Welcome Finance **WON**

[steven4064]

Without an executedcredit agreement they do not have permission to communicate any data about you to a third party. Therefore, passing your data to a DCA or CRA is unlawful under the Data Protection Act (including but not limited to schedule 1 part 1 (2) and (6) and schedule 2 (1) and (2)). Without an executed credit agreement, undser the CCA (s77(4)) they may not enforce any alledged debt and that include sending a defalt notice or placing a default with a CRA

[postggj]

just what i wanted to hear
many thanks

[postggj]

as to stephen 4064 post above, this is what the claim is all about, default removel. i have reapeatedly written to welcome for them to explain there objections under the law. as usual welcome refuse to answer my letters.
how can i use the court to get them to disclose this info. just that i want no nasty surprises
trial is fixed for early feb
many thanks

[steven4064]

Hi postggj

Could you post your PoC (or, if you don't want to post on the opern forum, send me a copy by e-mail - address below) so that I can advise better.

[postggj]

thanks for taking an interest in my thread stephen, ill try to be brief. have posted the letter i have received from the court. the judge was very supportive and trying to help the best way in which he could. this case is ref to two agreements i have with welcome, one a personel loan,the second vehicle finance. the judge is requesting a new poc.
the agreements are void as they are unexecuted ( perscribed terms missing ) the loan account is headed personel loan and not credit agreement, and the total ammount of credit is missing. the vehicle finance has not been signed or dated by welcome finance. there are outher issues to regarding the car. the vehicle went bang and was wrecked. the warrinty was useless. i was told if i removed the vehicle it would invalidate the warrinty. the tax run out and the vehicle was siezed by dvla. dvla contacted welcome and i have documents from dvla to confirm this. as usual welcome totally ignored dvla and the vehicle was destroyed. welcome took no responsabillity in the interests in the vehicle. then after four years accounts sold to dca. in there defence welcome state under section 65 of the cca the court can enforce the agreement, my response has been that is correct but under section 127 (3 ) if the perscribed terms are missing a court cannot enforce the agreement.
in both cases i am using wilson, acceptance fee etc included before calculating interest, and as these fees are not part of the credit they should be in a seperate colum, not included in the total charge for credit
i realy do need help in my new poc can you oblige please. i would like to keep putting notes on my thread to help any one else dealing with welcome
knowledge is power

many thanks

[postggj]

[postggj]

[postggj]

also without an executed agrement welcome cannot default me and am asking for default removal
Yes, S65 DOES say it can be enforced only by a court, BUT...

S127 (3) then says,
The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

In other words, if the agreement is MISSING the prescribed terms, or those terms are inaccurate (such as the interest rate being incorrectly calculated), the court shall not enforce the agreement.

If the prescribed terms are there, but just happen to be all over the place and not as they are supposed to be laid out, it is enforcable by a court. But not enforcable at all if any terms are missing.

[postggj]

This is in contravention of The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. I would also like to refer to Wilson & Anr v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299


33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 singlthat all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.
vbrep_register("1287488")

[steven4064]

Can we (I) see your old PoC?

Why does the judge want you to change it? Did (s)he give moe details?

[postggj]

judge seemed to think it was laid out wrong long winded, he could not give to much away. outher wise happy. it was over six pages. what i need is a draft for a new poc that is sraight to the point on the points allready mentioned above
many thanks

[postggj]

it seems to me that judges are not that clued up on cca,with the greatest respect

[steven4064]

What are you claiming - exactly?

[postggj]

the removel of two credit defaults from cra
agreements lack perscribed terms so uninforceble
court cannot
enforce agreements
using wilson in support
not interested in enrichment only default removel