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

[cruzhughes]

Dx you’ve been the best and most patient throughout this.

 

I’m doubting my ability to put everything clearly and set things out correctly

[dx100uk]

don't you're the most determined person I know

you've just let yourself be side tracked by all the crap from the claimant.

[cruzhughes]

I know it’s all b******s and I know they keep lying.

 

But I’m a no one they sent solictors or not turned up. I’ve only had excellent advice here I’ve not had anyone speak for me in court. That is where I fail.

 

My head is constant questions while going back through stuff and finding more faults with them.

 

I just I don’t know sometimes how to finalise things.

 

But what concerns me the most is how company’s like these get away with things.

 

My eyes have been truly opened and I know there’s people in a lot worse positions than me who don’t have the capacity to progress things

Edited May 27, 2018 by Andyorch
edited

[shamrocker]

I had a quick skim over a few pages of your main thread. Is the Claimant basically saying that they expect you to pay the loan back over, for example, 200 months instead of 300 months due to the agreed monthly payments not containing any interest? Therefore, you keep going at the agreed rate, despite the repayment term being less than originally agreed.

 

Is your position that you now only pay the original repayment amount, minus the interest - and make the repayments over the agreed 300 month term, albeit at a lower amount?

 

Is that were it's at?

[cruzhughes]

Not really no.

 

Dx can you step in here and condense the situation down a bit

[shamrocker]

Ok... are they claiming that the PPI refund should not negate the need for you to make repayments against the loan balance, in accordance with the original agreement?

[cruzhughes]

I make this Skeleton Argument in addition to my Defence and Witness Statements in the claim of

 

Possession Claim

 

1. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts person in the opening paragraph.

 

2. The claimant has little clue about what they are trying to litigate against toward this speculative repossession the Land registry charge they refer to relates to Loan 257 dated 19/10/06 that loan was settled 3/4/2007, this is contained within the exhibits of their witness statement. This legal charge should have been removed by the original creditor welcome/progressive finance on or around 3/4/2007. But for some unknown reason it was not.

 

3.The claimants appear to be trying to use this old charge for possession. They are trying to fool the court into believing this charge is on another loan they have purchased.

 

4. Loan 984 they are quoting toward the repossession was taken out 16 months after the old charge was settled. Therefor creating no link/chain for any further advances.

 

5.Due to the time lapsed in between these 2 loans welcome finance should have registered a brand new charge for this loan with the land registry on or around 28/08/2008. The claimants have failed to provide any proof that this document exists.

 

6. They have failed in both their particulars of claim their reply to my defence to produce any charge notice relevant to Loan no 984 which is the one they litigating over so have no grounds for possession.

 

7. Either of the loans after Loan 257 would have required a fresh legal charge to be applied by welcome finance on or around the date of inception and also the documentation confirming this lodged with the land registry. Thus creating a new date of charge in favour of welcome/progressive finance in C: Charges register of the Title Deed that corresponded with the start date of either of these loans.

 

8. Also there would be further Legal Charge documents similar to Claimants exhibit RP2 showing the newer loan account numbers and start date of loans at the top. None of which have been provided.

 

 

 

Facts are

 

• 19/10/2006 Legal charge Claimants Exhibit RP2

• 31/10/2006 Loan 2320257 Claimants Exhibit RP1

Cash advance £6000

PPI £1485.75

Lifecare £180

Homecare £125

Acceptance fee £235 interest wrongly charged on this fee.

Total amount of credit £7,790.75

Settled 03/04/2007 £6,767.00 Claimants Exhibit RP4

 

Charge above should have been discharged upon settlement by welcome on or around 3/4/2007.

 

• 05/10/2007 Loan 61 Claimants Exhibit RP12

Cash advance £22,000

PPI £4,508.25

Acceptance fee £235 interest wrongly charged on this fee.

Total amount of credit £26,741.20

Settled on 29/08/2008 by a credit of £27,971.82 Claimants Exhibit RP12

 

New loan rewritten

 

• 28/08/2008 Loan 984 Claimants Exhibit RP6

Rewrite balance of £27,971.82 from loan 2629661

PPI £2307.70

Acceptance fee £235

Total amount of credit £30,514.52

 

Welcome finance should have taken out new legal charge if either of the further two new loans above were going to be secured on property. As the old one had been settled for a long time before these were both taken out.

