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

[AndyOrch]

Nothing to stop you preparing a statement along with copies of all the previous court documents.....pointless writing to their Sols or Alpha

[cruzhughes]

Has it got to be written with legal jargon and cpr references or can it just be a statement written from me to judge outlining everything

[AndyOrch]

Not at all use your own words/reasoning's

[cruzhughes]

Ok I’ll get in to it and come back to have it checked if that’s ok

[AndyOrch]

If you wish to refer to the CPR the pursuant CPR is 83

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-83-writs-and-warrants-general-provisions#83.26

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/enforcement-of-suspended-orders-alignment-of-procedures-in-the-county-court-and-high-court

[cruzhughes]

I don’t think that applies to me as I haven’t been ordered to pay anything by the courts.

 

There was no repossession order made.

[dx100uk]

Two Point's:

 

You need to mention that acenden have never once been mentioned in any court docs or proceedings.

 

Is it not that all you have to do now is bat them away till Aug 2018.. Then it gets struck out totally??

[cruzhughes]

It’s mega confusing all this.

[dx100uk]

Well IMHO that is being done on purpose by them

To try and convince you/judge you can be fleeced by them...

[AndyOrch]

Its quite confusing...that really is a bad order and makes no logical sense ...perhaps ask the court to clarify

[cruzhughes]

Well I hope this 3rd Judge is on my side too.

 

Andy you said something after the last court hearing about vexatious litigant does this still apply

[AndyOrch]

Well I hope this 3rd Judge is on my side too.

 

Andy you said something after the last court hearing about vexatious litigant does this still apply

 

Absolutely if you have documentary evidence to show the timeline of litigation and failed attempts and that the alleged arrears are of the the claimants own making and not you missing contractual payments.

 

Vexatious litigants

 

7.1 This Practice Direction applies where a ‘civil proceedings order’ or an ‘all proceedings order’ (as respectively defined under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981) is in force against a person (‘the litigant’).

 

7.2 An application by the litigant for permission to begin or continue, or to make any application in, any civil proceedings shall be made by application notice issued in the High Court and signed by the litigant.

 

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

[cruzhughes]

I haven’t paid these a penny since they’ve taken the debt over as it was already in serious dispute with welcome before they sold it.

 

welcome had not been paid since 2015 as it was in dispute.

 

Then I went down the whole reclaim avenue and that money went sort of missing on it being awarded for 6 months and these lot were trying to say the balance was higher than it was

 

Its quite confusing...that really is a bad order and makes no logical sense ...perhaps ask the court to clarify

 

Bad order? What do you mean

 

The last judge stated it wasn’t a case of can’t pay, don’t want to pay, won’t pay.

There were issues that needed investigating.

 

The company who’ve should be investigating aren’t despite me explaining the background for the last year

[cruzhughes]

Right I’ve made a start on this new statement

 

I’m not sure if I’m going about things right can anyone help me please

 

STATEMENT

 

I am the defendant in this case and respectfully request the court to consider the following when hearing the above case.

 

The original loan agreement was made with Progressive/Welcome Finance, but in September 2016 Welcome sold the account to Alpha who are the Claimant in this case. It is not a mortgage as the new owner is claiming.

 

Before the sale of the account I had made a complaint to Welcome finance as I believe the original agreement with Welcome was part of an irresponsible lending history as they continued to offer additional finance even though it was clear my financial situation did not support it. Nine loans were issued over a period of 8 years, some only 3 or 4 months apart

 

Then further to this the FSCS regarding miss-sold PPI and they awarded

£7,888.39 to be refunded back to the account.

 

The outstanding balance the Claimant pleads is not correct. I am also unable to reconcile the arrears figure the Claimant pleads as it is higher than the total missed monthly payments. Plus they are figures incorporate interest which the previous owners reduced to 0% in 2015

 

I have asked the Claimant numerous times to send me the information they have on the account but their responses have been slow and unsatisfactory.

 

They have sent me an agreement dated 2008 with a totally different account no to the one on the legal charge dated 2006. Loan Amount is different too.

