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

[cruzhughes]

What do you need me to do

 

How’s everything with you dx?

 

Anything missing

[cruzhughes]

Here it is

defence .pdf

[AndyOrch]

Defence hidden at the request of OP

[cruzhughes]

Thank you. Is it more logical now

[AndyOrch]

Not read it yet....just catching up on all my other threads

[cruzhughes]

Ok. Thanks.

 

If you/dx can give me a list of what I need to go in with it. And if there’s anything else I need to do.

 

Time isn’t on my side now.

[AndyOrch]

Point 33 must be above the Part 20 Counter claim and at the end of Conclusion

 

Part 20 Counterclaim must be the last part of the statement as already advised

 

Conclusion must come before the Part 20 counter claim.

 

 

Contents are fine.

 

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

post 938/939 ...A Tr4 form was mentioned to solicitor too.

is the judge hinting here that the claimant is NOT correct?

and doesn't even have jurisdiction without filling one out????

 

should this TR4 form be mentioned in respect to one of your assignment/legal charge points.

[cruzhughes]

Do I need to number the conclusion paragraphs.

 

Yes something was mentioned with regards to Tr4. But I’m not sure what was meant exactly.

 

So what could I say

[AndyOrch]

Do I need to number the conclusion paragraphs. Not necessarily but also dont number Part 20

 

Yes something was mentioned with regards to Tr4. But I’m not sure what was meant exactly.

 

So what could I say

 

Refer to TR4 at 21/22/23 along with assignment.....put the claimant to strict proof to disclose the necessary form and proof of transfer.

[cruzhughes]

post 938/939 ...A Tr4 form was mentioned to solicitor too.

is the judge hinting here that the claimant is NOT correct?

and doesn't even have jurisdiction without filling one out????.

 

What is meant by this

[dx100uk]

andy has answer post 1060

worth a mention

[cruzhughes]

Is this relevant

The short point is: that the only persone/entity who has contractual rights that can be asserted against you in the court IS the SPV. The SPV is the only entity at law who is entitled to a possession order (if they prove their case). The SPV is the only entity that has legal standing (locus standi) to bring a cause in action against you because it is the SPV that legally owns your mortgageicon. No other entity or company has any right to any order/judgment against you.

 

Therefore, when the so called "lender" brings the claim, that lender is NOT in contract with you because they sold the mortgage and therefore they in fact, have NO contractual claim against you.

 

Therefore, if you entered into a contract with ABC and it is XYZ company bringing a claim against you, the easiest way to get the judge to understand your locus standi argument (as the judges don't know about securitisation) is to show the judge the contract stating ABC as the contractual party and saying that therefore XYZ have no claim against you or your property.

 

Then that will force XYZ to say - "OH but we were assigned the contract" in which case, they have to PROVE that their alleged assignment and show the court that they have a contractual entitlement against you...i.e. they must show the court that you and XYZ are in "privity" of contract...that's when the paperwork really starts coming out.

 

But then, there's more...as XYZ company (who are named as the Claimant in the action) will not be the SPV. Therefore, you then have to find out who the SPV are that own your mortgage. I've written quite alot of posts on how to go about finding the actual owner of the mortgage so check out some of my other posts.

 

Thus, a good starting point for the defence is to argue that the contract was with ABC and not XYZ and therefore XYZ have no claim against you. That keeps it simple to start with and it is a basic legal principle that the judge CAN understand.

[AndyOrch]

No...over complicating again...no wonder this thread is at 54 pages...keep it simple has per my last post

[cruzhughes]

21. Paragraph 6 The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from Welcome finance to Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l on 19/09/2016.

 

I the Defendant did not receive this notice of this assignment shown in exhibit 2.

As I was not residing at either address therefore It is denied that the Defendant has entered into an agreement with Claimant.

 

22. 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 They have refused to investigate these claims from day one. See Account in Serious Dispute dated 30/08/2017 and 17/10/2017.

 

23. I have not received any notice of assignment of this debt however in their witness statement Exhibit 2 there are 2 un headed letters dated 19/09/2016 saying following the transfer of your mortgage from welcome finance to Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.A.R.L. With a totally different account no 3236984 to the one on the legal charge.

 

24. I request the claimant to provide strict proof and to disclose the necessary TR4 form and the proof of transfer

 

This any good? It would help if I had a clue what I’m doing there’s lots i don’t understand

[AndyOrch]

Fine...add that to the defence and your good to go.....

 

There are no exhibits ? are you not relying on an documents ? Part 20 counter claim...no evidence ?

[cruzhughes]

I don’t understand. They provided a few. which I’ve disputed and referred to in defence.

 

I provided a settled loan statement to court last hearing? And dated other things that have been issued to court by me since March

[AndyOrch]

This is your particularised defence...last chance saloon.....anything you have done previous at court is now history...the judge wants to read your statement along with your evidence (disclosures...documents you refer to and wish to rely on within your statement )

 

For example ...your point 3

 

" On the 08/03/2017 I sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to Alpha

credit pursuant to section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1

fee. "...Should be followed by ( see Exhibit 1 a )...and exhibit 1 A will be a copy of the CCA1974 request

 

Any paragraph you refer to a document must be followed by (se exhibit 2a 3a etc etc)

 

Standard basis of submitting a statement of case which I would of assumed you had seen 100s of times on other threads ?

 

Same for your Part 20...you cant just make a counter claim without providing any evidence...surely you have documents to prove your claim ?

[cruzhughes]

This is where it’s confusing I’ve submitted quite a lot previously.

 

What your saying in this statement it re send the copies even if the court had them prior.

 

This bundle will be quite extensive then?

 

Only my exhibits or refer to theirs too?

[AndyOrch]

Makes no odds what you have already submitted...regard this is your first time in court and the first time the judge has knowledge of the claim.

 

Your not doing a bundle you are attaching evidence in support of your defence.....

 

" Only my exhibits or refer to theirs too? "

Depends if you refer to them and wish to rely upon them.

 

Your choice if you wish to follow the advice as you always seem question the advice given.....hence the 54 page thread.

[cruzhughes]

It maybe cos I’m making sure it’s all correct as I’ve not done this before

 

I’m already up to 9 exhibits of mine is this too much

[cruzhughes]

And am providing the other side with too much info

[dx100uk]

third time they've tried, maybe its time to hit them with everything ...

plenty of time till Tuesday 2pm

you've pretty much covered all the things I made notes of but it doesn't to me read well to me...doesn't flow well..

[cruzhughes]

I’ll be in a box by then my head is shot! Most of my exhibits are what I’ve sent to prime since March onwards

 

Dx I cannot leave it to the final hour cos I’m on the road.

[dx100uk]

doesn't matter if you've sent them before

if you are to rely upon any document in your defence

then you must label and exhibit it.

 

as for the time limit...what are we playing with