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

[shamrocker]

My thinking is that there must be a process whereby charges can be disputed. e.g. a creditor, for what ever reason, won't remove it once the debt is paid. That link I provided above seemed to be an avenue - albeit I only skimmed over it.

 

I can see you've done a hell of a lot of work with this. It's admirable, to be perfectly honest.

 

Nevertheless, I think and hope you'll get through this claim and then you can set about addressing things properly. Maybe this claim will settle any issues over there being a chain with all the loans, thus enabling you to take the current Claimant to court later for any reclaimable charges you believe are due. This might substantially reduce the debt balance or even cover the whole amount. The charge will then be much easier to remove from that point. Does that make sense?

[shamrocker]

Land registry email

 

entry C4 on your title relates to a charge you took out with Progressive Financial services who subsequently went into Liquidation and a portfolio of their charges (over various properties) was sold to Alpha Credit Solutions on 17 September 2016.

 

Once a charge is paid the Loan Company should apply to Land Registry to have the charge dis-charged from the title. You will need to seek Legal advice on how to have this charge removed if it has been satisfied.

 

There is no entry of a charge dated 2008 in favour of Alpha Credit on your title so they would not be entitled to repossess your property.

Yours sincerely

 

They simply don't want to advise you, and are suggesting you get proper legal advice. I'm pretty sure there are options contained within that link.

 

All I'm doing here is trying to help with creating a logical plan of attack by playing the cards you've got in the best way possible. There are clearly issues outstanding, but I think it's not a bad idea to break it down into steps and then just take one step at a time. Step 1 is to get through this repo claim.

[cruzhughes]

Yes it does.

 

Perfect sense I just need to get everything over to the judge clearly and consisly in next hearing.

 

Especially with how much has already been paid to loan. Just over what was borrowed so that’s good too.

 

My figure I was hoping to negotiate to pay them back monthly was around £75/100. Not even sure if that could be an option. Cos it’s up to judge now anyway isn’t it of he’s going to go through the figures

 

The judge already decided he was quashing the repo.

 

So hopefully that still stands next time too

 

https://repossessions.wordpress.com/tag/welcome-finance/

 

https://repossessions.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/land-registry-aids-sham-lender-in-repossession-case/

[shamrocker]

Personally, I think it makes sense to take the remaining loan balance and divide by number of repayments remaining. e.g. £18k with 180 payments left equals £100 p/m.

 

 

....but hit them with a claim of your own later if you can't do anything this time around.

[dx100uk]

the claimants timings regarding their submission over the relationship between progression finance and welcome finance and the subsequent charge and allocation is serious flawed...

 

its a very big subject ….but its not..

 

not playing games...in basic terms the claimant is wrong...why.

[cruzhughes]

I have already paid to issue the counterclaim against them.

 

The Claimaint has issued a Vexatious claim all along. Changing their story at every oppurtunity.

 

I have all the paperwork to hand and it’s in order so if there’s anything you want to see or know just ask

[shamrocker]

the claimants timings regarding their submission over the relationship between progression finance and welcome finance and the subsequent charge and allocation is serious flawed...

 

its a very big subject ….but its not..

 

not playing games...in basic terms the claimant is wrong...why.

 

I'm not sure what you mean DX - but one thing I note is it that in the Claimant's Response to Defence, they state in para 3: "The Defendant has provided a Financial Account.....which confirms that account balance was redeemed in April 2007."

 

Moving to para 4, they state: "The Defendant applied for a further advance in August 2008...".

 

Although they do mention in para 33 that the 2008 loan paid off a subsequent loan - that being acc. 661. Details appear very sketchy on this loan, that links 257 to 984. So much so, that they don't establish a link at all. Nowhere is the 661 account explained or substantiated regards it's role in keeping the charge alive.

 

Is this the loan that hasn't been notified to Land Registry?

 

I just had a peek at the statement they include in RP12 exhibit. It's difficult to work out at a glance, but does show the 661 account at the top and contains a chronological activity history. The amount of charges are absurd! One month that I just picked at random has £150 for "outside call fee".

 

Repayments were £68 p/w - right? ...£272 p/m. Yet, interest was nearly £500 p/m in early '08....plus the added fees. The balance on that account rose from £27k in January 08 to over £30k in Aug 08. The new loan then suddenly costs just £200 or less in interest. What was their game??

[cruzhughes]

I’m going to email you something now it will provide some clarity for you.

