Jump to content


unknown Welcome Finance CCJ? - now IND own it? help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 538 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Told a friend about this situation today and let them have a look at everything.

 

 

Seems I might have missed another inconsistency in their "evidence" that I'd not give much attention to with other bits.

 

 

Well, when I say evidence,

the agreement itself they alleged is my signature on.

Seems that they added PPI (optional its stated) as part of the agreement in the sums liable under the APR!.

 

 

£3000 loan with about £990 PPI,

making a total loan of £3990 odd,

all under the APR of 48% odd.

 

 

Am I right in thinking they are not supposed to do that,

add the PPI to the loan part liable for interest as it's miss represents and states the APR on the agreement or something?.

 

Also with regards to the PPI,

its mentioned on a separate page (not the agreement page as such).

That it's an insurance policy taken out on the applicants behalf with an insurance company they partner with or something.

 

 

But they don't state who the policy is with and this PPI insurance policy is neither detailed any further or even included in the disclosure!.

 

 

But wasn't it this sort of stuff that got welcome finance into trouble at the time?.

As surely if they sold an insurance policy as part of the agreement then unless they provide that insurance policy with the agreement then they don't have an enforceable agreement?.

 

If so,

I can see why welcome finance never proceeded when I defended back in 2013,

and why they themselves never produced anything from the section 77 & CPR 31.14 requests!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

nope PPI is totally separate issue and they've done nowt wrong.

 

 

that's to be reclaimed afterwards, and unless you lose, you keep quiet

we'll hit them for £1000+ afterwards.

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

Wouldn't expect to lose DX,

but just don't like the way that IND have since they got my defence and evidence, look to be trying to backtrack on the bank statement issue somewhat by now informing the court (told this via cab) that they suspected there was something dodgy about the bank statement.

 

 

This is despite them using it in their evidence and signing it as genuine in the witness statement!.

Kind of like they might be trying to withdraw that part with court permission.

 

looking at any other options

I have as a backup in case needed

thinking maybe something about the agreement that might be usable besides the disputable signature.

Might post a copy tomorrow to see if anything stands out.

 

 

But as I told the cab,

apart from the agreement,

all they have is a poor photocopy of my passport

(which is possibly what I sent between 2013-2015 to try and and prove my innocence)

pointless credit card statement , (non usable bank statement)

and pointless direct debit sheet!.

 

 

No proof of income,

no other bank statement pages,

no employer payslips or anything.

 

 

Just the agreement really,

not even the original loan application form either!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Very interesting read that Andy,

in this case IND have produced a copy (well photocopy anyway) of the agreement with a signature on.

 

the original court directions also instructed to bring original documents to the hearing for which in the case of the agreement they failed to do so and will likely fail to do so at the next hearing to.

 

Seeing as there is reasonable doubt and dispute over the signature alone,

it can be claimed deeper inspection beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement signature is mine or even written by hand on the original agreement is not possible.

 

Also I'm wandering if the terms and conditions are not on the original agreement but presented more as an additional page in the evidence then there could be an argument that the agreement s terms and conditions were not fully explained or formed part of the original agreement.

 

Because as I've said previously, the signed agreement page is stated as page 4 on the bottom,

yet the terms seem to be separate and has no page numbers on with the direct debit page being marked as page 7 of the agreement.

 

maybe signs that they have deliberately left pages out of the agreement and replaced them with others such as the terms etc that might not of been in the original?.

 

Also with regards to the PPI,

thats clearly written into the agreement detail itself and liable for the APR rate under the agreement and forms part of the agreements total loan.

 

Yet on a separate page (which seems might not even be part of the agreement) it states that the PPI is an insurance policy they took out on the applicants behalf to cover payments.

 

Whilst as DX says the PPI might be a separate issue,

if does however clearly form part of the agreement and maybe, just maybe like the above link,

if the PPI has been miss sold and they can't provide the PPI policy there could be a claim that the agreement is unenforceable or invalid?.

 

As once I defended in 2013, seems welcome decided not to proceed themselves and signed all case and debt rights over the IND directly near 4 years later.

 

For which IND convinced a court to lift the stay after 4 years,

even the cab said they had never heard of that happening after so long,

so must be something in the evidence or what's missing or that IND have lied about to the court or missed out of their evidence.

 

here is a copy of the allegedly signed by me agreement.

I don't know how much of this will be legible,

but got as close as I could so it runs to 2 pics.

