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

[DEBTDEFENDER]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 26-11-2014
Amount approx: £3500
Claimant: Lowell
Solicitor: B W Legal
Original Credit: Welcome Finance

Particulars of Claim:
The Claimants claim is for the sum of xxxxx being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a personal loan agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 between the defendant and welcome financial services ltd under account ref xxxxxx and assigned to the claimant on 08/2012 notice of which has been given to the defendant. the defendant failed to maintain the contractual payment under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served and not complied with. The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum (a daily rate of 0.00 from the date of the assignment of the agreement to 11/2014 being an amount of 0.00

Stat Barred? No

Have sent: Acknowledged the Claim

Other Info:
The amount they are claiming for is less that the amount quoted in the 'particulars of claim' section. This was defaulted back in april 2009 and then sold on i assume numerous times. i have not made a payment since then. There is no default on my credit file anymore which i assume was removed when welcome went under. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated. I know i need to send CCA request, 31.14 request and also a part 18 request which i have prepared but just really would like some guidance and assistance with the whole thing please. thanks for your time

[FlamingParrot]

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

also worth noting that i explained to the judge at the beginning who i was and my qualifications in financial services. This gave weight to my argument about understanding how to work out APRs and that i would not sign an agreement that didnt add up

The credibility of the witness is paramount in court. :thumb: Just look at the infamous Frost case which was lost simply because the judge didn't believe the defendant was telling the truth. :mmph:

Being able to argue your points and say why you think that's not correct has worked in your favour as has in many other cases where judges have ruled in favour of the consumer. :clap2:

A round of applause for the judge who in all of this is the real MVP.

she allowed me to ramble on and mention parts of law that i didnt have a clue about before yesterday and was patient enough to disect what i was saying.

Not always gonna be like that though

I think both you and the judge deserve that round of applause!

im gonna post up the DN in a moment for what its worth. might help someone else out

Definitely! :grin:

You only mentioned it very late last night, from previous posts I got the impression you didn't have it.

Would you be willing to name the judge?

I do think that stating your qualifications in financial services may well have swung it for you, its one thing to say , Well i wouldn't have signed this against, I wouldn't have signed this because finance is my bread and butter and I would have checked it in detail

Definitely! It's a matter of credibility rather than just saying "it's unenforceable because that's what I read online". :ohwell:

[Berniethebolt]

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

Would you be willing to name the judge?

I do think that stating your qualifications in financial services may well have swung it for you, its one thing to say , Well i wouldn't have signed this against, I wouldn't have signed this because finance is my bread and butter and I would have checked it in detail

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

A round of applause for the judge who in all of this is the real MVP.

she allowed me to ramble on and mention parts of law that i didnt have a clue about before yesterday and was patient enough to disect what i was saying.

Not always gonna be like that though

- - - Updated - - -

im gonna post up the DN in a moment for what its worth. might help someone else out

[judgemental24]

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

What makes it even sweeter is that it is a welcome finance agreement

Their maladministraon is really taking its toll

No sympathy

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

also worth noting that i explained to the judge at the beginning who i was and my qualifications in financial services. This gave weight to my argument about understanding how to work out APRs and that i would not sign an agreement that didnt add up

[FlamingParrot]

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

Claimed dismissed. Tears of joy (literally)

I pointed out to the judge all of the contradictions in the witness statement (there were about 6 or 7) and also discredited their documentation that they were relying on. Mainly the DOA and dates that they say it was issued. There were 3 different dates within the documentation (which they tried to justify by saying the different dates related to equity & legal assignment)

I advised that i was questioning the authenticity of the documentation as they were supported by a witness who's statement couldn't be trusted (based on contradictions etc)

Asked for the original documents that must be produced as mentioned in CPR practice directions 16, paragraph 7.3 to which they mention 'Carey v hsbc' and the need only to provide a true copy which can be reconstituted. I made them aware that this is only sufficient for information purpose and not acceptable for proof purposes.

ultimately they couldn't prove that the documents were true copies given the contradictions in the witness statement and based on the fact that i advised that i needed the original to ascertain if the signature was really mine and not lifted from elsewhere.

The judge dismissed the case mentioning that the claimants claim put forward was poor in its entirety from start to finish and given the contradictions, the lack of evidence to show authenticity in the documents etc the balance of probabilities meant that she could not find in their favour

WOW! That's a brilliant result! :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

It shows it can still be done! :whoo: :whoo: :whoo:

Here's to DD and the Fair Judge.

Yet again, time for our official anthem (Turboman should be impressed :grin:

[judgemental24]

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

I think everyone deserves a pat on the back on this one.

Touch and go at times but we got there in the end

Especially you DEBTDEFENDER

You stuck at it and formulated your own argument in court

Very well done

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

just got back from court. Thank you all so much for your assistance.

I only found the DN last night when i was digging through some old docs trying to find something to discredit their case however, I didn't bring up the DN in the end because my argument for the most part relied on the fact that a debt could not exist as i couldn't have signed the agreement that they had supplied as evidence (as suggested by judgemental24)

I went through the case with a fine tooth comb earlier hours of this morning and picked to pieces the witness statement they provided and also the documentation they provided.

I pointed out to the judge all of the contradictions in the witness statement (there were about 6 or 7) and also discredited their documentation that they were relying on. Mainly the DOA and dates that they say it was issued. There were 3 different dates within the documentation (which they tried to justify by saying the different dates related to equity & legal assignment)

I advised that i was questioning the authenticity of the documentation as they were supported by a witness who's statement couldn't be trusted (based on contradictions etc)

Asked for the original documents that must be produced as mentioned in CPR practice directions 16, paragraph 7.3 to which they mention 'Carey v hsbc' and the need only to provide a true copy which can be reconstituted. I made them aware that this is only sufficient for information purpose and not acceptable for proof purposes.

ultimately they couldn't prove that the documents were true copies given the contradictions in the witness statement and based on the fact that i advised that i needed the original to ascertain if the signature was really mine and not lifted from elsewhere.

The judge dismissed the case mentioning that the claimants claim put forward was poor in its entirety from start to finish and given the contradictions, the lack of evidence to show authenticity in the documents etc the balance of probabilities meant that she could not find in their favour

[judgemental24]

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

Well way to go, tell me more, was it the agreement that won it, default notice??

Please do tell

[nemesis45]

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

Claimed dismissed. Tears of joy (literally)

Hi DD,

Excellent result!!
Any comments from the judge??

nem

[Berniethebolt]

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

Fantastic

That is such good news, really pleased for you

[DEBTDEFENDER]

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

Claimed dismissed. Tears of joy (literally)

[judgemental24]

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

Can we see a redacted copy of the DN please?

nem

Agreed

[nemesis45]

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

Can we see a redacted copy of the DN please?

nem