**CASE DISMISSED** Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

[judgemental24]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983

Default Notices



Section 87(1) of the 1974 Act allows the creditor to send you a default notice giving you fourteen days from the date you receive it to pay the arrears. The default notice must contain all of the necessary information under the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 ('the 1983 Regulations'), which includes

1. a statement saying the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the 1974 Act
2. a description of the agreement
3. the name and address of both the debtor and the creditor
4. details of the breach (i.e. late payment) and, if the breach can be remedied, the date by which it must be remedied or, if the breach is not capable of remedy, the amount required to be paid after the expiry of the specified date;
5. a statement saying: if the action required by this notice is taken before the date shown no further enforcement action will be taken in respect of that breach

- - - Updated - - -

If it had 14 days to rectify instead of a numerical date then it is game over as they cannot enforce the agreement. The finance agreement has been terminated on a duff default notice so technically the agreement is still live

[judgemental24]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

Why did you not say before

Is is the actual notice from welcome under 87(1) CCA 1974?

If it has days to rectify the default instead of a numerical date then that is a duff notice contrary to the default and termination regulations

[DEBTDEFENDER]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

hi judgemental, yes i have it

[judgemental24]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

Do you have the default notice??

I would go that the agreement is so tainted and full of errors it simply cannot be the one you signed

You need to ask the court to dismiss the claim under S.140(a) CCA 1974 as an unfair relationship in that the APR is prejudiced on not only the amount borrowed, but to pay back as well

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9/section/140A

[DEBTDEFENDER]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

bump

[DEBTDEFENDER]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

ok so i have the DN that was issued in 2009. It has 14days to remedy etc but no exact date.

can this be used in conjunction with the fact that the agreement which cannot be mine due to all the errors in it?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

hi bernie,


court is tomorrow morning

I wish you all the very best of luck, ray: ray: ray:

If you are representing yourself you may find this useful: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/2...online_use.pdf :thumb:

We'll be looking forward to your update. opcorn:

[nemesis45]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

A "skeleton" argument is very helpful for remembering all the points you wish to put before the judge.

nem

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

I do wish you all the luck and good fortune in the world .

I do not know how you can go about questioning evidence , maybe someone here can tell you

So far, and god knows how, I have never been taken to court for my debts

I have questioned evidence as a claimant and the judge believed me. :grin: You simply point out their mistakes but you need to be prepared to put forward a good argument, if you say that can't be a copy of your agreement you need to explain why you think that is, i.e. the discrepancies. You need to be assertive and look confident to appear as a credible witness. Shifty eyes and hesitation don't help your case.

[judgemental24]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

As suggested i would go along with that the agreement supplied cannot possibly be the one you signed due to the catastrpohic errors in it and respectfuly request the agreement be withdrawn as evidence

Br prepared to point ouyt those errors to he judge

Just because you say it is unenforceable etc, you will have to tell him why in your own opinion the agreement cannot be enforced

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

I do wish you all the luck and good fortune in the world .

I do not know how you can go about questioning evidence , maybe someone here can tell you

So far, and god knows how, I have never been taken to court for my debts

[DEBTDEFENDER]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

hi bernie,

court is tomorrow morning

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

To clarify, as this is the subject of a lot of confusion (sorry Bernie), there are two separate sections of the CCA involved here:

Under s.77 they have a duty to provide either a true copy or (as per Carey), a recon which is honest and accurate, regardless of when the loan was taken out. S.77 hasn't changed and the Carey precedent applies to accounts opened both before and after the judgment.

S.127(3) is the one that was repealed with effect from April 2007 so it would no longer apply to agreements from 2008 and the court would have discretion to enforce even if there wasn't a properly executed agreement with all the terms at the time the account was opened.

No need to apologise
You have said what I was trying to get at
i.e S127 is no longer valid
and providing it is a true copy or recon any old crap will do as long as it is what you would have signed .

I was questioning if this could possibly be a copy as the % rates are so far out

[Berniethebolt]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

I have just done a quick calculation using this
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...ity-check.html

I used 2200, 36 months, Interest of 60.10 % and it came to 51 months.
I think that this seriously puts into doubt the validity of the contract although I have no idea if it will stand up in court.

How long have you got now before court?

Surely there can be nothing lost by suggesting to the judge that this can not possibly be the agreement you signed because the rates of interest just do not tally and therefore it must fall foul of S77(4).
It has to be worth a punt

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Court Claim - Lowell / Welcome Finance - 26-11-2014

Hi DF
As the account is from 2008 they do not need to provide the original or even a copy of the original I am afraid . Even an incorrectly executed agreement can be enforced. What i am wondering is that , considering the discrepancies in the APR and repayments can it be argued that what they have provided is not a true copy of what you would have signed. I find it almost inconceivable that the financial particulars can be so wrong , after all Welcome were a large organisation.

To clarify, as this is the subject of a lot of confusion (sorry Bernie), there are two separate sections of the CCA involved here:

Under s.77 they have a duty to provide either a true copy or (as per Carey), a recon which is honest and accurate, regardless of when the loan was taken out. S.77 hasn't changed and the Carey precedent applies to accounts opened both before and after the judgment.

S.127(3) is the one that was repealed with effect from April 2007 so it would no longer apply to agreements from 2008 and the court would have discretion to enforce even if there wasn't a properly executed agreement with all the terms at the time the account was opened.