 

 

As I mentioned with regards to the PPI,

it states it within the detail and charges etc,

but makes mention of it being optional!.

How can it be if it is included as part of the financial breakdown in the agreement?.

 

Also as said,

bottom of the page indicates it's page 4 of the agreement.

Yet apart from a direct debit page, marked as page 7 that has an even more debatable signature no other pages of the agreement is included.

 

Interesting points in the agreements near the bottom, supposedly signed at welcomes business premises,

yet dates don't match,

 

 

applicant dated 21st May

welcome sig dated 31st May!,

maybe indications the agreement is not genuine either?.

 

 

Also seems that welcome are supposed to verify the applicant is in full time employment and not on the sick on point g.

Point e states the PPI in optional but clearly part of the entire sum stated in the agreement.

 

welcomeca.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

could do with better scans please one per page so we can zoom and the whole page too.

 

 

if welcomes ppi and that version of the agreement were suspect with regard to ppi etc

then we'd have had 100's of claims thrown out here already

 

 

that agreement is identical to hundreds of scans here already too.

 

 

byt 4 page where one is the DD mandate is not the full agreement if memory serves.

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

Sorry DX,

the disclosure isn't the clearest of things I've seen.

 

So trying again with full pages,

the 3 sheets is pretty much everything as far as the actual agreement goes.

 

As said, the signed agreement page is printed as page 4 of the agreement bottom right with the direct debit being printed as page 7 bottom right.

 

The terms of agreement under CCA part is not even numbered as being part of the agreement at all. Which begs the question, where are pages 1,2,3,5 &6?.

 

Oh, an might be just me and probably no way even with an uncensored scan to indicate,

but looking at the applicant signature on the agreement page,

looks somewhat "digital" or jaggered in parts compared to the rest of the printed text.

 

Maybe a digital signature lifted and placed electronically?.

 

docs2.pdf

 

Another point,

with regards to the agreement above

I've read the following elsewhere

"under the law, a credit agreement is only binding if it is a single document that has been signed by both parties and contains all the prescribed terms".

 

 

If that is actually true,

the signed page contains no such terms at all!.

 

 

And as already said, pages 1-3. & 5-6 are missing from the agreement with a terms sheet that doesn't look like it was part of this agreement placed between the signed page and the direct debit page in the disclosure evidence.

 

In other words how can they claim the terms were in the original agreement (if it exists at all) and signed when they have clearly missed pages out and the terms sheet just looks to be something they have added just for the disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digging deeper and deeper here Andy...remember you will be lucky if your in the court for 30mins..stick to your strongest argument

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

I guess so Andy,

but wanting to try and cover every option I have and can.

And will be sure to press home my strongest argument over them submitting false, er I mean evidence with discrepancies in that I've had verified by the bank!.

Yet IND have signed a witness statement claiming it's genuine and that "the evidence speaks for itself" pmsl.

 

But as said,

I just don't like the way since I filed my defence, evidence and witness statement that IND have contacted the court to say that they were always suspicious about the bank statement anyway.

Kind of like they are trying to mitigate the bank statement issue before it even gets to hearing.

 

 

As whilst they have made this admission to the court,

I've not been formally informed that they have filed supliment information.

 

 

But that said, trying to claim to the court they were always suspicious about it could make it even worse for them as they could be accused of knowingly submitting false or suspicious evidence yet signing it as genuine as to give a false impression to their case!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we should introduce a 'but' filter on your...

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

I probably wouldn't disagree with you on that DX lol

 

Though it will be interesting to see if they still go to hearing knowing how serious a matter the bank statement evidence could be for them, more so in that they looked to have admitted to the court they always had there suspicions about it!. What's the potential penalty if they are pulled up for that?, contempt and purgery if now on record they knew it was false?.

 

Also,

the application to lift the stay on this case after near 4 years has always "irritated" me.

 

More so in that whilst they seem to have applied for it without a hearing,

I was never informed they had applied for the stay to be lifted,

never informed of the date set by the courts,

never informed it had been granted at any point to use the right to appeal period,

never seen or know anything about what's in IND's application to have the stay lifted after near 4 years. And the fact there is not a single mention of this in IND's witness statement or disclosure looks very odd or suspicious to me.

 

Any whilst I know I don't need to keep digging Andyorch lol,

I'd like to know if and how I can apply for a copy of IND's application to the court to have the stay lifted.

