I have check defence

 

Dx has the arguments disputes there are loads

Ok, that's fine. I have started reading over the whole thread. It's difficult to get the head fully around it otherwise.

Good luck with this. So much has come out since the beginning and it’s all been a learning curve throughout.

Since the original claim by new owners was issued It’s thrown lots more into the mix too.

It going to a ballache for you whilst it’s been a slow path of discovery for dx and I over the last 2 years.

Ok, that's the full thread read now.

What are your main lines of defence? No valid charge and no arrears due to balance reduced by PPI reclaim?

What about the point about the agreement not being regulated under CCA 1974? How exactly did that come about?

Are there any defaults showing on your credit file for any of this?

I need to read over some stuff again, but there's something quite fishy smelling with their account of why the interest was stopped.

I can't help but feel that the account could have been defaulted, but they messed up somewhere and are now trying to make up a bit of a cock and bull story.

Why just drop the interest but keep the repayments the same?

What's to be achieved with that?

Surely the dropping of any interest would be to make the situation more affordable to the debtor....or was there another reason/motive that I've missed?

Do you recall receiving any explanation why they stopped applying interest?

the very bottom line is the debt actually doesn't exist

when the org complaint was raised with welcome they quickly saw it was one big lemon and pulled the ole web have the fca waiver and sold it on

the fleecers that got it haven't a clue what they are doing.

and simply pull up all and anything to try and bamboozle the judge which sadly worked the last time.

the org secured debt was defaulted year ago.

the int is a prime red herring the judge has hit on which sadly gave them some credence in his eyes

Can you sum up why you say it doesn't exist DX?

all pii/mif/charges usual welcome games

..

very close just doing the last loan and its PPI

 

 

come out is that sadly

even though their statements are in some areas wrong/poor

each was rebated ok

 

 

so nothing there

until the last loan

doing the spready now

 

 

certainly a good case for mass irresponsible lending mind

from day one

 

 

notes.

1st Its Worthy to note

where they did not get you on PPI/life

they got you on MIF

.

Loan ...851 PPI Charged

£196.89 PCM settled for £4691.05

11-10-01 £5000 loan

11-10-01 £1603.22 INS PPI prem ADV [debit]

11-10-01 £765.11 Disp of FEES [debit]

total loan 7369.33

PPI

PPIPCM=21.75% = £42.83 on £196.89 payment

total you paid for PPI was £1441.70

total charged for PPI £1603.22 - not worth bothering about.

as you also got £1005 back for 'fees'

...

loan ...789 PPI Charged

10-06-03 £1804.68 INS prems [credit]

10-06-03 £1005.00 FEE Disbursement [Credit]

10-06-03 £9809.68 Loan Disp [Debit]

10-06-03 £4691.05 Settlement/payoff [624851]

10-06-03 £627.93 Ins Rebate [credit][624851]

10-06-03 £342.84 fees rebate [credit]

10-06-03 £1804.68 INS PREM ADV [debit]

10-06-03 £1005. Disp of FEES [Debit]

10-06-03 £7000 LOAN DISP to Cust

PPI

10-06-03 PCM was £231.01

PPIPCM=18.4% = £42.50 on £231.01

total charged for PPI was £1804.68

total you actually paid = £1335.57 - not worth it

as you got fees back too

LOAN ....978 MIF CHARGED

31-03-05 £11423.67 rewrite disp

31-03-05 £1343.79 FEE Disp [rebate]

31-03-05 £10079.88 Settlement payment credit

31-03-05 £511.50 Settlement penalty interest Debit

31-03-05 £693.27 INS rebate credit

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 4mts nothing worth it

LOAN ....216 MIF Charged

14-07-05 £12298.84 transfer/settlement

14-07-05 £1587.87 Fess Disbursal [debit]

14-07-05 £1277.71 fees rebate

14-07-05 £10298.84 Transfer credit

14-07-05 £12.02 SET'L PEN INT debit

14-07-05 £13886.71 Loan Disp

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 5mts nothing worth it

LOAN ...722 MIF Charged

29-12-05 £13114.41 Settlement Payment

29-12-05 £1530.23 Fees rebate

29-12-05 £1677.59 disp of fees [debit]

29-12-05 £14792 REWRITE DISP

21-02-06 £13712.03 set'l cheque to cust

21-02-06 £336.43 penalty fees

21-02-06 £1666.25 Fees REbate

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 10mts nothing worth it

Loan ....661

31-10-06 £1784.62 INS PREM Credit

31-10-06 £235 Fee Disp credit

31-10-06 £8019.62 loan disp to cust

NO PPI but has MIF & ACCEPTANCE FEE WHEREBY INT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CHARGED ON THEM - AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VOIDED RE:

however loan only ran 6mts nothing worth it

Loan ....303

03-04-07 £293.48 set pen int

03-04-07 £1204.73 INS rebate

03-04-07 £288.33 Fees rebate

03-04-07 £2600.15 INS premiums credit

03-04-07 £2600.15 INS premiums debit

03-04-07 FEE DISP credit

03-04-07 £235 Fees disp [debit]

