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

[Amethyst]

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

Hiya DD, so sorry I've not been about

Yes they could whip it out in court and argue the toss but I do think IF THEY DO you should point out that the figures don't add up and that you have asked for other documents/evidence of this debt and they have failed to supply anything to you. The CCA is not complete and there are no terms and conditions with it, not even reconstructed ones, there's no details on how much you may have, or may not have, paid, no details on the charges they are including in the amount and nothing about interest charged - no evidence of assignment to Lowell so no proof that they have a legal right to collect the debt, and you have never received a default notice.

If there is a true debt then you would be happy to come to an arrangement to repay it but you feel completely unable to do so with a random third party who has shown no evidence whatsoever of what they are claiming. the claim was bought against you in November last year and it is now June (nearly) and you are no further forwards despite numerous requests.

If they don't then just stick that they havent complied with the CCA.

[nemesis45]

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

The production of a " reconstituted" agreement evolves from Case Law, it allows for the submission
of a " true copy" of an agreement with the details posted earlier, this as said may or may not satisfy
the CCA request.

A " properly" reconstituted agreement together with other evidence of usage of a " credit facility" may lead
a judge to conclude that on " the balance of probabilities that the agreement is enforceable and a ability exists ".

Judgement is made in favour of the claimant.

The Civil Law in England & Wales has its base in the " Balance of Probabilities" not " Beyond reasonable doubt" as is in criminal law.

So if the claimant believes the recon is viable they will produce it.

nem

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

***update*** claimants produced all docs in court, deed of assignment, agreement and statement of account. Judge adjourned for further 14 days as documents only produced today.

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

i went through the documents and there are 'charges' added to the account but still the balance is incorrect. any ideas as to where i go from here?

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

anyone at all????

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Yep that scans then doesn't it.

Need a cleverer person to have a look ... @pt2537 @mystery1 maybe better - I honestly can't remember if we can still argue misstated interest or if it has been kyboshed.

None of the maths adds up on that agreement, and if it WAS 60.10% and you were only paying £120 a month ( equal to 49.5% ) then there's going to be constant arrears, charges and a shortfall back end, if the interest rate is overstated does that affect it as much as it being understated then.

hi [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] wondering if the mentioned guys on this post were able to have a look at the agreement for me pls?

[Amethyst]

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

***update*** claimants produced all docs in court, deed of assignment, agreement and statement of account. Judge adjourned for further 14 days as documents only produced today.

Well that is good news - the adjournment bit, not so much the producing all documents.

And yes I'll try nudge someone to have a look... sadly it really isn't my area the numbers just don't seem to add up.

Welcome are a bit well known for adding charges - I believe these are defendable as penalties.
[MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] [MENTION=55034]nemesis45[/MENTION] [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[mystery1]

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

Is there a 2nd customer ?

2008 agreement ?

How much did they give you as that interest rate on the agreement is very high. It works out nearer 50%.

M1

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Thanks amethyst

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

How mystery thanks for taking a look. There was only one customer and yes is a 2008 agreement. The amount borrowed I believe was £2200

[nemesis45]

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

Indeed so Amethyst Welome fees and charges were punitive in many cases and have been successfully reclaimed.

In a lot of cases the charges have been the only reason an account has been defaulted.

Debtfinder,

Were you provided with copies of ALL the documents produced in court? Can you please post redacted copies for us to see?

Was this agreement in Welcome's words " rewritten " at anytime? Often theses rewrites were not properly done and often totally wrong.

nem

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

court docs

[mystery1]

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

Well they've kind of got themselves in to a bit of a muddle haven't they. A claim verified with a statement of truth "and a default notice has been served and not complied with. " and a witless statement ( which i believe reflects an accurate argument btw) @ 25 which says the default notice isn't needed also verified with a statement of truth.

The witless statement @ 25 & 9 contains contradictions too.

A judge should be asked to pay little attention to their evidence as they obviously didn't check very thoroughly before they signed it ! In the absence of decent evidence to back up a claim the chances of the winning are diminished.

Of course legal argument has no place in a witless statement either.

M1

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

thanks mystery, i got the impression that the judge was very much siding with the claimant based on what they had. On adjourning, he was like ' i highly recommend you get in touch with BW legal , once you've read through the documents' . The bw legal bod actually sat there smirking at me. i'm so determined to get this struck out but i just don't know what to do from here???