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 638 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

IND and the court will actually have had my defence and evidence by now anyway. S

 

o will be interesting to see what tricks IND might try next to prevent my defence and evidence.

But ive informed the court in a separate letter today about these letters from IND (that the court also assumingly have received)

and that I find the actions and directions against the court and myself as nothing less than intimidation to try

and convince me not to submit evidence and a defence as the court won't allow it.

 

Would think the court wont look to well on the actions of IND and the deliberate act to dissuade me from filing anything!.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Since my response,

witness statement and evidence went in,

 

 

I'm reading various laws,

pretty much what I'm doing right now to research and argue case in court if need be.

 

 

But looking into issues around purgery and contempt of court for false witness statement and evidence etc,

would have to be either very brave or very stupid of IND to try and continue with this case now I feel!.

 

As along with the face value seriousness of such an easily proven example of false witness statement and evidence which it seems the court can't ignore, the circumstances surrounding the evidence could far more strengthen a claim they did know certain evidence was not genuine yet supplied it as and claimed it as do in the witness statement.

 

 

As looking at the bank statement example,

it indicates a certain income and a bank balance in excess of £2000.

 

 

Yet the genuine bank statement evidence I obtained and supplied

(along with a signed inspection of authentication letter confirming the IND copy is not genuine) shows no income at all and a bank balance around just the £200 mark.

 

 

it could be argued it was in the claimants or welcome finances interest to knowingly submit false evidence (yet claim and sign it as genuine) to strengthen their case.

 

 

As if not what have they got to validate this credit agreement in the way of a proven income and applicable documents etc?.

 

As the signature on the agreement is disputable for reasons said,

the witness statement makes claim to use hearsay evidence citing they have no personal knowledge before the claim issue yet evidence relates to after the issue of claim.

 

 

Missing the original claim form,

missing the lift stay application statement and reasons and yet they mention to try and comply with an S77 & CPR 31.14 2 years after they include evidence themselves to say it was requested.

 

 

For which they have directly indicated they have failed to comply with the requests or admitting they have purposely missed out mention and disclosure that they have received other communications!.

 

Will be interesting to see if they still goto hearing end of month and how they might argue these issues!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting developments of sorts after going the cab for a little advice today.

With authorisation they call the court to enquire on the court order and IND letters etc.

 

The court indicated that it was in fact the 5th May that I was supposed to respond and get everything in by despite what was issued being dated 8th May!.

 

 

The court suggests this order was issued verbally over requiring me to fully comply within 1 week.

Yet a number of issues and timescales were mentioned at the hearing which is why I'd called a number of times for clarification as I needed to know as not received anything from the courts and they confirmed nothing had yet been issued!.

 

 

Yet funny how this court order gives them 3 weeks to provide something they already had as a complete file and I was supposed to fully respond and compile a full file, defence and evidence inside a single week!.

 

 

I thought the time scales were likely to have been the other way round if anything?.

So god know what's going to happen!.

 

 

But the cab mentioned to the court that I was on their advice also now reporting the matter to the police as possible\probable identity fraud\theft as seems possible from the disclosure.

 

the court has my witness statement and evidence at least and they have commented that I've made a very serious allegation regarding some claimant evidence.

 

 

No allegation, the word I used was "discrepancies" and provided the counter evidence as provided by the bank.

 

 

And then the court said they have heard from welcome finance (IND?) to state that they suspected that the bank statement might not be genuine and indicate it was only provided for the purpose of the stated address. This is news to me!,

 

 

they provided their evidence and written the witness statement making claims it's all genuine and true signing it. Would be shocked if they try to get the court to allow them to backtrack and modify things!.

 

And now I hear back from the cab via the courts that the claimant have now requested I go and enquire on if I can obtain any other and additional bank records from that period!!!.

 

 

Cheeky buggers,

they are using questionable evidence and discrepancies,

not disclosing or mentioning certain evidence or applications,

won't provide the original claim,

not providing the original agreement application which you'd think would have more of my details on, not providing all that's needed to validate the agreement anyway,

not mentioning events such as other applications to the court, trying to prevent me from submitting anything etc.

And they now "request" via the courts and cab I go out of my way to get additional bank details that I had to pretty much beg for in the first place.

 

 

I'll do that (or at least enquire if the bank will provide it) when they provide me with everything else they have failed to mention and withhold and state why they withheld it!..

 

I'm happy to see the hearing go forwards as it is, no excuse or defence with there witness statement and evidence.

Cab feel they might even drop it, possibly looking for loopholes I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the claimant had advance warning of the order and you as defendant was left in the dark and allowed less time to prepare.....does not sound normal for our Justice system :madgrin:

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Does sound slight suspect, and don't understand it to be honest Andy as can't suspect the court of anything dodgy as such, but something ain't right in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply raise it as a question when your in the hearing and ask if the DJ can throw any light on why this is the case.

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Will do,

what the cab were told was that this order was issued verbally on the day during the hearing and not written up and issued until the 8th, May, the date the court listed the new hearing.

But as said, many things were said, that why I'd been calling for clarification.

 

 

But I got there late on the day of first hearing 26th April.

And was told when I called the court to say I was running late

the IND agent was already in with the judge

but delayed the hearing when I informed the court I was running late.

 

 

Still! odd how IND seemed to know the contents pretty much word for word unless they asked during the hearing for things to work that way without me realising exactly what was getting stated and asked for?.

 

Going to call cab tomorrow to request via the courts (like IND have for some reason)

that IND provide me with evidence and clarification on issues I've raised they elected not to mention in their disclosure if they want specific details of my bank account (which I'll happily see if I can obtain if they comply) in return as I'd not trust their motives or reasons for a moment after recent developments and how they have ran this court claim against me.

 

 

As cab said, they feel it looks like they could be seeking a reason or way to drop the case saving face than to go to hearing in face of everything else!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHERS

 

 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?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHERS

 

 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 OTHERS

 

 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

dosc3.pdf

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...