Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***

[cruzhughes]

Plus this was not witnessed and it's 100% not my signature and it was signed over 40 miles away from the rest and only my name on there ex wife was on the others

Legal Charge 2008.pdf

[AndyOrch]

The charge registered normally or always never actually refers to an agreement number or monetary value..simply that a charge is in place...and looking at the LR entries it has been updated in favour of the current assignee.

 

So in effect its irrelevant to fighting the case in hand..apart from you have clarification that there is a secured equitable charge.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[AndyOrch]

Plus this was not witnessed and it's 100% not my signature and it was signed over 40 miles away from the rest and only my name on there ex wife was on the others

 

Then argue the agreements...not the LR.

[cruzhughes]

The official copy i have from the land registry does have the agreement no on it. And it's the one that ends in 257 not 984 as Prime are claiming

 

But the LR do not have one from 2008

 

How do I argue the agreements

 

Didn't think it was an equitable charge either though

 

Official copy 2006 progressive legal charge. With matching loan agreement account no from welcome SAR

2006 Legal Charge Loan 257.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Didn't think it was an equitable charge either though

 

Should be.... all secured loans are normally equatable ...equatable simply means it does not pass on the ownership or possession to a creditor but gives him or her the right to the judicial process for recovery of the loan amount in case of non-payment.

 

Taking that into account it then questions if they are able to repossess?

 

With regards to the agreement number which is registered IE one that ends in 257 not 984 as Prime are claiming...they will have to produce and refer to the 257 agreement...they cant proceed if the agreement they rely on is not registered.

[cruzhughes]

My thoughts are that welcome didn't register anything after 2006 just photocopied things. But the last legal charge form in post 759 is on different paper format to the ones prior and very strange how a different branch to the rest.

 

there is a huge difference in loans 2006 one is £8000 the other in 2008 is £27000.

 

If they do proceed what amount can they chase? As there's already been almost 8 grand awarded by the FSCS and prime have pocketed that. So that would then in effect wipe the 2006 loan. But only lower the 2008 that has no legal charge attached. So would that loan then be Unsecured or no longer owed?

 

The SAR shows that almost £21000 has been paid since 2008 loan too. I haven't checked as far back as the 2006. But I'm guessing well over Amount has changed hands in them years

[AndyOrch]

" If they do proceed what amount can they chase?"

 

The amount that it states on the agreement that they rely on..can evidence and is secured by the lR.

[cruzhughes]

The loan agreement I have just received from prime in SAR is 984 and started at around £27000 in 2008 No previous agreements in SAR Also a copy of same unregistered legal charge charge in post 759.

 

But in the deed of variation I paid for from LR legal charge is same as in post 762.. DX has the full pack of the deed of variation it's pages long. But it's has the agreement no 257 on top.

 

How do I get them prime/alpha to remove the charge now?

 

How's best to fight this

[AndyOrch]

The charge will only be removed once any balance is settled...I really do not know enough about your problem cruz simply asked to look at the LR position by DX

[cruzhughes]

The balance on the 2006 loan was settled by another loan in 2007. But going on the 8000 FSCS Refund then it would more than be settled.

 

But the 2008 loan that prime are claiming is sercured is a different story as the 8000 does not settle it. And they have tried repo twice but ajourned

[AndyOrch]

So is there any current litigation happening at the moment ? Has a new date been set ?

[cruzhughes]

They've issued repo twice

 

Went to court again last week. They didn't attend for the second time. Judge adjourned and put a 12 month strike out date this time.

 

Time before it was suspended indefinitely. They took about 6 weeks to restore the hearing.

 

I'm expecting they could start up again..

[AndyOrch]

Well they may and they may not..this time its with the strike out which may see a permanent end to the matter.

 

Andy

[cruzhughes]

Thanks for that Andy! I'm just trying to think of ways I can get the charge gone.

 

Especially after finding them very good links in regards to welcome puttting a charge on someone's house that had never actually had dealings with them

 

I seen some hope and just thinking how to fight back and what my arguments are next time around as they like to apply pressure.

 

The biggest one I see could be that the loan 984 they are claiming is owed and the repo they are trying for on the said sercured loan don't tally with loan no on legal charge which is 257. I have proof of this. But as far as I'm aware the only have docs prime have relates to loan no 984 as its all I had from them in SAR which is from 2008 onwards.

 

So therefore 984 can't be a secured loan for 27 grand taken out in 2008.

 

However the earlier loan of 257 was sercured and the amount borrowed at that time was £8000 this is the one that that prime hold the deed of variation on. I have the docs on this loan and the other 3 that were rewritten after.

 

Welcome couldn't have filed the 2008 loans legal charge with the LR. But have sold to prime the rights of loan 984. But the biggest thing that is missing is the charge as welcome didn't put it on when they should have.

 

So technically Prime have paperwork for Loan 984. But have been sold rights To a 2006 legal charge that corresponds with a different loan 257.

 

Have I got this right?

 

So would you say that this is a good strong arguement.

[cruzhughes]

Here we go

 

Excel collections called my house this morning and caught my girlfriend as she was leaving for work.

 

Asked for ex first told she doesn't live at this address. They then asked for me and she said that I do live at this address.

 

Give her this put it in and envelope on doorstep and didn't even seal it. Addressed to both me and ex.

 

What do I do? Letter to prime?

 

They were quick workers was only in court last Monday and had Prime letter post 743 last week which was dated the day after court to say they were sending a field agent as I had not responded to letters.

