘for statutory fee only’…” A ’60s robot would have done a much better job, it could have been programmed to at least link to the CCA request template.

Does it really matter if the £1 got credited into the account instead? This isn’t going to be SBd, the loan, or loans, are subject to a judgment and the CCA request is as much use as the proverbial chocolate teapot in this case.

Once upon a time Celestine said she’d rather have someone round responding, in this case it would probable be best NOT to have anyone responding if that is going to be Nem the badly programmed and rusty ’60s robot!

3 Comments

  1. Agent 99 says:

    The OP has now come back with more details. They were originally taken to court in 2009 so it will hardly do any good to request the agreement at this point, even if the loan had been regulated to start with. They say they were taken to court again in 2015. As you can’t have two CCJs for the same debt, it was either for a different loan or else the second CCJ should not be there.

    All Nemesis45 can say is “time to send that CCA request”. WHAT GOOD is it going to do?

    He then asks whether they ARE/were employed. An attachment of earnings order can only be obtained against someone who is employed, not self-employed, nor can they attach your benefits if you are unemployed. 45 years giving debt advice and he doesn’t even know the very basics! UNBELIEVABLE!

  2. BillK says:

    There are no less than five solicitors representing Howlett Clarke, one current HC employee, and two ex-HC employees all standing by and watching this happen. And they ARE fully aware of this.
    The Legal Ombudsman (who is also represented within Legal Beagles) is also fully aware of this.

    I think it is patently clear that this really has to be stopped – by someone who GENUINELY cares about these poor people who are being repeatedly misled.

    • Agent 99 says:

      I think it is patently clear that this really has to be stopped – by someone who GENUINELY cares about these poor people who are being repeatedly misled.

      It’s obvious that the Beagles care more about making their point that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they make the right decisions. Not only is Nemesis45 out in full force this morning, posting like a Duracell Bunny on steroids (probably fuelled by the Beagles), they have gone as far as to remove THREE posts that were made on this thread yesterday lunchtime, because they showed how Nemesis had not addressed the issues at all!

      Among the issues raised were whether the OP had more than one loan and the CCJs were for different loans or whether there were two CCJs for the same debt which shouldn’t be the case but it’s been known to happen; whether taking them to court again in 2015 was just to enforce the existing CCJ and whether the OP had an AoE order from the start. There were also points about dealing with AoE orders that hadn’t been raised.

      If the Beagles GENUINELY cared for those poor people as you say, Bill, they wouldn’t have removed those posts because the matters raised on them were very much relevant to the OP. As it happens, they are more concerned with showing support for Nemesis45, which has never made any sense from a logical perspective, however, if you apply “Beagle logic”, then it makes perfect sense. This is exactly the same they did with the person we refer to as “Mr Beagle” who posted under at least four different user names over a period of five years and was even given admin permissions. This fact was kept a secret even from site team members. I’d like to refer you to A Tale of Two Dangers where this has been discussed.

      To his credit, most of Mr Beagle’s posts were of higher quality than those by Nemesis45, but there were other issues with this poster, who was responsible for a lot of members leaving or getting banned, and was also a bit of a self-confessed lunatic. An uncanny coincidence, when you look at the OP on the thread referred to above, who has chosen the name “selfconfessedlunatic”. The Beagles never admitted the mistake they made with Mr Beagle, choosing instead to cleanse the site from those who had any objections to his presence and position during the Mass Cull of 2014.

      Was it not for this precedent and others that show the Beagles’ MO, such as when they stood up for someone who had grossly exaggerated their qualifications, until they decided to accuse one of the site owners of doing something that Mr Beagle had been responsible for, one would think that there was more between Nemesis45 and the Beagles than meets the eye.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *