the firs part draft orders were changed to suit welcome but the ones you did for lloyds tsb on the other thread

sorry about the font nonsense dont know how to stop that it was headed directions for court as you did on the template as well post

1 The Claimant shall not later than 4:00pm on 22/02/2010 (being a date 2 weeks from the date of the making of the case management directions) file and serve a verified true copy of each of the following documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (a) a copy of the alleged agreement with my executed signature. Together with any terms and conditions that applied to it, the original document must be brought to the hearing, and a copy made available to the defendant. (b) The default notice together with proof of service, the original document must be brought to the hearing and a copy made available to the defendant. © A full and complete statement of account including all payments made and charges applied covering the period beginning with the day of the making of the agreement and ending on the date of the commencement of this case. (d)As this claim is in respect to a loan under the consumer credit Act, the condition for the release of these documents applies and falls into the remit of the consumer credit act 1974 (e) Copies of underwriting sheets giving full and complete details of any and all commissions paid or received added to my account, in particular full details of commissions received by Welcome Elite Brokers and added to my account. (f) any other documents on which the claimant will rely 2 In the event that the Claimant shall fail to comply with paragraph 1 of this order the claim shall stand struck out and the Defendant shall be at liberty without further order to apply to this court for judgment and for costs on the standard basis to be subject to detailed assessment proceedings if not agreed. 3 In the event of compliance with paragraph 1 of this order this case shall be allocated to the fast track and 4 The Defendant shall file and serve an Amended Defence by 4:00pm on 09/03/2010 (being a date 6 weeks from the date of the making of the case management directions). Other Information Section I if the court is in agreement, the defendant respectfully requests that special directions may be given as per the attached draft order. On 26/12/2009 on receipt of the claim, the defendant sent by way of recorded delivery a request to the claimant’s solicitors. That request was for documentation to be released under CPR 31.14 to enable me to file a defence. (Copy enclosed) That request was delivered on, 29/12/2009 the claimant has failed to send the requested documentation defendant had no option but to file an embarrassed defence. the defendant has sent a further request under CPR 18 dated 11/02/2010 and is again awaiting a reply as such, The defendant proposes these directions in mind of the Overriding Objectives, and in particular the duty of the parties to help the court further them. The issues outlined below are the crux upon which this claim rests, and the proposed directions identify these issues and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously; without production of the requested documents, I am at a disadvantage and am unable to serve a proper defence. Failure of the claimant to supply the requested documentation will make the case much harder for the court to deal with as without production of the requested documentation will inhibit the courts ability to deal with the case. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) made it clear in paragraph 29 of LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD judgment 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1) (a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. The defendant also submits a counter claim for miss sold insurance on which the claimant has previously reached agreement with the Financial Ombudsman, but to date has failed to comply with the agreement. (Letter of confirmation from Financial Ombudsman Attached) persistently refusing to release figures relating to the refund, and insisting the level of refund depends on amount of future payments the refund is due plus 8% statutory interest from the date the insurances began and offer of derisory extra £100 in compensation. The defendant further claims that “true” secret commissions have been included in the agreement contrary to current legislation, such payments are viewed as a bribe and considered fraudulent, as decided in the case of Hurstanger V Wilson (2007) EWCA Civ 299 Lord Justice Tuckey. The receipt of a secret commission by a broker is a species of fraud and is actionable both against the broker or introducer and the lender who paid the secret commission. In the Court of Appeal case of Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299, Lord Justice Tuckey commented as follows: 1. Obviously if there has been no disclosure the agent will have received a secret commission. This is a blatant breach of fiduciary duty but additionally the payment or receipt of a secret commission is considered to be a form of bribe and is treated in the authorities as a special category of fraud in which it is unnecessary to prove motive, inducement or loss up to the amount of the bribe. The principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for the money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe or for the damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given (Mahesan v Malaya’s Housing Society [1979] AC 374, 383). Furthermore the transaction is voidable at the election of the principal who can rescind it . . . (Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v India Rubber, Gutta Percher and Telegraph Co [1875] 9 Ch App 515, 527, 532-3).” Further case law giving judgement on secret commissions Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] WLR (D) 56 CA: Mummery, Dyson, Jacob LJJ: 13 February 2009 An agent when negotiating with another person on behalf of his principal breached the fiduciary duty which he owed to his principal if at the same time he made with the other person an undisclosed side deal for his own benefit and there were a real possibility of conflict of interest. In such a case the agent was required to account to the principal in respect of the secret commission so received and was not entitled to receive any agency fees from the principal. The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Imageview Management Ltd, from the judgment of Underhill J who on 23 May 2008 had allowed the appeal of the defendant, Kelvin Jack, a professional footballer, and dismissed the claimant’s cross-appeal from the decision of Mr Recorder Walker in the Central London County Court on 2 January 2008 to allow the claim for unpaid agency fees due under a contract whereby the claimant had agreed to act as the defendant’s agent in negotiating a contract for him to play for Dundee United Football Club. The defendant denied liability on the ground that, in negotiating a secret side commission for itself from the club in connexion with obtaining a work permit for principal, the claimant had breached its fiduciary duty to him, and counterclaimed repayment of the agency fees already paid and an account of the secret fee. JACOB LJ said that if the agent had told his client that when negotiating for his client he was also going to make a deal with the club for himself about getting a work permit for the client, and if the client had had no objection, there would have been no problem. Instead, the agent had made a secret deal. Despite long-standing authority as to an agent’s duty of fidelity where there was a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, such as Boston Deep Sea Fishing v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339, the claimant submitted that Hippisley v Knee Bros [1905] 1 KB 1 demonstrated that an agent could legitimately try to make a profit “on the side” which was not regarded as so serious that his entire commission became repayable, provided that the agent/third party arrangement were “not sufficiently connected” with the principal/agent relationship or were “purely incidental” to it. The better way to look at it would be to ask whether the agent was faced with a realistic possibility of a conflict of interest, rather than whether there was a “secret profit … directly impacting on the moneys payable to the principal” as David Steel QC had done in The Peppy [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 722, 729. It was the conflict of interest which ought to bring his conscience into play. There could be cases of harmless collaterality, or where there was just an honest breach of contract such as Keppel v Wheeler [1927] 1 KB 577. But this was simply not such a case. This was a case of a secret profit obtained because the claimant was defendant's agent. And there was a breach of a fiduciary duty because of a real conflict of interest. That in itself would be enough, but there was more: the profit was not only greater than the work done but was related to the very contract which was being negotiated for the defendant. Once a conflict of interest was shown the right to remuneration went in its entirety. That strict rule was there as a real deterrent to betrayal. So the defendant was not liable to pay the claimant and more agency fees and was entitled both to recover all the fees he had already paid and to an account of the whole of the secret profit made by the claimant. DYSON LJ agreed. MUMMERY LJ gave a concurring judgment. The defendant claims the return of all sums paid over and above the original loan figure plus 8% statutory interest from the date of the breach, due to the fact that the agreement has been subject to undisclosed commissions, contrary to the consumer Credit Act 1974 the total figure to be calculated based on information of payments made given in the defendants bank statements. The defendant further claims damages due for the passing of inaccurate information to credit reference agency’s placing a default on the defendants name without first issuing a default notice recording of incorrect information and breaching the requirements of the data protection act 1998, thereby using the credit reference agency as a tool to force the defendant to end his legally justified complaint to the defendant, and as a method of harassment and as a vexatious punishment. The placing of the Default notice has caused the defendant untold difficulties in obtaining credit and services and the defendant requests all information placed with all reference agency’s be removed by the Claimant immediately. The Claimant further claims costs to be agreed with the court and damages at the courts discretion for the breach of fiduciary duty by the Claimant relating to undisclosed commissions, the recording of inaccurate data, failure to abide by the agreement made with the Financial Ombudsman and for the stress and harassment suffered while attempting to resolve legitimate complaints with the Claimant. Its is respectfully requested this case be allocated to the fast track, it is a straight forward case and is easily resolved on production of the required documentation by the claimant, should the claimant not have the documentation required to progress this case I suggest that there will be no case to answer, and that judgement be made for the defendant who has proof of secret commission and proof of agreement on miss sold insurance. Therefore it stands to reason that these documents must be disclosed before this case can progress any further for the claimant. Statement of Truth I believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed Date 11 February 2010

