I.N.D ltd General Form of Judgement received.

**Amethyst** · 11th October 2018, 14:27:PM

The original claim in this case was filed at court in 2012? And this is definitely the same claim & debt ?

Would you be able to post up a copy of the application you received in June - I would assume you didn't submit anything to court to counter the application ?

Does the application submit amended particulars of claim ? just strange you'd have to submit a further defence if you already did so back in 2012. Might be worth checking with the court that your defence was filed (although if not you'd more likely have just had a default judgment back in 2012 - but I know some people used to send their defences straight to the claimant rather than the court )

I'm not sure why, if the original claim was brought by IND, they needed to apply to substitute the claimant ? I think we do need to see the application, and if you have any of the original claim docs it may help too.

Your defence sounds like it will still be Statute Barred if last payment was Jan 2006 and you paid nothing after that, do you know if the loan defaulted or if it ran its course piling on charges until it terminated after the original loan term ?

Try not to worry, it'll be sort out able once we know what's happened between 2012 and now to have instigated this application and new order for a defence. For now I'm as perplexed as you though lol.

**fars** · 14th October 2018, 16:36:PM

Hey Amethyst,

Yes definitely the same debt.

I didn't take any action with the June documents, perhaps I misunderstood their purpose, but I thought it was just the 2012 N1 claim finally progressing after 6 years.

Having had a good look through my paperwork my last payment was in August 2007 and the N1 issue date is May 2012, so that falls well within the window to not be Statute Barred.

So the first image is of the most recent letter received, the General Form of Judgement, dated the 27th of September 2018.

The second image is the original N1 Claim form dated May 2012.

And the remaining 4 images are from the N244 Application notice dated June 2018, N244 03 is where they explain the claim has not been persued due to an administrative error.

**Amethyst** · 14th October 2018, 17:52:PM

Okay, the original claim was brought directly by Welcome Finance, so that explains that bit.

That the stay be lifted after more than 6 years seems rather an abuse of process to me. DOn't give a fig about their administrative errors. Their application confirms you filed a defence back in 2012 so I think this order is the confirmation that IND are substituted as claimant, but that the stay hasn't been lifted, and the judge is asking for your defence against that part of the application, but then the order goes on to say they can enter a judgment if you fail to file a defence. I'd probably combine the two - the defend against the original claim plus a defence against the stay being lifted.

Do you have any idea at all what your original defence was in 2012 ? Is there a formal CCA request in play ? ( maybe one you sent to welcome finance at the time of the first claim ?)

pt2537 what do you reckon ?

**fars** · 14th October 2018, 19:24:PM

Yes the loan was with Welcome originally, I believe I've a letter from earlier this year stating IND has now taken over.

I filed a defence via the money claim online portal, which I logged in to today after working out log in credentials but unfortunately i'm unable to see any details relating to the claim.

I can however probably find my notes of the defence I filed,will check this and reply accordingly.

Is the CCA request where I requested the original agreement? If so I did that and have the reply to hand.

I also have the original 2005 document for the loan agreement, the PPI agreement and most other paperwork it seems.

edit-----

Google documents has my defence saved thankfully, cut and paste as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 is not admitted with regards to the Defendant entering in to an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the Claimant as the Defendant did not enter into any Agreement with the Claimant.
2. Paragraph 1 is not admitted with regards to the Claimant terminating the alleged contractual Agreement as the Defendant did not enter into any Agreement with the Claimant.
3. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and
(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and
(c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
5. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
6. On the alternative, the Agreement referred to in paragraph 1 was improperly executed contrary to Section 61(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the Act').

(a) The only document which was signed by the Defendant in or around the date that the Claimant alleges that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with was an Agreement with Progressive Financial Services Limited trading as Welcome Financial Services ('the Creditor').
(b) The Agreement mentioned in paragraph (a) of these Particulars, stated that the Total Amount of Credit was £2xxx, consisting of a cash loan of £2xxx and the premium for a policy of Payment Protection Insurance ('the PPI') of £4xx.
(c) The Defendant was required to purchase the PPI as a condition of the Creditor entering into the Agreement: on or around 15 August 2005, when the Defendant telephoned the number he had seen in an advertisement for the Creditor's loans.
(d) The said premium for the PPI was an item entering into the total charge for credit as determined in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and was therefore, by reason of Section 9(4) of the Act, not to be treated as part of the credit even though time was to be allowed to its payment.

7. The Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that it was improperly executed as set out above and by reason of Section 65(1) of the Act.
8. Further, by reason of the fact that there is no document which has been signed by the Defendant containing a correct statement of the amount of the credit under the Agreement, and by reason of Section 127(3) of the Act, the Court has no power to make an enforcement order in respect of the Agreement because a term stating the amount of the credit is a prescribed term for the purposes of Sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3), prescribed by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, regulation 6(1) and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.
9. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

I've no idea if that defence means very much, but I did my best back then with help online.

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this with me.

**Amethyst** · 14th October 2018, 19:37:PM

The original agreement and other docs - is that just from your records or were they sent to you by Welcome?

Had you reclaimed the PPI on the loan or could that, if necessary, form part of your defence?

