Jump to content

steven4064

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    15,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by steven4064

  1. THe N150 doesn't necessarily mean FT - you get a N150 if the AQ attracts a fee - ie the claim is greater than £1500
  2. That assumes WFS are logical (or even sensible) Again, you are assuming a certain level of competence. IMHO, what seems to be Machiavellian manoeuvring is actually stupidity Put in a draft order for directions with your AQ which demands the answers you want. The draft order would effectively be a Part 18 request. See above and 'yes' see above Yes. Part 31.14 is not to disclose documents though, it is to inspect documents already disclosed. Yes
  3. At the AQ stage you can respond to their defence - in fact this is the only opportunity to do it apart from a hearing
  4. It is not normal to get witness statements from bank employees in these circumstances - they probably won't and I don't think you can compel them in the civil courts
  5. I don't know definitely but I cannot see any reason why you cannot ask for more than one thing on an application particularly as the change of defendant's name will be seen by the court as fairly trivial
  6. I have no experience of 31.12 and am not sure at what point it can be used. However, taken with 31.11, perhaps you could argue (and ask for directions accordingly) that you became aware of the existence of the underwriting sheet after you filed the claim and ask for an order under 31.12 on that basis. As to WFS's defence, I come back to what I said before - we need to fully understand HFS's involvement, if any. From what I remember of your thread, the sequence of events was that you applied for a loan from HFS but were declined. Subsequently, you got a loan from WFS directly. What is not clear to me is how that came about and whether HFS had any part in it.
  7. I think you have to choose - I have laid out various options as I see them with the risks of each. The 'perfect' answer would be to have filed a CPR 31.16 before filing the main claim - obviously that is no longer an option. The risk you are trying to avoid is ending up with a hearing for the claim on secret commissions (the "main claim") without having the underwriting sheet ("US"). The options I have outlined are: 1. file a CPR 31.16 now. The risk is that a hearing on this may come too late for the main hearing. You may be able to ask for a stay on the main hearing pending the outcome of this application. A stay may or may not be allowed - it would certainly be opposed by WFS. 2. put in a draft order for directions with the AQ for the US to be supplied. The risk is that the court may not issue the order - they often don't. You would have to make a really strong case, which would inevitably be weakened by the fact that you filed the main claim without the information you would then be requesting (and saying is vitally important) 3. in the AQ, ask for fast track so you can use standard disclosure/CPR18. Obviously WFS are not going to disclose that they have the US so you would almost certainly have to fall back on CPR 18 with the same risk as in item 2. The further risk is that you would expose yourself to costs. The upside of that is that WFS would be exposed to costs too and the court might grant your CPR 18 request. That possibility might frighten them into settling before going to court.
  8. At the time of the AQ you can suggest orders for directions at no extra cost - it is included in the AQ fee. I don't know what happens of the court decide a hearing is needed before making such an order - I think that would also be included - someone else may know the answer
  9. People have mused here for a long time as top whether all CPRs apply before the track is allocated but it is not clear because in many cases you know what track the claim will be allocated to before the AQ goes in. My belief is that courts would (certainly could) take that into account. As to what you should do - IMHO you have two choice which I spelt out earlier. The one thing you must not do is to go to a case hearing without the underwriting sheet (at least for the commissions part of the claim) as no evidence = no case.
  10. Another option that might be worth trying is to put in an application (N244) NOW for an order under CPR 31.16 for the underwriting sheet. (I think I posted the witness statement I used for such an application earlier). You then might be able to ask for the current case to be stayed pending the outcome of that case. One way or another you have to get the underwriting sheet before there is any hearing on the case you have filed or you have no case for secret commissions and breach of duty.
  11. There is also Kelvin Jack v Imageview but, in both cases, you would need the underwriting sheet to use them
  12. Remember standard disclosure only applies in fast track/multi track. WFS seem to be saying that HFS acted as agent for the loan so it is their problem not WFS's. If HFS refused the loan, they cannot be acting as agent and WFS is responsible. You need the underwriting sheet, that is clear. WFS will not give it you without a fight. The problem is that, if this is a SCT case, there isn't a way of making them give it you (Standard disclosure, CPR sections 18 and 31.14 don't apply). IMHO, the only way to do this is to ask for fast track on the AQ on the grounds that this is not a simple case and requires further information. Put in a draft orders for direction for them to give you the underwritng sheet with the AQ (the order can be based on the one I used). THis would be a high risk strategy as FT opens you (and them) to costs. However, it may be that they blink first. It is risky for them too. I am going to ask for a second opinion on this.
  13. Don't think about adding them until you fully understand their role
  14. HFS seem central to W's defence - you need to fully understand the relationship
  15. Had a quick look at the defence. ISTM that you really need to bottom out the role of HFS in all of this. You may be able to add them to the claim as co-defendants under CPR 24. You will also need to change the name of WFS as defendant but that is easy.
  16. Perhaps their team are being incentivised to get people to settle early. Obviously the pressure is on in your case as time is running out....
  17. There is the temptation to ascribe Machiavellian intentions to Welcome's actions. Has it ever struck you that they may just be stupid?
  18. Hi bustthematrix This is a very old thread and I have no idea if the posters are even still around. You might be better advised to start a new thread and ask the question again
  19. Here are the figures calculated using the OFT DualCalc program. 1. The first loan was £23774 payable as 120 payments of £425. This gives an APR of 19.3% 2. As the PPI was mis-sold, it should not be included, so the first loan should have been £20000 payable as 120 payments of £357.53 (APR of 19.3%) 3. You made 12 payments, so, with statutory rebate, the settlement amount for the first loan at the end of 1 year would have been £19486.68 4. However, you overpaid because you paid £425 rather than £357.53 each month. Your overpayment was £809.64 5. The proper settlement figure is therefore £18677.04 (£19486.68 - £809.64) This is what the second loan amount should have been. You have two choices: EITHER keep the second loan as it is and demand that they repay you the difference between the loan amount and the real settlement figure, that is £3525.96 OR demand that they recalculate the second loan for the proper settlement figure of £18677.04 This second option should lead to a loan with repayments of £201.04 (with an adjustment for the fact that you have been paying £239 per month for 3 years)
  20. The most usual reason for people being in this position is exactly as RI says - change of circumstances. If the DCA takes you to court, this may actually be the best result because the court will not force you to pay what you cannot afford. You can apply for a time order, backed up by a statement of income and expenditure. There will then be a court order confirming the payments which prevents the DCA coming back for more or hassling you. Using the CCA to buy some time is a valid thing to do and you can also use it to make sure that the DCA does everything by the book. Most of them are very sloppy and,as you say, don't care a jot. What often happens if you use the CCA and insist that they comply fully is that they suddenly realise that they are going to have to work for their money and send the account back to the original creditor. THen it all starts again a couple of weeks later. With some accounts I deal with, I have dealt with 4 or 5 DCAs, one after the other.
  21. They keep a blank original and then just fill it in in response to the s77 request with details from their database.
  22. Thanks for the info. To do the sums, I also need the dates - when the first loan was taken out and when it was refinanced. I need this to work out the statutory rebate. I was not accusing you of trying to get out of the loan - my comments were not directed at you at all but were general, prompted by RI's post, trying to lay out the situation as it now is (and to some extent, why)
×
×
  • Create New...