 

Girlfriend say he was older guy seemed ok apologised for troubling her had quite a big file on him and pen all over his shirt lol.

Excel Collection 30th Aug.pdf

[AndyOrch]

So what...? You dont respond to anything unless its from a Court

[cruzhughes]

I composed this quick earlier. Are you saying don't send to Prime

 

Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing and have done since 08/03/2017. I have noted and replied your repeated attempts to contact me over the past few months with regards to a debt you say is owed to you.

 

The debt I refer to above has already been subject to 2 lots of legal proceedings one on the 24/05/2017 and 21/08/2017 both which have been adjourned and is very much in serious dispute at this moment in time with various complaints regarding it.

 

At the first court hearing the Judge stated there needed to be a review of the account. Which to date has still not been carried out.

 

Whereas second judge stated the are issues which need resolving and also advised I have a good defence to issue a counterclaim should it come back before the court.

 

Should it have been your intention to arrange a doorstep visit which my partner received today at 830 am please be advised that according to the Financial Conduct Authority's consumer credit sourcebook it is an unfair and improper business practice to make or carry such threats.

 

There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property again and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

 

Furthermore when calling at my property today as instructed by you Excel Collection and Enquiry Services Ltd asked to speak to Mrs Xxx first and then myself. As you are fully aware due to my statement I provided to both you and the court on 24/04/2017 I am divorced and have been since 2014 therefore my ex wife does not live with me at the address above. My letter to you on 08/03/2017 also clearly outlines the addresses I have lived at since my marriage break up.

 

I refer you once again to my letter dated 29/07/2017 to which you’ve not had the courtesy to respond to.

 

I am requesting you remove the charge and write the bogus debt off. My evidence has been clearly submitted many times. I also bring to your attention my letter off 25/03/2017 whereby I outlined my full complaint to you in regard to the whole debt and the resultant charge being entirely made up of numerous penalty charges for all manner of indiscretions and other insurances and Mass Irresponsible Lending, forcing the roll over of loans without doing the required affordability checks. Some only months apart.

 

Again if all these and their interest were taken into account this even further exceeds the sum outstanding

 

Once again I request you remove the charge from my property and null any balances as you are totally unable to provide any documents proving the sum outstanding or how you could hold a 2006 deed of variation for a legal charge on my property for a loan that supposedly started in 2 years later in 2008.

 

I thank you for your time look forward to hearing from you within 14 days.

[cruzhughes]

So what...? You dont respond to anything unless its from a Court

 

Prime are not responding much to what I send them but are already adding more fees and charges on and no doubt there'll be another one after today's visit?

[AndyOrch]

As stated yesterday I dont know enough about this problem but looking at the actions and court involvement so far I personally would pref to argue it in court rather than feeding them by letter tennis.They know full well all the points you raise above they know that their attempts to litigate are poor and amateurish and not credible otherwise they would have succeeded in court.

 

Its your choice if you wish to keep communicating with them but from what I gather its all pointless.

 

If you dont owe anything then its irrelevant what they add as they will never be able to go near a court room again to try to enforce anything.

 

With regards to removing the charge from the LR this can only be done with the creditors consent accepting that all debt is now satisfied..I personally dont think you will ever get to the point with this creditor in attaining this consent...as they obviously do no know what they are doing.

 

The charge will only ever become an issue if and when you decide to sell the property..at which stage they will then have to explain to a conveyance Solicitor and justify the charge.

 

Andy

[cruzhughes]

The problem I have had with court is they always write to the court last minute asking for adjournment.

 

Whereas I always still go. But as they don't there isn't anyone to argue with. But did have a good chat to judge last time. The letters I have been building in my file as evidence and their crap responses too - they demand money but don't like answering questions raised

 

The balance with them now stands at 18 grand now the refund from FSCS has been credited. So technically that is still owed. But it is all made up of penaltys and interest from IR on welcomes part. Welcome are in a scheme or arrangement and sold debt on as soon as I complained to them. So no one could help due this scheme like the ICO FCA and FOS all said they would have normally been able to.

 

This is one mental situation dx has had his work cut out too and likens it to the Bayeux Tapestry.

[AndyOrch]

Well I doubt you will be attending anymore court hearings...a Court will not tolerate this behaviour....I personally would ignore and forget about it....unless I had another Notice of Hearing from the court...which I doubt they would ever risk.

 

Divert your attentions away and start researching Vexatious litigants

 

See CPR 7.1

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03/pd_part03a#7.1

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vexatious-litigants

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vexatious+litigation

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation.

 

Perhaps turn the tables on them.

[cruzhughes]

Ok thanks Andy will read through.

 

What about this guy calling to my house this morning. They shouldn't have sent him surely with everything going on .

 

Also praying he doesn't come if kids are there.

 

The last judge mentioned a defence but also said about the cost factors I would incur so he didn't really push for that

[AndyOrch]

Well they could have posted that for what it is...the hand delivered is to intimidate you ...and its working.......look if they wish to pay someone £70 to hand deliver instead of a first class stamp...thats their choice..you didn't request it ..you didn't agree it...that cost must be incurred by themselves .

 

What if he does return and the kids are in...dont answer the door or do so and ask what he wants ?

[cruzhughes]

What he/prime wants is to find out how I am to pay so called arrears on loan currently standing at £4702.47 lol at an affordable offer.

[AndyOrch]

Then dont open the door...