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

[Amethyst]

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

DD, can you do an unredacted copy ( ie the % rates and monthly amount ) of the agreement pls. I've got £120.32 and 60.10% ?

[nemesis45]

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

thanks for responding nem, ive uploaded the documents for you to see. I dont remember the agreement being re-written.

The main things are that 'statement of account' is just a printed piece of paper which shows various charges and a few bogus amounts. then ultimately the balance just jumps to the figure the claimants have put in particulars of claim.

i do also actually have a copy of my credit file from 2012 thats showing that welcome had marked the default as satisfied. im not sure if this helps my defence or not ??? thanks for your time

Satisfied by debt purchaser paying for the debt.

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Hi Guys, is there anybody at all that can help me with this. As previously stated, the case was adjourned and finally is now set for the 2nd hearing on the 24th. Is there any chance of me winning this at all based on:
Contradictions in the SOT and the WS ,
The lack of original documents (just copies the solicitor has)
No default notice

any help would be greatly appreciated.

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

I received a call from the solicitors on Friday offering me a settlement figure to settle out of court of about £100 less than the clam amount. I refused.

I dont believe that they have sufficiently proved to me that there is a debt outstanding. No original default notice and a company claiming i owe money based on a copy of an agreement and a statement of account printed on a a4 piece of paper no letter head or anything.

in the original hearing, lowells solicitor justified their right to claim a debt in court by stating that the SOT was enough to legally support their claim yet the SOT and WS both have contradictions so i cant believe it.

[FlamingParrot]

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

Hi Guys, is there anybody at all that can help me with this. As previously stated, the case was adjourned and finally is now set for the 2nd hearing on the 24th. Is there any chance of me winning this at all based on:
Contradictions in the SOT and the WS ,
The lack of original documents (just copies the solicitor has)

I dont believe that they have sufficiently proved to me that there is a debt outstanding. No original default notice and a company claiming i owe money based on a copy of an agreement and a statement of account printed on a a4 piece of paper no letter head or anything.

As you know, in Carey v HSBC it was established that a reconstructed agreement was enough to satisfy a CCA request. Even the CCA itself says that the creditor has a duty to to provide A COPY of the agreement, it doesn't say anything about originals. :mmph:

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement

No default notice

I dont believe that they have sufficiently proved to me that there is a debt outstanding. No original default notice and a company claiming i owe money based on a copy of an agreement and a statement of account printed on a a4 piece of paper no letter head or anything.

Default notices are not usually retained by lenders, they are just mail-merged from a database and not saved as individual files, so it wouldn't be possible to obtain a copy, let alone the original which would have been the letter that was sent to you at the time.

[judgemental24]

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

Did you send a DSAR to welcome.

Welcome do retain copies of default notices from personal experience. They are a goldmine as they never stated a date to rectify the default by, always 14 days. That is contrary to the default and termination regulations.

It is important you do not tip them off that you are after the DN specific

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Thanks for your quick responses. No I never requested anything from welcome. Silly of me I know to leave it so late but I guess there's no time for that now.Flamingparrot from what your saying, i take it that a lack of a DN is not really relevant in my defence or the lack of ORIGINAL agreement.so I basically have no chance

[nemesis45]

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

DD can you let us see any documents that you have received please, remove personal identifiers.

nem

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Hi nem, here are the docs attached

- - - Updated - - -

ok that didnt work....

i posted the docs on this thread on the 6th june. Post number #58

[FlamingParrot]

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

i posted the docs on this thread on the 6th june. Post number #58

I can't see a copy of the agreement though, just the assignment, WS and statement of account.

Amethyst asked but I don't think anything was posted:

DD, can you do an unredacted copy ( ie the % rates and monthly amount ) of the agreement pls. I've got £120.32 and 60.10% ?

Thanks for your quick responses. No I never requested anything from welcome. Silly of me I know to leave it so late but I guess there's no time for that now.Flamingparrot from what your saying, i take it that a lack of a DN is not really relevant in my defence or the lack of ORIGINAL agreement.so I basically have no chance

The problem with the DN is that if you haven't got your own copy it may be hard to obtain one at this stage to see if it was compliant or not. As for the agreement, it's not a matter of it being a copy, it's the content that matters, which is why we'd really need to see it. :typing:

[judgemental24]

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

I had a claim against me from welcome. The default notice was defective as it stated 14 days and not a numerical date. They simply withdrew the claim, served a fresh default notice and issued a new claim.

I was successful in the end as the APR was misstated and the acceptance fee included in the amount of credit.

This was 2008 mind you

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

see the attached credit agreement, thanks for your help

[judgemental24]

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

You have the amount of credit and the total amount of credit

so why has the acceptance fee not been included in the total amount of credit??

The way i see it the total amount of credit has been misstated, so APR misstated, Game over

When was this agreement signed

Numbers are not my strongest point but you need to speak to an accountant to run those figures

I believe if the interest rate has a discrepency 1% or greater either side then it is game over

Wilson v. First County Trust supports this, but that may have new case law against it now

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

judmental, thanks for taking a look. im no good with figures really myself.

was march 2008

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Is there anyone that can help me with this at all PLEASE!!

i know its my own fault but ive literally got one day to pull something together and know what im going to say in court.