 

Very curious to know what was in it and finding out if I should of been informed at any stage about the application, either before or after?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Andy111 you can ring the court and request copies of their application and evidence for lifting the stay...there will be a fee of £5

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Don't mind paying that at all Andyorch, as I feel fairly confident that there could be info or claims in it that they purposely failed to mention and with hold in there witness statement and evidence. As sure odd how none of this is in there disclosure.

 

Is there a particular form I'd need for the request?, or any dates in particular or would just the date the court heard the stay lift application count?.

 

Apart from that, as I've not been able to fully clarify, even though the stay lift application was without hearing, should IND have had a duty to inform me of this application at any point either from applying for it or at any point after it was granted?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mind paying that at all Andyorch, as I feel fairly confident that there could be info or claims in it that they purposely failed to mention and with hold in there witness statement and evidence. As sure odd how none of this is in there disclosure.

 

Is there a particular form I'd need for the request?, No just ring the court and request it or any dates in particular You should know the date is was made from the the court order ? or would just the date the court heard the stay lift application count?.Correct

 

Apart from that, as I've not been able to fully clarify, even though the stay lift application was without hearing, should IND have had a duty to inform me of this application at any point either from applying for it or at any point after it was granted?.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part23

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Cheers Andyorch, though I've not got any such order relating to the stay lift being granted,

the only other recent orders sent to me was from the court back in October 2016 where I was informed that IND had gone to court to be substituted as the new claimant in the claim and then in January, the order to say the case had been moved to my local court.

 

I'll call the court again to reconfirm the date this undisclosed stay lift application took place.

As I've also a feeling that IND purposely left out the original 2013 claim details and form and this stay lift application as they could be attempting to re-litigate under the original claim using slightly different reasons.

 

Hmm, seems I only uploaded 1 page the other day, just the signed page,

meant to also upload the "inserted" terms page and the direct debit page, so will try again.

 

As can be seen, and part of my point,

the signed page is marked as page 4,

the direct debit page marked as page 7 with the terms page not even being numbered and looking as if it's come from a completely different source and simply inserted between the signed and direct debit to look like part of the agreement.

Yet nothing to really indicate it's come from the agreement as certainly no page number bottom right unlike page 4 & 7!.

 

But seeing as pages 1-3 & 5-6 are missing surely they have provided an incomplete agreement anyway?.

Certainly don't have a signature on anything stating the terms of the agreement which they are supposed to have?.

 

Sorry if ive repeated some of this,

but as said, the agreement is claimed to have been signed at welcome's business premises,

yet there is a 10 day difference between the applicant and welcome signing dates!.

 

 

Also the signed page, the applicant confirms they are in full time employment,

so where is the supporting documents that welcome would have required to validate their own terms in the contract?.

 

Would love to see my supposed pay slips proving I was in full time employment for that period,

well any payslip really as I was not even living were they claimed I was at the time the agreement was signed as I moved weeks before it was signed.

 

OK, another thing in the above scans, and possibly more indication most of the agreement is missing and more likely the terms and conditions page, that's not signed, was never part of the agreement and almost certainly inserted to appear as part of the original agreement.

 

On the signed page, page 4 on the bottom right, I've noticed the small print serial number of sorts along the left side of the page, clearly indicated as ending 4-12, so matching the page 4 on the bottom right. Same again on the direct debit page marked as page 7 on the bottom right, that has the agreement serial number left page in small print ending 7-12, matching it as page 7. So this should be a 12 page agreement, yet no pages 1-3, 5-6 or 8-12?. And the claimed terms page that's supposed to be signed has no page on the bottom right and missing the agreement serial number that's present on pages 4 & 7!.

 

Surely they can't submit just 2 pages of a 12 page agreement and think it's acceptable?. Or feel that an unsigned terms page, not that the page even has a signature space, that clearly doesn't look to come from the agreement is therefore likely to get accepted when clear indications it's not part of this agreement?.

 

Just got off the phone to the court with regards to the stay lift application that IND applied for and got.

They confirm it was granted 25th Jan, and confirm I would have been entitled to appeal the application and granting of the application!.

 

Yet if I was never informed at any stage of the process then IND have denied me that legal right to appeal and dispute what they would have put in the application and evidence etc!.

 

No wonder IND totally failed to mention any of this at all in their witness statement or disclosure,

possibly a breach of procedure and denial of legal rights as well now?.