I will post them again now but no laughing I been stressed and was confused lol I havent contacted the court i didnt know i could chase them up thought i just had to wait

Well Post plenty for you to ease your way back on here got a little lost with the directions to court so, made them up based on the ones you did for me for Lloyds and added the secret commission saga as well it was taken over the court on the 11Th so just a week ago but heard nothing yet, but would value your oppinion on the directions i sent in case there are any clangers in there that we may need to prepare for.

Hello Post good to have you back mate we all been wondering what had Happened, sorry to hear it was more illness but as long as your up and about again now, well the update with Lloyds is that I have passed it to my solicitor to try and get some sense of sanity, but welcome are well and truly in the firing line and could do with some more advice on beatting them up a little more if you are up to it mate.

Well as expected they refused my offer, and want nearly £600 a month which is more than what i have coming in at the momment being unemployed, my solicitor has said sod them let them go for a judgement then show the court what my income is and what i have offered, and the court will put a stop to the £240 a month interest and only order repayment of what can be reasonably afforded. So its wait for a court date now to put my case and let the judge know it was signed without full knowledge of the implications as previous Guarantees had to have independent witness signature that I had previously paid for as my solicitor had to sign as witness to my signature and to say the significance of the document had been fully explained and that was for a timber merchant account lol, admitedly the credit limit was for £50k thankfully we had paid them in full before it all went tits up

Well still no reply from the court, Welcome or thier poodles cowards, so with no reply just hope the court go with my directions and requests, how long do they normally give the other side to respond, especially as it was them that started court proceedings

Just stand up to them and tell them you want to resolve it in court to get a definitive answer on the agreement, then send them a cca and sar if you have not already done so, then do a cpr request for the underwriting sheets just telling them you have reason to believe there is secret commission applied to the account and you have proof this has been done as standard practice by the company, if they want proof let me know you can have a copy of the underwriting sheet i have showing secret commissions are paid by them and this should be sufficient to prove this takes place for a judge to order disclosure. Hope this helps.

there must be someone somewhere who could help us expose all this and bring these sharks to the surface, it is like a cancer through the finance world crippling consumers

not much help from the court so just wait and see now

as i see it the way they hide it is this for example the actual apr they want is say 10% for simplicity but the commissions come to say £3k so to cover these they simply charge you 12% apr and then there is no trail or figures to show on the agreement and all the working out is done on the underwriting sheets etc which they will not give you no matter what, then the crippler is if you ask for disclosure you may be asked as some have to prove that secret commissions have been paid to justify asking the court to order disclosure, but if you could get hold of all documents used to calculate your loan and commissions then jackpot. at least thats what i think they do i could be way out.

Hello all just to get something out of my head and onto the page so to speak. I have been thinking following some shal we say unforseen decisions in our courts, do judges have to disclose thier interests such as investments etc. and dont they have a duty to withdraw from any cases where they could possibly have an interest, not suggesting for a minute that there has been any wrong doing in any case mentioned in any of the forums but just a question that has been occupying my empty head for a while.

can some one tell me how to post a link to my thread I am old and incompetent

Welcome secured loan PPI rip off

Thank you emanevs could i put it in tomorrow would that matter and ask them to put it with my AQ, my thread is welcome finance secured loan ppi rip off

to late now but they have told me in the court if they do not respond to my requests I can do an N244 later, I have the draft order for directions with the AQ as well as some paperwork just to show the judge I have good cause to counterclaim

if secret commissions can be proven against most organisations it is a much bigger club to beat them with than most of thier other crooked little scams, it is viewed as a type of bribe and fraud

I already have the AQ went back today they have failed to supply me with anything I requested in a CPR 31:14 so now that the court process has started I have sent them a CPR 18 but doubt that they will respond to that either, but a copy of the underwriting sheet is with the court in case they ask for proof of why I want the underwriting sheet when I apply for a court order for them to produce it as happened in the past.

Hello all I have requested the underwriting sheets from welcome, and have informed the court that i have a copy of the sheet and intend counterclaiming against welcome for undisclosed commissions, and I think if people have these they should be using them against welcome and start taking them to court on the basis that they have broken the law by accepting and paying secret commissions, I understand the value of keeping things secret from welcome spies but they are of no use to anyone if they are just collected and never tried in court, and without knowledge of what they are being collected for ie. a class action or test case? unfortunately the courts and welcome will not wait for us to decide how best to use the information we have. and to be fair to post we dont know at the moment if or when he will be back and it is unfair to expect him to shoulder all our complaints, I for one know how valuable his input has been but during this break I have tried in vain to get definitive legal answeres to my questions and have had to simply bite the bullet and throw everything at them in my AQ and directions.

bump

will be taking the papers over to the court today so hope everything is correct will update with anything i find out

is that in any piece of legislation that i could pass to my solicitor he is not the best on consumer law

Hello elsinore to be honest I am in a mess with this, I realy dont want to be declared insolvent, I am goingto my solicitors this afternoon and will ask him to consider the questions you have raised as I believe they are all valid and I did not believe we were signing this guarantee,but it is my signature and the dates are correct, the witness signature is the regional business manager who we opened the account with.

bump