 

9. I would like the court to take in to account the unfairness by the original creditor welcome finance on this rewrite. As it was forced upon me and I believe it was solely done to enrich welcome finance. I respectfully request the court look at all aspects of the relationship between the original lender and myself the borrower by looking at the Agreements that have been modified, consolidated or re-financed by new agreements.

 

10. Based on the facts set out above I ask the court to strike out the claimants possession claim pursuant to CPR Part 3.4 (2) (a) (b) On the basis that the claimant has no reasonable grounds for bringing this claim to court as it is an abuse of courts process.

 

Outstanding Balance

 

11. The outstanding balance the Claimant has pleaded throughout this case has been incorrect. I am still unable to reconcile the arrears figure the Claimant pleads as it is much higher than the total missed monthly payments. I have also already paid over and above the amount they say is outstanding.

 

 

12. Loan agreement 984 entered into 29th August. Welcome did not advance any sum of £27.971.82 It appears to be a rewrite of previous loan 661 that was settled on 29/08/2008 for £27,971.82 then rewritten to 984 for the exact same amount with £2307.70 PPI and £235.00 acceptance fee added thus totalling £30,514.52.

 

13. The contractual monthly instalments of £231.49 were paid from Sept 2008 to Feb 2009 totalling £1388.94. Any further payments from this date until May 2015, over and above the contractual monthly instalments were paid. Which mean the account was in credit and being paid in front from March 2009.

 

Breakdown as follows.

 

• From March 2009 until Dec 2010 25 payments of £250 were made totalling £6250

 

• From Jan 2011 or March 2011 3 payments of £333 were made totalling £933

 

• From April 2011 till April 2012 14 payments of £270 totalling £3780

 

• From May 2012 till Nov 2014 32 payments of 270 £8640

 

• From Dec 2014 till May 2015 6 payments of £278 £1668

 

This means £22,659,94 has been paid in total. Not forgetting the PPI refund of 8163.29. Which comes to £30,823.23 already paid towards this loan.

 

14. I refer to claimants exhibit RP2 in witness statement dated 18/05/2018. Outstanding balance £26.152.32 at 13 Dec 2015 still standing at the same on 13 jan 2017. This is correct. Whereas outstanding balance at 18th May 2018 £19,672.83 arrears Total £8,268.08 this is incorrect.

 

15. There are no arrears on this account as the account was overpaid from March 2009 onwards the claimant is trying to falsify these. The were no payments made to the previous owners from May 2015. This was due to the the fact that the account was already in serious dispute with them and welcomes failure to respond to my correspondence.

 

The missed payments from May 2015 however has no relevance to the new owners as they did not purchase the debt until 16 months later. This is confirmed by the deed of variation dated 17/09/2016. So the first missed payment to the claimant would have been on or around Oct/Nov 2016. Meaning until May 2018 there were only actually 19 months so the maximum missed contractual payments ( arrears ) would be only £4,398.31. This is eradicated by a payment of £8163.29

 

Should be £26.152.32 - 8163.29 PPI refund. Balance would stand at £17,989.03 on 18th May 2018.

[shamrocker]

Ok, I'm getting it now. They're trying to exploit the contentious charge to gain a repossession order of your property.

[cruzhughes]

Yes that and inflating the arrears time and time again on court docs.

 

Plus the balance is made up of 9 rewrites over 8 year’s some months apart

 

This is the the 5 time I’ll be going to court.

[shamrocker]

The balance is a separate issue in my view. Given that the claim involves repossession, your main argument in defence is that any liability to the Claimant is not secured by way of a charge against your property. The charge they claim to exist relates solely to a completely different, and fully discharged, liability to the same original creditor.

 

Is that it in a nutshell?

[cruzhughes]

The court order is on thread 1269 on my other thread dx can you put it here and hide it please

[cruzhughes]

WITNESS 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.