 

Oh, and more indication that the person writing the witness statement (relying on hearsay to not attend remember) is being very selective in what they are saying in a process they clearly would have a lot of first hand knowledge of (despite their claims otherwise) yet electing not to mention a vital part of the legal process, statement and evidence!.

 

Told I have to write in to the chamber's section of the court to explain all this to them regarding the stay lift application and not being informed and to request a full copy of the application and evidence they used for this application!. Obviously it's going in by hand tomorrow.

 

More info, the person who wrote the claimants witness statement is a paralegal, yet claim to be a specialist in legal advice on debt recovery?. First things first, why would IND give the job of drawing up and compiling both the witness statement and evidence to just a paralegal?. A paralegal whose not even been with them for long either and really not to familiar with this case much at all over using a more senior member of staff who has proper first hand knowledge of this case?.

 

Because whilst they have stated in the witness statement that they have only been involved in this matter since the claim was issued etc. Er, well the claim was issued in early 2013 yet the person writing the witness statement only started working for IND in July 2016!. Oops, naughty naughty of them to say they have been involved personally since the issue of claim yet clearly they haven't!.

 

No wonder the witness statement author is wrongly trying to rely on hearsay evidence to not attend, doubt they could justify there witness statement or its often confusing and inconsistent contents to much if attending the hearing in person to be questioned on issues and asked to clarify points they have written about I fluxing making false claims on the evidence!.

dosc3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further games from IND,

a new suplimental\extention witness statement that they have filed in response to my own that was somewhat late.

The upshot is that they assert their claim and request to the court that my witness statement and evidence should not be accepted,

 

 

that they should be allowed to address the points and evidence within my witness statement all the same as a suplimental\extention witness statement of there own!.

 

They've not even got the date right on this extension witness statement, they put 16th April on it!!!.

 

 

they are submitting this any everything as hearsay evidence as is clear everything they are saying and claiming is based on hearsay. They are pretty much saying and claiming whilst it's hearsay it's all true and the judge should take there work for it.

 

With regards to the bank statement evidence (my main argument).

IND are now claiming that I myself provided this to welcome finance as a form of identification when the agreement was taken out!!!.

 

 

And that welcome finance were suspicious of this bank statement anyway but decided to accept all the same.

And IND have now produced a form from Cattles PLC thats not fully filled in, or signed by anyone from Cattles

saying that the b\s does not look right but to accept it anyway.

 

 

Yet IND never originally mentioned or included this and doesn't excuse that they added the bank statement as evidence and signed it off as genuine based on hearsay reasoning.

 

 

trying to backtrack and alter their evidence for no other reason than that it's been proven not to be genuine, for which they would never otherwise have said anything or even admitted they were told it's suspicious!.

 

 

IND, to throw blame for this at me say as other ID was also provided it's wouldn't have invalidated the agreement as the bank statement doesn't form part of the agreement. Still a supporting document for the agreement application I'd have thought?.

 

IND also confirms that funds of £3000 were transferred into my then bank account (not used it for 10 years, bank closed account in 2008) yet they have provided no physical evidence of money transaction that I can see.

 

 

that they have requested I go and request bank statements from the claimed bank account to verify what they confirm and file them with the court as evidence for the claimant.

 

 

IND also claim in the same paragraph that they believe the funds may have been transferred the stated bank account?.

Could enquire, but shouldn't have to, they have said they can confirm this yet they clearly offer no evidence, just a confirmation they have failed to prove.

 

Never addressed the issue of the suspicious signature on the agreement that at best only looks similar to mine at all.

 

Don't really address the Section 77 or CPR 31.14 request from 2013 yet only responded in 2015 issue much, kind of dance around it.

 

They're witness statement author confirms that they only started working for IND July 2016 and that they have no personal knowledge of the account or claim before this.

 

 

they confirm that the claim was issued March 2013 and originally claimed to have personal knowledge from when the claim was issued.

 

 

rely on hearsay (clearly hearsay of hearsay of unverified documents that they are claiming is true and genuine) for everything prior to July 2016 now.

 

Oh and the issue of the stayed case getting lifted.

Well a development on that,

IND claim in the witness statement that after near 4 years the court lifted the stay and transferred it to my local court of the courts own volition and that the claimant didn't apply for the stay to be lifted at all!.

 

 

Find that difficult to believe myself, seeing as just 2 months earlier IND applied to the court to be substituted as the claimant!.

