unknown Welcome Finance CCJ? - now IND own it? help

[Andy111]

Not quite, nllnnnnn. Must be some sort of court or case number for the court seeing as the only other ref is the one on all correspondence I've received from either Welcome or IND!.

[dx100uk]

pm me it

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

yep that's a claim number

 

 

ok well you'll have to wait till monday now

give northants bulk a ring

ask for a copy of the CCJ

 

 

whist there see if they will give you basic details of the claim [p'haps record the call?]

who was the claimant

when was it granted

how much for

[Andy111]

Thanks dx100uk & will do.

 

Though as to the date and more address it relates to interests me more than the claimant and amount as such seeing as nothing shows up on my previous address via a TOL search for a CCJ

 

and well, I've got new credit agreements in the last year so can't see anything available against my current address and certainly nothing against me on my credit file in the last year.

 

Monday aught to hopefully prove more enlightening.

[dx100uk]

yes see if you can get the address too.

 

we'll get there and unravel things

 

slowly slowly catchy monkey

 

if and I suspect this is the case the ccj is very very old

and was gotten by welcome themselves

 

they've now sold off a fleet of these to IND

[hence the 38 letter]

 

it wont show on your cra file

and that's why it cant harm you anymore

 

all you have is a notice of change of claimant

IND cant do anything with it

as its not been enforced [ie by a charging order or attachment to earning or a bailiff warrant]

 

so in all effect its dead.

they now cannot enforce it.

 

the letters you got were merely for your information.

 

it sort of all tallies with all the letters you would have gotten

ranging from discounts etc etc.

 

the bottom line is its totally dead

no judge in the land would ever allow enforcement outside 6yrs

 

there would be no harm in sending a thank you letter to IND

for the information only documents they recently sent

 

that way

they have you new address

and thus cant do anything by the backdoor

 

but it must be in writing.

 

dx

[Andy111]

Whilst I'm waiting for Monday to come around to try and clarify some things by calling northants something has come to mind after the above post I just want to ask about as might be worth mentioning when I call them up Monday.

 

If as dx100uk suspects and this matter could in fact be a totally unenforceable old CCJ from many, several+ years ago etc.

 

Well Welcome definitely tried going for another or second CCJ on what I guess is the same debt back in March 2013 as mentioned in my old thread dx100uk kindly found.

 

could Welcome go for a second CCJ on the same apparent debt that already has a CCJ against it or would it be naughty to try in the hope of getting a newer default CCJ?.

[dx100uk]

well its the guesswork that doesn't sound right

i'm sure we don't have the full story correct here

time plays trics

 

cant see why an SAR to welcome wont hurt.

could even be the rascal took out several loans

or

welcome did their refinance trick

 

id get that letter running

no war and peace in it

a very simple letter exactly as I said to write

[Andy111]

An update on this after just getting off the phone to Northampton.

 

Firstly they confirmed the case number is NOT a CCJ itself but just the case number that relates to the CCJ case they tried to bring against me back in March 2013. Which explains why nothing showed up when I did the online check last Friday.

 

They confirmed that as I filed a defence at the time that Welcome Finance never so much dropped the case but simply stayed\put on hold and decided not to proceed with the case at that time (which with no provision of evidence to the defence I fail to see how they could).

 

The court kind of confirmed that it's more a transfer of ownership over the debt and case (hence why the case number stated by IND?) rights which would then give IND the option and right to proceed with the case to court under the stated case number.

 

But the court also said that as I did the right thing & filed a defence and asked for the case evidence and particulars at the time that even if the case was now applied for to be brought forwards by IND that the court may well reject such an application after so long unless IND had very good reasons to restart the case.

 

The court has said that they haven't yet received an application from IND to apply for the case to proceed but suggest I call the courts back in the next couple of weeks to get an update on the issue.

 

Might be speculation,

but I'm guessing as new owners in the eye or the court IND could claim not their fault or decision Welcome never proceeded as separate company

so they should be allowed to proceed in there own right as they have only just bought the debt and case rights?.

 

But really, after near 3 years?.

But either way, ive already replied to IND last week to inform them I now consider the issue harassment and intimidation.

 

And hopefully they will be left with no doubt I'll defend the case,

but that's never going to be any assurance they won't try to proceed.

[dx100uk]

so we were almost right

simply a stayed case

no IND cant and wont do anything.

theres no judgement

so the SB clock restarted

and thus has now run.

 

so if they do be stupid

your defence will be its statute barred.

 

your entry is simply a line in a spreadsheet of 38 others.

for a change of claimant

[Ganymede]

I'm not sure I follow regarding the claim being SB, unless you're talking about them starting fresh Court proceedings.