 

I have requested numerous times that they remove the legal charge from my property and write the bogus debt off. My evidence has been submitted many times whereby I first outlined my complaint to them on 25/03/2017 with the debt and resultant charge being made up of numerous penalty charges for all manner of indiscretions other insurances of mass irresponsible lending without doing the required affordability checks. Some loans only months apart.

 

They have refused to investigate these claims from day one. Including my last letter Account in serious dispute dated 17/10/2017 enclosed which I made a full and final offer to resolve this. As the company have accepted a payment without checking the validity of the debt in question.

 

This is the 3rd time the claimant has issued possession proceedings against me at this court. I have attended on both occasions yet the claimant has not attended the hearings and wrote to court just before each hearing to adjourn.

Dates are as follows 24/05/2017 where it was ordered that claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore as the issues needed to be reviewed which Alpha had not done yet they issued another hearing 2 months later.

 

Second Hearing was restored to 21/08/2017 an lightfoots wrote to court on 11/8/2017 requesting another adjournment. On this hearing Deputy District Judge J B O Parsons also said there were issues that needed resolving and ordered that the hearing be adjourned generally with liberty to restore provided if no such application is issued by 20th August 2018 the claim is struck out without further order.

 

Third hearing was restored to 16/01/2018 They are in breach of the above as they have made same application pre 20 Aug 2018 and that the arrears are still false but what this company is doing is adding fees and other charges on to push the fake arrears up higher. They have done this consistently since account was in dispute in March 2017. Failed to respond to my letters yet added on arrears fees

 

 

Abuse of the process

 

I ask the honourable court to consider that this claim is outside of the Jurisdiction of the UK County Court System. The Claimant creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. is a Luxembourg registered company.

 

No record of creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. (or any variation of that name) is held by uk companies house. Therefore the claimant & alleged debt are outside of the uk and therefore not subject to the county courts jurisdiction.

 

However loan is administered by Acenden on behalf of creditor Acenden is authorised and regulated by FCA in the UK yet Acenden have not once been mentioned in any court documents or prior proceedings.

 

 

In these circumstances the claimant brought this action unlawfully and is an abuse of the County Court System. Purely on the grounds of Jurisdiction, it is requested that the court strike out this case as a clear abuse of the process.

 

This claim is being made from abroad in an attempt to avoid penalty for attempting to enforce agreements that the claimant knows to be Unenforceable.

 

I also confirm that these accounts were in dispute prior to the commencement of action by the Claimant. The commencement of legal proceedings in theses circumstances was counter to the ‘Overriding Objectives’ of the new Civil Procedure Rules. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the Protocols Practice Direction states that in cases not covered by an approved pre-action protocol, the court will expect the parties “to act reasonably……..in trying to avoid the necessity to start proceedings”

 

 

Conclusion

 

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

 

 

I assure the court that I am committed to resolving this case and respectfully and have done so throughout I ask that repossession is not granted in order for me to keep a secure home for my children.

 

I believe the above to be true and factual.

[cruzhughes]

Am I on the right track wth this statement

[dx100uk]

yep

ps written not wrote

[cruzhughes]

Anything I need to add about the whole dispute? What about the actual agreement is it covered by CCA or not and is it an enforceable agreement

[dx100uk]

yes ofcourse it is.

[cruzhughes]

I’m almost certain Prime are calling unregulated or not covered by cca somewhere.

 

Will check now

[cruzhughes]

Ignore me. They keep calling it a Morgage and isn’t it that everything over 25000 isn’t covered

[dx100uk]

the loan agreement was not for over £25k and it say regulated on the agreement does it not?

[cruzhughes]

It was for 27974 but it on the top it says fixed sum loan agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. Email you now

[dx100uk]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?178390-Credit-Agreements-over-25k-Pre-April-2008

[cruzhughes]

This was Aug 2008? So how do I fair

 

Do I take the statement into court next week or wait till the day of hearing.

 

What I’m thinking is if I take it in earlier are they likely to upload it and then lightfoots see it. And maybe adjourn again after seeing it

[dx100uk]

IMHO as these were all a chain you've a good argument it is covered by CCA