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

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

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.

exactly. I don't want to necessarily question the agreement as such but the authenticity of the document they have provided

The statement of account should show the amount outstanding at the time of the request , so should be the same as the claim ( minus any fees and costs) .

I guess this is what they have provided but again i do not trust the document,. it has no name no account number or anything to say it s linked to me or the agreement they have provided. It is a piece of paper with figures on it that don't add up and then miraculously out of no where appears a figure that is supposedly owed.


Can you just remind me
The loan was 2200 correct
The fee was 75 correct
the term was 36 months? correct
The contractual monthly payment? £120.32
The interest rate = 60.10%
The APR= 64.68%

[judgemental24]

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

My thinking exactly, I was thinking S.140 CCA 1974

The APR is misstated and prejudice the borrower

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/IX/crossheading/unfair-relationships

[Berniethebolt]

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.

The statement of account should show the amount outstanding at the time of the request , so should be the same as the claim ( minus any fees and costs) . If this is what they have provided I would suggest that they have not complied with your CCA request.

Indeed , the acceptance fee should be as a separate cost even if there was no interest so in that case it would be £75 over 36 months =£2.08 per month.

Can you just remind me
The loan was 2200
The fee was 75
the term was 36 months?
The contractual monthly payment?
The interest rate =?
The APR=?

[judgemental24]

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

The acceptance fee is not a credible argument anymore as the welcome agreement is dated after April 2007

s.127(3) CCA 1974 has now been repealed

Sorry

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Thanks for all your replies thus far. from my knowledge, the agreement was never rewritten and it was only in single name. The signature could have well been pulled from another document as i did have a few different loans/hire purchases over the years with them. i know its been mentioned already that the CCA only states that a 'copy' of the agreement needs to be provided but for court purposes do they not have to provide the original document for me to inspect? i could argue that the signature is not mine!!

Statement of account: this has the most random of figures on it that don't add up. i really want to challenge the authenticity of this document. no account number, no company logo, nothing. As i understand it, the SOT authenticates all of these documents but based on contradictions and random dates, i don't trust this witness.

someone mentioned earlier that the total amount of credit should include the acceptance fee on the agreement and looking at the statement of account, the opening credit does actually include this amount. is this a credible argument?

[judgemental24]

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

Agreed

The employees were on a bonus structure on how many loans could be rewritten over a longer term

Even people who just enquired abnout a loan were not immune. They found themselves having loan accounts taken over the phone when they never even went through the loan process. The first time they found out was when a payment was missed. Welcome never even sent out statements to hide their subterfuge.

To say corruption was rife at individual offices is an understatement

[nemesis45]

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

As this is a Welcome Finance Account, has the original agreement been rewritten at any time, this was a common practice in the Welcome branches and was even done without the borrowers knowledge.
Much data was lost (destroyed) when the local branches closed and what data the " scheme" had left was really cobbled together.
An alleged Welcome " agreement" should be viewed with great suspicion.

nem

[Berniethebolt]

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

Just clutching at straws here
How many people were on the agreement?
Are there the same number of signatures?
Are they accurate signatures?

As it does seem that the financial figures are woefully wrong , could it be a recon with signatures lifted from another document ?
Are the terms and conditions correct?


Just things to quickly check out , it may be too late now anyway

[Berniethebolt]

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

FP I take your point about the DN and how the account was terminated. I also take your point about typo, I was meaning they probably just didn't edit that date from a previous witness statement

[FlamingParrot]

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

A DSAR to welcome would have produced that default notice, 100% guaranteed

Most banks will tell you that they don't keep them, I didn't get them with my SARs although I also sent them very early on in the game, shortly after defaulting. I think that would apply to most high street banks but Welcome are not one of them. Trouble is, they'd have 40 days to respond to a SAR. :mmph:

[judgemental24]

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

A DSAR to welcome would have produced that default notice, 100% guaranteed

[FlamingParrot]

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

They have stated the agreement was terminated on the back of a default notice and signed that in a statement of truth. Put that with the obvious discrepency with the assignment issue:

My opinion is that it is Lowell that are screwed and needs to be exploited in court

Just my own opinion though and you have nothing to lose, especially if you get a judge a stickler for the rules on a claimant who should know better against a Litigant in person

Sadly there was a case here not long ago where the claimants also put forward a childishly ridiculous and mistake-ridden WS yet they still won.

The agreement would have been terminated on the back of a DN, what's wrong with that? You'd need to show that the DN was defective or non-compliant which you can't do without a copy of it.

[FlamingParrot]

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

FWIW I think they have messed up on both their POC and their Witness Statement .
They issued a DN which you didn't remedy BUT did they terminate the agreement on the back of that, do you have anything that might show they did?
For a fixed term loan I believe they can wait until the term is up before demanding payment .

They should not have mentioned the DN if it was not relevant to the claim
The typo on the witness statement will I expect be ignored as mini mouse (de minimus i.e not relevant)

That's not a typo since it gives a full date, i.e. March 6th 2010, a typo would be to have 2010 instead of 2012.

The problem with DN arguments is that you really need a defective one to make something out of it. If you haven't got it to start with, how can you argue that it wasn't compliant?

Saying you never got one would probably be dismissed since most lenders DO issue them, so it would be hard to convince a judge that there was never one to start with IHMO. :mmph:

[FlamingParrot]

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

thanks for the posts guys. I get the feeling that i am royally screwed then! Making an offer i'snt even an option as getting a CCJ will make me lose my job. sigh

If that's the case you may want to look into Tomlin orders. The order stays proceedings for as long as you keep up the agreed repayments so it works for them like a CCJ but it's not on record. The downside is that if you default on the order, they are allowed to request summary judgment at that point. It's worth looking into, otherwise the only way to get rid of a CCJ once it's issued would be to pay it in full within one month so it doesn't get recorded.

[Berniethebolt]

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

Remember that if you pay the judgement in full within 28 days it will not be registered