Any thoughts on this anyone,?

thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why not just scan up what they send rather than keep musing and let people comment.

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

Nah...only a Claimant/Defendant can make application to lift the stay.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26#26.2A

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Sorry DX, had visitors before here is there new witness statement.

 

 

Andyorch, pretty much what I though to,

a lift application having to come from either the claimant or the defendant.

 

Don't know why a court would decide off there own back to lift the stay on a case off its own back after 4 years?!.

 

Oh, and here is the supposed form from Cattles that IND have now produced in there new witness statement regarding the bank statement evidence!.

 

Funny how the agreement is supposed to be with welcome finance yet that apparent sheet regarding the bank statement inspection is from cattles who I guess was the parent company?.

 

But like I suspected,

they sure look to be mitigating the issue about the bank statement by suggesting it wouldn't invalidate the agreement anyway and now claim it was me who passed it onto them.

 

But doesn't change the underlying issue that they clearly submitted suspect evidence, never mentioned it was suspect yet signed it off as genuine supporting evidence.

 

And the same day the court supposedly lifted the stay after 4 years off its own back was the same day IND was also at court to get an order to transfer it to my local court.

 

Going to see what I can find out with regards to this, chamber's department has now got the letter detailing all this and asked for full evidence and the application used that IND say is nothing to do with them!.

newindws2.pdf wfbs1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been off this for a few days as I've seriously let it get to me now.

 

But,

been onto the court today regarding to issue of the stay getting lifted as I've yet to hear back.

 

 

The first person I spoke to claimed either 1 side or the other has to request the stay to be lifted, but nothing is on file to confirm who applied for it to be lifted and apparently no order granting the stay to be lifted exists, the judge simply lifted it and that's that!.

 

Spoke to someone else at the court,

no more helpful except they suggest that no application is on file to say an application to lift the stay has been filed and they suggest the court\judge really does look to have just lifted the stay on the case

as nothing to indicate an application has been received or filed with the court which is why I never received any notification!.

 

 

This doesn't make sense,

as on what basis or reasoning would any court judge look at a stayed case at random after 4 years and decide without any contact with either side simply to lift the stay?.

 

Also what's suspicious is that IND simply must have been involved in this

(despite IND claiming in there extension witness statement they had nothing to do with it)

as the date the stay was lifted was the same date they applied for and had an order granted to have the case moved to my local court!.

 

 

they simply had to know and have been pre-informed somehow that the stay was about to be lifted yet claim they played no part in the process!.

Anyone any ideas as it just doesn't make sense at all?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently been to see someone regarding this upcoming hearing for advice for which they had a quick look through the paperwork.

They also noticed a number of inconsistencies and issues

they suggest I could push and question at the hearing

 

 

there is at least 2 things identified in the evidence that in their professional capacity they have said they have never seen such a thing mentioned before with regards to such cases and there is nothing in the evidence to explain these inconsistencies either that I don't really want to detail as forewarned is forearmed etc.

 

 

Except if the IND agent can't explain it and the witness statement author can't explain as they won't be there then it could make for an interesting time.

 

But they also agreed on 2 major points I can and have already mentioned,

 

 

firstly my strongest point of the bank statement evidence that IND submitted that I had inspected and proved to be false, yet IND signed off as genuine and true.

 

 

I've been told that there is no real justification in law for the court to ignore this issue as whilst IND look to have mitigated this issue by throwing it back on me as me submitting it in the first place

 

 

and asking for additional bank statement dates from me it makes little difference,

they submitted proven false evidence as genuine without getting any of it inspected and have made it worse by then producing a form suggesting they always knew it was suspect.

 

 

And I'm told anything else aside the court simply can't ignore that and having studied the relevant laws it could be a matter of contempt and perjury.

 

Also, they have made a bold claim in their supplemental witness statement that they can confirm the monies went into a certain bank account yet in the same paragraph say say they think it went into a certain bank account!.

I'm told they can't have it both ways,

 

 

if they claimed they can confirm the money was paid into a certain bank account,

well where is their proof of this confirmed claim as there is no evidence and audit trail to provide anything to back up this claim in the disclosure?.

 

 

in other words they have zero proof or audit trail that this money was ever transferred or where it was transferred to just an unproven claim!.

 

Oh yeah,

I'm reminded that whilst the evidence from IND contains a "letter before action" letter that was never originally served, there is nothing in their disclosure or witness statement relating to welcome finance or IND having ever issued or served a default notice at any point!.

