Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not much to say as Manxman has near enough covered all the angles.   Just a couple of points of clarification:   The requirement to serve the first NIP within 14 days is actually contained in the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, not the Road Traffic Act. In fact the first NIP is the only one required by law. Subsequent NIPs are usually provided along with the S172 Request for Driver's Details notice because they are both produced by the same system and are usually printed on the same piece of paper.   If you do decide to challenge the speeding allegation on the basis that the first NIP was served beyond 14 days the burden to prove that it was rests with you, not the recipient of that NIP. They have no basis (or need) to challenge it as the person prosecuted for speeding will be you, not them. As mentioned, once the police produce evidence to show that it was sent in time to be served within 14 days you will have to show to the court's satisfaction that it was not served.    You need to be very sure of your ground before embarking on this course of action. You need to find out who the RK is and when they received their NIP. There have been one or two notable successes with this strategy. Here's one:   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735   The RK of the car Mr Beckham was driving - Bentley Motors - had a good system of recording when post was received and the court was satisfied the NIP was received late.   You don't say what the speed alleged and the limit is but if it was within the course or Fixed Penalty limits it will cost you around £100. If you are convicted following a trial it will cost you an income related fine, a "victim surcharge" of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and prosecution costs which have a starting point of £620.    
    • Hi all,   I was taken through consultation back in 2019 as my company restructured out dept.  Basically we went from 4 team leaders down to 3 so had to re-apply for our jobs. One thing that did not change was our contracts, they stayed the same but we did have a verbal agreement with our manager that a monthly contractual payment of £250 for working weekends would stop immediately.  At the time I was not fussed but I am now again going to be going through consultation and possibly TUPE transfer.  My questions is: Would I be eligible for this payment to be reinstated if I was TUPE transferred and could I request this to be back dated as it was a contractual payment that I did not officially agree to loosing?    Thank you in advance!  
    • Just looking at the date of the offence 12 December.  Possible was delayed in the post at that time as it was taking me up to 2 weeks to get a first class letter, then the New Year Shut down so to get it early January while the Xmas backlog was cleared seems about right to be honest.  Not that I am telling the police that. 
    • Please take note: I got 2 tickets for 32  miles in a 30 zone on different days.  The police said its their policy to ticket anything over 30!!   I had to pay £100 for one and do the course as well.  Even as a disabled driver there was no give on the tickets. Please stop saying that it has to be 35+ it really does not. West Midlands police in Nuneaton so definitely dont go 1 mile over in that area.  
    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Welcome Secured, DCA sends letter saying they are removing the security??

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 193 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,


I have an old secured loan with Welcome for £7000.00. Since Welcome went bust I've not paid anything (perhaps the odd token payment) and have dodged various DCA's.


2 weeks ago the current DCA holding the account wrote to me to advise that they will no longer rely on the security in my property and will take steps to remove the security from the land registry.


This seems like a really odd thing to do but I am highly suspicious?


Could they be up to something?


Anyone else heard of this?


Many thanks,





BTW The account has also disappeared from my credit file (Noddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'll try and keep it simple.


Can a 2nd mortgage provider remove the security element of a loan specifically so that they can then issue a stat demand


As I understand it, a stat demand cannot be issued if a debt is secured, but if they voluntarily remove the security that opens the way for issuing a stat demand.


Hope that makes sense.


Many thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how they could move the secure element as the debt is secured on those terms limelight.


The court may grant the application to set aside the demand if:


• the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross-demand that is the same as, or more than, the amount that is in the demand; or

• the debt is disputed on grounds that the court thinks are substantial; or

it appears that the creditor holds some security, such as a mortgage, that has not been disclosed or the court is satisfied that the value of any security is more than or the same as the amount claimed; or

• the court is satisfied on other grounds that the demand should be set aside.





We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service


If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy, very helpful.


I guess I need to establish if a creditor that I have a secured loan with is able to change the terms of the agreement and convert it to an unsecured loan purely so that they can go for bankruptcy instead of calling up the security. This hasn't happened yet but I suspect as much.





Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I have a fixed sum loan agreement with an unsecured creditor regulated by the Consumer Credit Act (which is what this account will become once they remove the security), do they have to obtain a county court judgement before they have the option to issue a stat demand or can they go straight for the stat demand option?

Link to post
Share on other sites


In general :

If unsecured (can you oppose on this ground?), a creditor doesn't need a CCJ to serve a stat demand, and then use that stat demand being unsatisfied at 3 weeks to start insolvency proceedings.


This is permissible because if the alleged debtor disputes the debt they can seek a set-aside (in the same way they could defend a CC claim if the creditor went down the "seek a CCJ" route instead).


What I don't know is if their moving a secured debt to become an unsecured debt still allows them to rely on a stat demand, or if the fact that the debt was secured and they chose to relinquish the security is grounds for setting aside the stat demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites


This is the bit I need to clarify. T

he original agreement is written up for a secured loan which both parties have signed.


Just seems really odd that they have voluntarily dropped the security a couple of weeks ago.

I can only imagine this is in preparation for an alternative legal path.


As an FYI I have still managed to agree and get accepted a payment plan with them at £50 a month.

(my offer crossed in the post with their letter about dropping the security - im wondering if two different departments are not knowing what the other is doing).

This debt is nowhere near a Stat Barred option anyway.


Can I assume that if I keep the payment arrangement up they shouldn't really be taking any other action?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Hi, Robson Way popped up out of the blue claiming I owed £20k as a result of a Welcome secured loan.

The letter came two months ago and I responded with a CCA request


The response finally arrived last week with an off centre photocopy of an agreement for a secured loan "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".


I recall having an unsecured loan with welcome for £1500 and then refinancing for £3500 a couple of years later - this was early 2000's. 


This loan claims to be secured and is for £20k and was signed for in August 2007.

According to the enclosed statements, the last payment made to this loan was September 2009.

At the end of the statement there is an entry that says "14/12/12 DEBT WRITTEN OFF" 


I have paid for a Land Registry search and this lender does not have a charge on my property. 


That's the basic background but happy to provide any more info that's required. 


The help I'm looking for is an opinion on the lenders signature box so I am attaching a photo of this section. 

Borrower signed 10th August 2007.

The photocopy I have received shows that the "year" the lender signed is cut off.

In addition, it seems the lender originally signed this document on the 13th August but someone has written over the date, possibly trying to make it look like the lender signed it on the 10th August rather than what looks like the 13th.

It also seems there was an error with the account number. 

I'm keen to throw this back at them for the sheer shoddiness and would gratefully take advice on the matter. 


Many thanks in advance.  


WhatsApp Image 2020-08-17 at 17.01.10.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged again.


you said before that the DCA removed the charge and accepted a payment plan?

and (silly to me) you agreed to pay them then... without sending a CCa request...?


so this welcome loan under any creditors name does NOT appear on your Deeds?


your last paid anything in 2009?


or is the above merged thread now the correct tnfo>>?? and you did start paying again...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

then the debt is statute barred

send robbersway our sb letter from the debt collection section of our library



  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...