 

I believe they are being sketchy on 661 due to the fact it came under the old CCA legislation and should be voided

 

There is a link but they have not provided it it’s 303

 

661 doesn’t link directly to 257

 

I firmly believe that any subsequent charge the LR should have been notified and the legal charge dates changed to correspond with the loans.

 

They were always amended date wise from 2001 to 2006

[cruzhughes]

This is the missing page off that 661 statement they did not provide in rp12

Missing Statement Page.pdf

[shamrocker]

Ok.... so what is you now need to prepare for the hearing? Is it only a Skeleton Argument?

[cruzhughes]

And maybe a witness statement?

 

I haven’t been asked by the judge to provide anything. But I could really help me if I did. Cos I don’t think my defence done enough. My arguements on each hearing has got the judge on my side as I have made the other side look incompetent . But I just want this finished once and for all on the 15th June

 

They have to provide a Skeleton arguement 7 days before and provide a trial bundle 2 days before

[shamrocker]

Sorry Cruz - been out all day. I'll look back in later this evening when things settle down.

[cruzhughes]

Ok no worries I’m around now too

[shamrocker]

Question for Andyorch...

 

Is Cruz ok to submit a witness statement, even though he's not been ordered to? If so, should it be a standard WS or in response to one from the Claimant?

 

Sham

[AndyOrch]

If the claimant has submitted a witness statement in response to the order then the defendant is always entitled to respond...providing its constructive and new and not just regurgitating information.

 

If not then a simple skeleton argument should suffice.

 

Regarsd

 

Andy

[shamrocker]

Thanks Andy!

 

Given what's been presented so far, I don't think a WS is necessary.

 

What are your thoughts on it Cruz?

[cruzhughes]

I’ll go with whatever you both suggest!!!

 

Thanks both.

 

Nothings been simple here mind!!

[shamrocker]

Hi Cruz

 

You'll have the benefit of seeing the Claimant's skeleton from the middle of next week, so you can adapt your own accordingly if necessary. In the meantime, do you want to start listing your key points in defence? i.e. Dispute with OC, Arrears, CCA, Charge, Penalty Charges, etc - that sort of stuff. We can add or subtract points between us in due course.

 

I've got a good skeleton argument here somewhere that I'll pop up when I find it. This will give you a good idea of content and structure. Once you start laying out the basis of what you want to cover, writing the rest will flow and you should feel much clearer then about your approach for the hearing.

[shamrocker]

Also, I'm mindful of the advice given by ell-enn earlier in the thread, so I need to revisit that and work out if your approach to the hearing this time around needs to be similar to those previous. The aim of the game is the same - the defeat the repo claim. I don't want us to over-complicate things when something much simpler will get you over the line. Let's see how it goes.

[cruzhughes]

Ok will do.

 

Just don’t forget that judge has ordered for determination and renumeration in the next hearing. So it’s not a possession as such

[shamrocker]

Ok will do.

 

Just don’t forget that judge has ordered for determination and renumeration in the next hearing. So it’s not a possession as such

 

Ok... in the context of the claim, what does this mean?

[cruzhughes]

He called possession off and said that there aren’t any arrears and I was techicnally in front.

 

The other party wanted to appeal it's written all out on page63/4 see also post 1277

 

 

Ongoing Dispute with welcome finance from March 2015. With regards to IR, penatly charges fake insurances . Sold on almost immediately

 

 

Should the agreement still be covered by CCA

 

The charge on property should have been discharged upon settlement of 257. Then a new one taken out for 661 or 983

 

The Claimaint issuing claim without having facts dates and amounts correct

 

However Now they have upped the arrears so they look they they are more than to Ppi refund. Still don’t add up to themissed monthly payments

[shamrocker]

Ah, ok... that's a positive. I will go back and re-read that bit. If this stuff is being considered at the hearing, then it's fair game for including in your skeleton and really turn the screw on them. Their case is so full of holes that I doubt they know whether they're coming or going anyway - more a case of hoping they can wing it on sparse information, and avoiding the truth.

[shamrocker]

Here's the skeleton argument I referred to earlier:

aktiv-kapital-skeleton-1.pdf

Edited May 30, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[cruzhughes]

I’m just praying the dj was true to his word and is coming back out of retirement to finish this off as he said he would.

 

All along he said that IR can’t be used in a repo case. When I referred to the history and background of loans.

 

Yet now the judge wants breakdowns and its looking to me as if he is opening the statement and figures right up. Even if it is only 984

 

The interest reduction arguement and then falsely claiming interest helped me