03-04-07 £11767 Loan Disp to Cust

PPI

however loan only ran 6mts nothing worth it

Loan ....661

05-10-07 £12826.25 transfer credit [set'l]

05-10-07 £460.73 SET'L pen Int Debit

05-10-07 £1896.39 INS rebate credit

05-10-07 £225.24 FEE rebate debit

05-10-07 £460.72 Pen Fees debit

05-10-07 £225.24 FEE REBATE [credit]

05-10-07 £4506.20 INS PREM [credit]

05-10-07 £235 FEE DISP Credit

05-10-07 £26741.20 Loan Disp DEBIT

PPI

however loan only ran 12mts nothing worth it

Loan 3236984

30/09/08 £30514.52 TFR BAL FROM

29/08/08 £2307.70 PPP insurances credit

29/08/08 £30514.52 DISB transfer

PPIPCM = 7.56%

working on spready now

This thread illustrates why sale of written off/debt is almost wholly ulawful charges and PPI should be banned. The debts sold on have been written off against tax so only exist on paper.

Hope OP can convince the Judge to kill this off for once and for all.

What about the point about the agreement not being regulated under CCA 1974? How exactly did that come about? Changed to eu mortgage directive

Are there any defaults showing on your credit file for any of this? First time I went on credit file was Oct 2015 no debt on there showing to welcome

I need to read over some stuff again, but there's something quite fishy smelling with their account of why the interest was stopped.

I can't help but feel that the account could have been defaulted, but they messed up somewhere and are now trying to make up a bit of a cock and bull story.

Why just drop the interest but keep the repayments the same?

What's to be achieved with that?

God only knows they didn’t tell me

Do you recall receiving any explanation why they stopped applying interest?

This was revealed in the SAR

Cheers Cruz.

Remind me, why did you stop paying?

What comms did you have with WF about your reason for withholding payment?

Am I right that they stopped applying interest after six missed payments?

What material difference did them dropping interest have - did it just stop the balance increasing each month?

Also, how can a change to this mortgage directive then supersede the CCA

- is this proper and correct?

It's not something I know anything about, but am naturally cynical about their reliance on it - hence, I'm keen to understand it better.

I got divorced and I was told be her solictor what to pay. This was one of them

After about 2 years I thought what on earth am I paying. So I stopped paying in May 2015

Welcome would not speak to be due to data protection.

I done some digging and found out lots.

I sent welcome a CCA request March 2016. Didn’t have a response to that but 4 got a sar.

I had one letter chasing arrears in April 2016 for a weird amount.

Totally wrong considering I stopped paying 10 months before so should have been higher than what they were asking for.

Never heard anymore from welcome after this I issued a Ppi, penalty and irresponsible claim with welcome around Aug 2016.

They then sold debt on sep 2016

https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/mortgage-credit-directive

Ok, I'm getting a train of thought on this now.

Heading out for a bit to enjoy the nice weather, but will be back later to go again.

Here’s a partial statment that I recieved from these back in April 2017 in the SAR. Balance at zero

Statement 2.pdf

Can you confirm what you're trying to do in your Defence Statement? You've not accepted or denied the loan which they currently own, or that arrears exist. Is this because you've tried to shift focus onto the charge, and whether the charge they refer to gives them certain entitlements, is actually valid for the loan in question.

I have some other questions and suggestions, but wanted to get some clarity on the above first.

My defence that I used Feb is on here in post 1052 1065 and 1086

Ive tried all the way through to explain where the debt has orignated from IR and penalties and

Ppi

.

The Skelton arguement and witness statement I posted the other day are just what I’ve made a start on for next week. They are not complete yet

Have a look at post 1114 too. Lots of court attachments there

The Defence Statement is what the Claimant has responded to back in February.

You deny the balance and keep referring back to acc. 257. It's as if you have no idea the amount being claimed is from a different account/agreement. Is this because they made no reference to the 984 account prior to their Response to Defence?

Have a look at post 1114 too. Lots of court attachments there

Yes, the Response to Defence is one of those documents.

Yes cos the legal charge they refer to has loan account no 257 on the top. Which I proved to court was settled in the 3rd hearing.

I deny the balance as 257 was not that amount so 984 isn’t connected to the legal charge.

984 is a different loan and they have not be clear throughout what is owed plus 8000 Ppi refund went missing for almost 6 months.

Or should I say they were concealing they had recieved this money

Basically 984 is a straight rewrite of 661s amount outstanding then had Ppi and acceptance added to it.

No money changed hands on this rewrite

Ok... so which line are you pursuing in terms of defeating their claim? Is it that the arrears do not exist due to the PPI refund? That the claimant has no grounds to issue a claim due to the charge relating to a different debt? That the total being claimed is totally made up of PPI and other reclaimable charges? A combination of all these?

Has the Claimant submitted any more information in support of the claim since the Response to Defence? I can't really remember, and you'd probably know straight off, so will be easier than me having to go digging.

Have you served another Witness Statement after the Defence Statement?

Sorry for all the questions. It's just that it's important to maintain some consistency and flow from Defence to Witness Statement through to skeleton argument.

Basically 984 is a straight rewrite of 661s amount outstanding then had Ppi and acceptance added to it.