 

If not, then the claim is not SB but an application to substitute Claimant's and lift the stay would be difficult to win.

[dx100uk]

Well typically a stayed claim most prob made to stop the SB clock can usually be disregarded as such

 

But as you say its over anyway

[Ganymede]

typically a stayed claim most prob made to stop the SB clock can usually be disregarded as such

 

 

What are you basing this on out of curiosity? I'm not sure I agree with you to be honest.

 

If an application to lift the stay was made, it's unlikely the judge will listen to any SB arguments if the proceedings were issued in time and SB was not raised in the original Defence. The more appropriate argument would be the length of time it had been left stayed and it would be unreasonable and unfair to lift the stay now after more than 3 years.

[dx100uk]

Yea sorry mar 2013

Bet it was restons too

[Andy111]

Thanks for the replies

 

since my earlier update.

Looking back over my other thread that dx100uk found last week (linked to on previous page)

the legal firm at that time was Hegarty LLP Peterborough.

 

The date they originally issued court proceedings was March 2013

which based on past and previous information was

(assuming the same debt and issue as never received any proof of debt remember)

based on an issue or claim going back to early 2007 sometime.

 

So clearly as suspected by timing seems more likely to have been an attempt to stop the statute barred clock, give them more time or last ditch attempt to get a default.

 

So 3 1/2 years later for IND to buy the debt and case makes little sense if the statute barred clock is likely retrospectively restarted after so long now and thus probably statute barred for more than 3 years now?.

 

But 2 issues come to mind,

firstly

the court suggests there is still a possibility that IND could apply to take the case forwards,

(maybe court not aware of original debt date?) but would need a very good reason to do so which could be rejected anyway.

 

Secondly

earlier this year as I posted about at the time in this thread,

Welcome posted out what seemed to be an account statement which looked designed to make out the account was still active after all this time and that credit or payment had been made to that account (certainly not by me).

 

Whether or not this was for the sale to IND purposes to make it appear not as old an issue as it actually was or with IND to try and make false representation to the court on the status of the account and age of the debt remains to be seen.

 

Will be interesting to see if or how IND respond to my correspondence from last week.

[Ganymede]

The Court staff are not legally trained so don't attach any weight to what they say, but instead take it with a pinch of salt.

 

As for the statute barred clock restarting, this is nonsense. Once proceedings are issued in time the clock is stopped forever in those proceedings.

[dx100uk]

not according to andyorch in several threads here granny

 

 

though this one is only 3yrs old but if its left for 6yrs it does to all intent.

[dx100uk]

Thanks for the replies

 

 

since my earlier update.

Looking back over my other thread that dx100uk found last week (linked to on previous page)

the legal firm at that time was Hegarty LLP Peterborough.

 

 

The date they originally issued court proceedings was March 2013

which based on past and previous information was

(assuming the same debt and issue as never received any proof of debt remember)

based on an issue or claim going back to early 2007 sometime.

 

 

So clearly as suspected by timing seems more likely to have been an attempt to stop the statute barred clock, give them more time or last ditch attempt to get a default.

 

So 3 1/2 years later for IND to buy the debt and case makes little sense if the statute barred clock is likely retrospectively restarted after so long now and thus probably statute barred for more than 3 years now?.

 

 

But 2 issues come to mind,

firstly

the court suggests there is still a possibility that IND could apply to take the case forwards,

(maybe court not aware of original debt date?) but would need a very good reason to do so which could be rejected anyway.

 

 

Secondly

earlier this year as I posted about at the time in this thread,

Welcome posted out what seemed to be an account statement which looked designed to make out the account was still active after all this time and that credit or payment had been made to that account (certainly not by me).

 

 

Whether or not this was for the sale to IND purposes to make it appear not as old an issue as it actually was or with IND to try and make false representation to the court on the status of the account and age of the debt remains to be seen.

 

Will be interesting to see if or how IND respond to my correspondence from last week.

 

 

its a shame you responded to ind

 

 

when was the last sar to welcome finance?

[Andy111]

its a shame you responded to ind

 

 

when was the last sar to welcome finance?

 

Probably the same time I filed the defence March 2013, though Iike the court case I never heard back & wrongly assumed they had let the matter drop due to not being able to provide anything in the way or evidence or genuine info under SAR.

 

 

Though if I was to resend a fresh SAR as suggested in a previous post just wandering weather it aught to go to IND over Welcome seeing as I'm guessing Welcome could claim the debt is no longer owned or anything to do with them?.

 

 

Could prove useful to see just what it is IND holds if they try to give the impression they intend to try and take the case forwards?.