 

 

in the original IND witness statement from last month they stated something about now only claiming arrears and so they don't need to issue a default notice.

 

 

something else that doesn't make much sense as if they have changed the original particulars of the claim from 2013 (which IND say they don't have as they issued it online in 2013)

 

 

then don't they have to either issue a new claim (which they can't as it would statue barred) or apply to the court to change the particulars of the claim?.

 

In which case and I was asked this week,

where are the original particulars of the claim in the disclosure and why are they not referred to, or stated?.

 

 

Surely whether they filed online or not, as the original litigators for this claim, IND should have a copy of the particulars of the claim in 1 form or another from 2013?.

 

early this week (a copy of which has gone to the court) I've asked IND to either disclose every outstanding document or evidence they have relating to this claim that they have not yet done so or to confirm if everything they have has been disclosed or to state why there are outstanding documents or evidence that they have not disclosed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a reply from IND with regards to my above mentioned letter about either providing any outstanding documentation or information relating to my case that they have so far not done or to confirm if everything has been provided!.

 

 

they haven't realised part of the reason I've asked or assumed as it's outside the deadline to provide\request information that they can't be held to how they respond.

 

IND have put it in writing that they can confirm all relevant documentation and information relating to the claim has been provided!. And that no further documents will be provided!.

 

Really, they have stated in their suplimental witness statement that they can confirm that the money was paid into a stated bank account.

 

 

Yet disclosure or provision of this evidence has not been provided in any form yet

they are saying I've been provided with everything!.

 

 

they can't confirm what they claim in their suplimental witness statement at all then as they have no proof of what they claim they can confirm, no audit trail of payment or anything!.

 

 

Explains their request for bank statements

I've already stated is from an old abandoned bank account that I'd not actively used for weeks before this agreement was claimed to have started!.

 

Also are they saying (seeing as everything has been provided) they only hold 2 pages from the supposed original 12 page agreement,

 

 

don't know what the original particulars of the claim were from in 2013 as they have not provided a copy of this in any form despite being the original litigators,

 

 

don't have anything in the way of evidence to claim or show they provided (or could ever try to claim they did) the particulars of claim after requested in 2013 under CPR 31.14 as they are legally bound to with a filed copy of proof of service certificate?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A late in the day thing I've spotted on the genuine bank statement and asked the bank about,

 

 

seems at the time this agreement was applied for that there was a number a probable fraudulent "trial" transactions that looks to have compromised the stated bank accounts security.

 

 

As there were payments made stated as being o2 prepay Slough!.

Never used o2 as a phone provider ever.

 

 

Googled it,

confirmed as a probable fraudulent activity at the time (bank can't investigate as to long ago and closed account now) that compromised the card tied to the bank account.

 

 

Hmm, maybe weight to my claim that the bank account I'd abandoned at around the time this claimed application was made could be an issue of identity fraud\theft as I've tried to suggest!.

 

 

Which would certainly tie in with the rather dodgy and incomplete evidence provided by IND to try and get judgement against me!.

 

Ah well, in court tomorrow so will see what happens then I guess,

 

 

except IND sure look to be stating to the court and pushing them to not allow my witness statement and evidence citing I was a few days late filing it in breach of the court order!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fingers crossed for tomorrow then Andy.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

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

Trying to keep positive Andyorch I really am,

this has got to me far more than I thought it would now!.

 

 

Going to try and force the false bank statement issue as strong as I can as I know how big it could be if accepted!.

 

 

I just don't like how they are really trying to prevent the court from accepting my evidence and WS and trying to mitigate the bank statement issue and put it onto me and accusing myself of having provided it in the first place!.

 

 

still have a reasonable claim over the signature only being similar in part on the signed agreement to my true signature and looking noting like my true signature towards the end of the signature line at all!.

 

Though I also note in the small print of the signed agreement at the bottom that it states that the applicant has read the terms of the agreement (regulated by CCA 1974?) Including those overleaf?.

 

 

unless they bring the original agreement to court tomorrow with the regulated terms of the agreement on the reverse side of the signed page then it could be disputable that what they have is not a complete enforceable regulated agreement as it claims the terms are overleaf yet what they have provided look to be an implied copy that doesn't look to be part of the agreement.

 

 

Maybe a non issue argument, but we'll see tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...