 

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 I complained FSCS regarding miss-sold PPI and they awarded £8,163.29 to be refunded back to the account. Alpha have already accepted this payment without checking the validity of the debt in question.

 

• The outstanding balance the Claimant has pleaded throughout 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. Even now in their most recent witness statement and after them finally admitting the reduction to 0%. Their figures are still incorrect.. I have also already paid over and above the amount they say is outstanding on this loan.

 

• 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 previous loans 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 on or around March 2017 when I received my first contact with them about the debt. To which I responded to immediately. On or around the same date they issued the possession proceedings.

 

• Whilst this debt was in serious dispute with the new owners Alpha credit they continuously made phonecalls, sent text messages and also sent field agents out charging me for the privilege but not responding to any of my correspondence.

 

• Also they have issued 4 lots of possession claims without having followed pre action protocol.

 

• At each of these hearings, they have either written to the court just before hearings to adjourn or had limited information on the debt they say is outstanding on the day of the hearing.

 

• This is the 5th I have come to this court time the claimant has issued possession proceedings against me at this court

[cruzhughes]

Found them

 

Here’s the orders for my next hearing

 

 

Claimant shall by 7 days before file and serve copies of all correspondence and any other records relating to interest reduction/freezing around Nov 2015

 

Claimaint shall by 7 days before file and serve a skeleton arguement in respect of the status of the credit Ppis in June 2017 with continuing all varied installments and or reduction of mortgageicon term.

 

Save for amendmenticon of in relation to amendment of POCicon.

 

Claimant shall launch a trial bundle and serve 2 days before

 

He was about to strike claim out as so far ahead with payments so the claim was false and so was their arguement

[shamrocker]

That reads like the court want to establish whether you're in arrears - the result of which would help determine if the claimant has a valid case at all.

 

What is the court's position with regards the validity of the charge? I'm really no expert on this, but I get the sense that they are pushing for repossession of the property simply due to arrears.

 

I'm coming into this very late in the day and will probably send you back over old ground with trying to get up to speed. Where are the Particulars of Claim?

[cruzhughes]

That’s fine ask away post 1205 other thread.

 

Over 2 years dx has worked to get it here

 

Judge quashed repo last time but when the claim said they would appeal. He called for all this remuneration

 

As he said there were no arrears and I was around 2 years ahead in payments

[cruzhughes]

Have a look on page 63/64. Posts 1250/1277

 

This is info about the last court hearing.

 

Any questions please ask.

[shamrocker]

Ok, I've read a few bits and pieces around he claim and am trying to digest it all. Bear with me.

[shamrocker]

Ok... so the charge gives them the right to apply for possession. First question is whether a charge obtained as security on an agreement can remain valid when the original agreement is discharged, and then a new account opened, under a new agreement.

[shamrocker]

DX's comments here suggest the charge will still be valid:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461331-Welcome-finance-secured-loan-help-needed-**WON-CHARGE-REMOVED/page2

[AndyOrch]

Threads merged.

[shamrocker]

What is everyone's take on this...?

 

"...on xxth of xxxxx 20xx the loan and mortgage the subject of these proceedings ceased to be a loan regulated under the CCA1974 and instead became a regulated mortgage contract by reason of the provisions of the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD) and the Mortgage Credit Directibve 2015."

 

Sorry if it's been discussed earlier in this thread. I don't really have enough time to go back and read through every page at the moment.

[cruzhughes]

Ok, I've read a few bits and pieces around he claim and am trying to digest it all. Bear with me.

I’m not around much today but will be tomorrow so hopefully you will have digested lots by then. And fire questions away

[cruzhughes]

DX's comments here suggest the charge will still be valid:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461331-Welcome-finance-secured-loan-help-needed-**WON-CHARGE-REMOVED/page2

 

Yes but they have not provided the link to the court on mine

[shamrocker]

Yes but they have not provided the link to the court on mine

 

You can make the point, but without really pushing and validating it, it probably won't have much sway. It doesn't appear the court have paid much attention to it anyway. I was just holding out a little hope that there may be some positive arguments to put forward in support.

[cruzhughes]

I have check defence

 

Dx has the arguments disputes there are loads