Frustrating, as had they obtained the CCJ six years ago it'd have fallen off of the register already, there must be some limitations argument you can use... (as well as anything document wise) with CCJ's if they don't enforce for 6 years they'd have to get court permission and have good reason to enforce....I'd think it'd be the same with lifting a stay, but tbh I haven't seen any with this amount of time lapse, and an administrative error really doesn't seem to be to be good reason. If you can find the defence it would help - otherwise you might be able to ask the court for a copy.

**Amethyst** · 14th October 2018, 20:58:PM

Ooh just seen you found your defence..... well done google docs ! lol

I'll be back in the morning hopefully with some idea what the best route to take is.

Para 5 states original agreement exhibited - can you do a copy of the exhibits pls too. Is it Progressive ?

**fars** · 14th October 2018, 23:44:PM

Yeah I have the original agreement and the agreement sent by welcome via CCA.

I have not reclaimed the PPI, and there are other charges included with the current amount being chased, they have sent me a full statement of the account with payments and charges etc. I've never had the opportunity to discuss the PPI as it went straight to litigation with IND.

It is really frustrating, this year has seen me get better control of my health and start to move forward again with life, would really love to get this all over with so I can stop thinking about it constantly.

I'm not sure what Progressive means?

Thanks again for helping me. I'll have access to my paperwork in a few hours and can get more images uploaded of anything necessary.

**Amethyst** · 15th October 2018, 08:27:AM

When you took the loan out in 2005 Welcome Finance was a trading name of Progressive

PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

23 Dec 2002 - 01 Dec 2006

In your defence document

a) The only document which was signed by the Defendant in or around the date that the Claimant alleges that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with was an Agreement with Progressive Financial Services Limited trading as Welcome Financial Services ('the Creditor').

How much is the claim for btw? ( I note the original loan was about £2k and there was a £400 PPI added )

There is an issue with the agreement according to the defence with the PPI being included in the credit ?

(d) The said premium for the PPI was an item entering into the total charge for credit as determined in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and was therefore, by reason of Section 9(4) of the Act, not to be treated as part of the credit even though time was to be allowed to its payment.

Any idea where you got help with the original claim & defence? ( just thinking can have a look back on the history of it if it was on a forum like MSE or CAG or GOODF even )

Looking at the six years issue - the claim was issued on 14 May 2012 - and the application made 14 June 2018 - so beyond 6 years.

I think a substitution of a party falls under CPR 35 and is deemed a new claim ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58/section/35) but I'm not sure about the third party proceedings part.

Also theres CPR 19

Special provisions about adding or substituting parties after the end of a relevant limitation period

19.5

(1) This rule applies to a change of parties after the end of a period of limitation under –

(a) the Limitation Act 1980¹;

(2) The court may add or substitute a party only if –

(a) the relevant limitation period^(GL) was current when the proceedings were started; and

But again, I'm not sure what (a) actually means - it was in limitations when the proceedings started in May 2012 - but it wouldn't be now, and that May 2012 was over 6 years ago.

Hoping a couple more clever peeps will look in today pt2537

Example Progressive agreement just for reference attached - NOT FROM THIS ACCOUNT/CLAIM THIS IS A SECURED LOAN one - JUST TO NOTE THE PROGRESSIVE BIT.

Attached Files

cca043edited.jpg (214.6 KB, 1 view)

**fars** · 15th October 2018, 11:52:AM

Ah I see, thank you for clearing up the Progressive thing, sorry I was being a bit thick.

Claim is £2700 and with claim fees £2900. Loan of £2000, PPI was £450. And looking at the statement I made £1149 in payments to them. I'm no accountant but the numbers on the statement they provided don't make much sense.

I found where I originally got help, hopefully it is ok to link to the thread.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...-Viewing)-nbsp

I think I foolishly believed that a 6 year wait was just a normal time span with these things, and being completely honest I filed my defence online in 2012 and just got on with life, resigned to just accepting whatever came next and believing I had done all I could. Six years has passed by so very quickly.

**Amethyst** · 15th October 2018, 11:59:AM

Tends to fly by as you get older

And no, 6 years isn't normal xxx So we need to get a defence ( or an application ) in before the 19th … just off to read your CAG thread xxx

**Amethyst** · 15th October 2018, 12:09:PM

When exactly did IND buy the debt as they have made out to the court it is a new thing although they haven't given the date of assignment, nor presumably disclosed any evidence of the assignment …. From your thread it sounds like before the court claim was brought in 2012 ?

Do you have any copies of the letters they sent you before the court claim filed away anywhere?

**fars** · 15th October 2018, 22:22:PM

So I have this letter dated 24/04/12, which confuses me further now I look at it as it has my default date as 02/12/11 on page 2, will keep checking my folders to see if I can find anything else.

**fars** · 15th October 2018, 22:25:PM

I also have this letter dated January 2018 advising IND have informed the court that they have now purchased the debt. Which included a global substitution order.

**fars** · 18th November 2018, 01:37:AM

So I've received a letter from the County Court dated the 9th of November advising the judgement has been entered in favour of the claimant.

I'm a little unsure of what happens next, will IND try to contact me for payment?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I.N.D ltd General Form of Judgement received.