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

[judgemental24]

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

I cannot believe they state the default issue is a red herring in point 28 of that witness statement

To terminate the agreement and/or demand sums not yet due they have to issue a default notice under 87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974

To say one is not needed and sign a witness statement to that effect is mind blowing incompetence

That is your argument, a minimum statutory requirement, GAME OVER


87 Need for default notice.

(1)Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a)to terminate the agreement, or

(b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

(c)to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d)to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e)to enforce any security.

[FlamingParrot]

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

Am I having a senior moment?

These two bits of their WS just don't add up!

witness statement.pdf 2015-09-22 11-48-07_1.png

Was the NoA served on September 11th 2012 or was it the 6th of March 2010? :noidea: :confused2:

witness statement.pdf 2015-09-22 11-48-07_2.png

The introduction letter attached has the date blanked out but I can see 2012 in the end so I'd be inclined to say it was Sept 2012, so where did March 2010 come from? Could they be thinking about the default notice when they wrote that? :confused2: :noidea:

[judgemental24]

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

They state the originally agreement was terminated in that witness statement, point 23 so 87(1) applies

That witness statement continues to contradict itself, no logical progression in each paragraph

Seems to me to be written by a 1st year law student, and i am being polite with that comment

[FlamingParrot]

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

They state the originally agreement was terminated in that witness statement, point 23 so 87(1) applies

I suspect a DN WAS issued, probably in 2010, otherwise what does the date above refer to? It's not a typo because the month is also different. There may be a file note somewhere referring to it, otherwise where did the 6th of March 2010 come from? :confused2:

That witness statement continues to contradict itself, no logical progression in each paragraph

Seems to me to be written by a 1st year secondary school student with learning difficulties, and i am not being polite with that comment

IFYPFY :lol:

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Thanks for your responses. the contradictions is something that has mentioned before on the thread but there was no conclusion as to wether i could use this in court.

I have no idea where the date 6th March 2010 comes from. default date was 10/2009 so cannot be refeering to that

[judgemental24]

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

You need to sit down and prepare your own witness statment as a reference source to use in front of the judge pulling apart their witness statement

That will be on the assignemnt and default notice and how they conflict.

I would have three copies, just in case the judge asks for a copy and to give to the lowell representative.

Looking at this it will only be a few paragraphs on point 23, 24, 25 and 28 to make the lowell representative look a right amateur

[Berniethebolt]

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

Judgmental
I think the problem will be to show that it is a non compliant CCA request , the account was opened post 2007 so S127 is no longer applicable , basically the agreement can be as screwed up as they want as long as they send you a true copy

[Berniethebolt]

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)

I am afraid to say that should you get a bank favouring Judge as it seems most of them are they will grant judgement . I would be prepared to make an offer but remember that should that be only £1 per month then so be it.

I hope I am wrong BTW

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

[judgemental24]

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

[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

[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.

[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

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.

[judgemental24]

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

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