 

With regards to IND trying to restart the case, am I right in thinking a court would only ever hear such a request after such a time under the same case number if they have anything substantially new to add in the way of fresh evidence and or documentation?.

 

 

But seeing as Welcome would have needed everything to have took the defended case forwards in the first place then I fail to see how anything new or substantial could have been "found" in the last 3 1/2 years to apply to the court to proceed and expect such a request to be granted.

[Ganymede]

They don't necessarily need "new evidence" simply a good excuse and a sympathetic Judge. However, after all this time neither are very likely.

 

Any defence to an application to lift the stay and proceed would be on the unreasonably long time taken to apply to lift the stay. Nothing to do with it being statute barred (assuming it was originally issued in time).

 

not according to andyorch in several threads here granny

 

though this one is only 3yrs old but if its left for 6yrs it does to all intent.

 

You may be thinking of the 6 year time period to enforce a CCJ once it has been granted?

 

But it terms of the original proceedings that were issued for the "debt", then assuming they were issued in time SB as a Defence has gone forever.

 

 

Other arguments would be needed to defend a an application to lift the stay.

[Andy111]

To be clear it's assumed based on dates that the CCJ case application in March 2013 would almost certainly have been close to 6 years since an assumed claimed default (information has alway been vague) on this so called debt.

 

 

Seeing as I defended the case and asked for the particulars and evidence, Welcome decided to not proceed at that time. But it seems the case was stayed or put on hold than withdrawn or dropped.

 

But after 3 1/2 years I fail to see on what basis IND if they have nothing new to add or evidence to provide that should have been in place in 2013 could ever realistically expect such a defended case to be allowed to go forwards by the court?.

 

 

In which case unless they are hoping for a default using the Welcome statement from early this year to try and indicate an account credit to suggest an active account then it's unfair to suggest under law they can keep the case on hold indefinitely or put back in stayed status until such a point in the future they might try for a default again!.

 

Just a case of waiting to see what happens when IND responds I guess.

[dx100uk]

The letter was for information only and they had to send it by law

Doesn't mean the claim is going anywhere and they've not indicated anything

 

Watch for Willy waving by rectums that is all but neaningless

[Andy111]

Well it must be fair to assume they have some intent if they have gone to the trouble and cost of taking legal ownership via the courts. My guess is an undefended default. But will likely be the comical intimidation and empty threat letters I'm thinking.

[dx100uk]

you are just simply a line on a spreadsheet

and IND are simply going through the process

they do when they buy all debts.

however IND and welcome are very old bed fellows

mot of it dodgy and fleecing

 

you need to use the search cag box of the red top toolbar

IND welcome

 

might be an idea to get an SAR running to welcome too

before the important stuff hits the shredder

 

esp if you have a history of loans

and refinanced loans

[Andy111]

Had a reply today and first thought, quick answer for these sort of people these days!.

 

none of the evidence to prove debt & liability requested yet again or even address and points in my what, war and peace effort of a last reply I think dx100 UK called it? lol.

 

A copy of letter enclosed for reference purposes.

But at least an interesting point in stating a requested proof of residence in May 2007 which is I assume the default of account\debt date if genuine?.

 

 

They can use anyone they want to look for me as a person with a name to get my address,

I'm on the electrol register for Christ sake,

didn't need to use tracing agents for that.

 

And neither does using tracing agents to search the electrol register prove a debtor in law, simply a name match of a similar name or false match!.

 

But they are claiming the debtor is a person of the same or similar name as myself (but clearing they are claiming I am that person) and if I don't believe the debt to be mine they ask that I both provide photographic ID of myself & proof of residential address in May 2007!,

 

These people for real to hand over that so that they might use it against me along with falsified statements no doubt to try and take a case to court?.

 

Also they have falsely claimed to have sent an agreement copy both April 2015 and falsely claimed to have enclosed another copy with this correspondence which they never.

 

I've never at any point received either an agreement of debt or any proof of debt, liability or any particulars as requested via the March 2013 court papers.

Sadly they have neither addressed my harassment claim or my £30 per correspondence bill either.

 

Just wandering how to reply this time,

might just point out an assumed default date of May 2007 asking on what basis they feel the debt still valid after 9 1/2 years,

continued failure to provide full agreement, contract, and proof of debt evidence,

failure to provide all evidence via the court defence in March 2013,

 

why they never brought the case forwards at the time and on what basis and proof they currently have and hold that they could ever feel to take the court case forwards now or in the near future that they clearly couldn't at the time of March 2013.

 

And I'll request they either take the case forwards having to then via the courts provide all evidence and proof to the defence or drop the matter and that for those reasons will otherwise continue to claim this a matter of harassment!.

 

ind.pdf

[dx100uk]

rotate it please and where's this agreement ?