 

No money changed hands on this rewrite

Ok... I've got my head around the general sequence of events and rewrites. It's just that so much has happened, and the task is to identify which of it represents weaknesses in their claim and how that can be used to squeeze them.

The goal should remain, for the time being, to defeat their repo claim. The debt itself can be tackled in he future.

Statement given to court for March hearing

SECOND STATEMENT

I am the defendant in this case and respectfully request the court to consider the following when hearing the above case.

• The original loan agreement was made with Progressive/Welcome Finance, but in September 2016 Welcome sold the account to Alpha who are the Claimant in this case. It is not a mortgage as the new owner is claiming.

Before the sale of the account I had made a complaint to Welcome finance as I believe the original agreement with Welcome was part of an Irresponsible Lending History as they continued to offer additional finance even though it was clear my financial situation did not support it. Nine loans were issued over a period of 8 years, some only 3 or 4 months apart.

Then further to this I complained FSCS regarding miss-sold PPI and they awarded £8,163.29 to be refunded back to the account. Alpha have already accepted this payment without checking the validity of the debt in question.

• The outstanding balance the Claimant has pleaded throughout is not correct. I am also unable to reconcile the arrears figure the Claimant pleads as it is higher than the total missed monthly payments. Plus their figures incorporate interest which the previous owners reduced to 0% in 2015. I have also already paid over and above the amount they say is outstanding.

• I have asked the Claimant numerous times to send me the information they have on the account but their responses have been slow and unsatisfactory.

• They have sent me an agreement dated 2008 with a totally different account no to the one on the legal charge dated 2006. Loan Amount is different too.

• I have requested numerous times that they remove the legal charge from my property and write the bogus debt off. My evidence has been submitted many times whereby I first outlined my complaint to them on 25/03/2017 with the debt and resultant charge being made up of numerous penalty charges for all manner of indiscretions other insurances of mass irresponsible lending without doing the required affordability checks. Some loans only months apart.

• They have refused to investigate these claims from day one. See Account in Serious Dispute dated 30/08/2017 and 17/10/2017 (enclosed) which I made a full and final offer to resolve this.

• This is the 3rd time the claimant has issued possession proceedings against me at this court. I have attended on both occasions yet the claimant has not attended the hearings and wrote to court just before each hearing to adjourn.

Dates are as follows 24/05/2017 where District Judge ordered that claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore as the issues needed to be reviewed which Alpha had not done yet they issued another hearing 2 months later.

Second Hearing was restored to 21/08/2017 where Lightfoots Solicitors had written to court on 11/8/2017 requesting another adjournment.

On this hearing I provided Deputy District Judge with a Letter I had sent to Prime on 29/07/2017. Response dated 10/10/2017 (enclosed).

He also said there were issues that needed resolving and ordered that the hearing be adjourned generally with liberty to restore provided if no such application is issued by 20th August 2018 the claim is struck out without further order.

Third hearing has been restored to 16/01/2018.

They are in breach of the above as they have made same application pre 20th Aug 2018 and that the arrears are still false. What this company is doing is adding fees and other charges on to push the fake arrears up higher. They have done this consistently since account was in dispute in March 2017. They have failed to respond to my letters within the given timescales yet continued to added on arrears fees.

Abuse of the process

I ask the honourable court to consider that this claim is outside of the Jurisdiction of the UK County Court System. The Claimant creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. is a Luxembourg registered company.

No record of creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. (or any variation of that name) is held by UK Companies House. Therefore the claimant and alleged debt are outside of the UK and therefore not subject to the county courts jurisdiction.

However I have recently found out that the loan is administered by Acenden on behalf of creditor. Acenden is authorised and regulated by FCA in the UK yet Acenden have not once been mentioned in any court documents or prior proceedings.

In these circumstances the claimant brought this action unlawfully and is an abuse of the County Court System. Purely on the grounds of Jurisdiction, it is requested that the court strike out this case as a clear abuse of the process.

This claim is being made from abroad in an attempt to avoid penalty for attempting to enforce agreements that the claimant knows to be Unenforceable.

I also confirm that these accounts were in dispute prior to the commencement of action by the Claimant. The commencement of legal proceedings in theses circumstances was counter to the ‘Overriding Objectives’ of the new Civil Procedure Rules. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the Protocols Practice Direction states that in cases not covered by an approved pre-action protocol, the court will expect the parties “to act reasonably……..in trying to avoid the necessity to start proceedings”

Conclusion

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

I would also like to ask the court to consider to allow costs for all the previous attempts of ligation by this company and the sheer frustration in dealing with their ineptitude.

I assure the court that I am committed to resolving this case and respectfully and have done so throughout. I ask that repossession is not granted in order for me to keep a secure home for my children.

I believe the above to be true and factual.

The claimant issued a witness statement last week. Post 1289

I am due their skeleton and bundle next

The judge has already said there are no arrears due to the refund. And technically I was 19 months in front.

It’s a combination of everything.

But what they’ve done now is inflated the arrrsars so that they are higher than the refund

I haven’t been asked to do anything for next hearing but I think a skeleton and new witness statement will help