You don't know what my arguments are to be in any position to hold views over them.

You also seem keen that I should start a separate thread to enable you further your views. The onus is firmly on you to do so.

Yes it is. I don't believe EA companies want to seize financed vehicles from a practical point of view. They might try to ramp up the pressure to gain payment. They might seek to create fear on internet forums. But they are not going to waste time on a regular basis, when they could be using their time better to collect more debts. And there are other enforcement options open to them.

As I have said before, this radical change in the wording (replacing 'equitable' with 'beneficial') does present a challenge but it is one that hopefully will be clarified under the 'One Year Review'. My personal opinion is that at present, it would not be wise for debtors to simply assume that if they have a vehicle on hire purchase that it is completely exempt and therefore not at risk of being taken into control by a bailiff.

On the other hand, any bailiff seeking to use this judgment as 'justification' to 'take control' of a vehicle on HP needs to be very.very careful indeed. Firstly, the regulations make clear that the EA must only take control of goods 'belonging' to the debtor and accordingly, it will be for the EA to undertake the necessary checks to satisfy himself that if sold, there could be sufficient proceeds to not only clear the entire debt to the finance company but most importantly, to clear the debt to the LA (after of course deducting the auction fees etc).

Lastly, the EA also has a significant responsibility to the debtor given that if does 'take control' of a vehicle on HP that this action by him could very likely (subject always to the terms of the contract) lead to the immediate termination of the agreement between the debtor and finance company. Complaints about the actions of the EA could well follow.

As I have said before, this radical change in the wording (replacing 'equitable' with 'beneficial') does present a challenge but it is one that hopefully will be clarified under the 'One Year Review'. My personal opinion is that at present, it would not be wise for debtors to simply assume that if they have a vehicle on hire purchase that it is completely exempt and therefore not at risk of being taken into control by a bailiff.

 

On the other hand, any bailiff seeking to use this judgment as 'justification' to 'take control' of a vehicle on HP needs to be very.very careful indeed. Firstly, the regulations make clear that the EA must only take control of goods 'belonging' to the debtor and accordingly, it will be for the EA to undertake the necessary checks to satisfy himself that if sold, there could be sufficient proceeds to not only clear the entire debt to the finance company but most importantly, to clear the debt to the LA (after of course deducting the auction fees etc).

 

Lastly, the EA also has a significant responsibility to the debtor given that if does 'take control' of a vehicle on HP that this action by him could very likely (subject always to the terms of the contract) lead to the immediate termination of the agreement between the debtor and finance company. Complaints about the actions of the EA could well follow.

Well summed up. Is the thread title correct about debtor proving no beneficial interest, as they are not likely to do that ?

All that is likely to happen is the EO is told it is under finance and possibly shown a document confirming. In most situations the EO is not going to touch it. They are not going to make their lifes and their companies lifes more complicated.

May I remind everyone the finance company are ultimately the owner of the goods until title passes, until that time they are not the goods of the customer, the new regs clearly state the EA should not take control of goods belong to a 3rd party. Its clear and simple as that as far as I can see.

What would help this discussion is for the EA companies to state just how many have actually been seized and sold or just seized....or left alone. Further speculation on this matter is not good. I guess now all that can clear it up once and for all...is a response from an EA...

And we are back at post three again.

Not my intention I am afraid but, if the Act says so then it is so, simples.... Sorry for that but this is our point there is NO clear current rules regarding this is there just interpretation which is a killer of all kinds true?

No the agreement term would terminate the agreement, on termination all outstanding sums become due. Of course if the debtor has paid more than is due this is refundable.

Having had the time to think about this reply, I am going to have to ask this, where in the CCA does it allow the EA to arrange the termination of a legally binding agreement? Whether directly or indirectly, because the agreement is binding and lawful between two signed parties...

Until you provide this information there is a serious risk of your response stating this can happen will cause serious repercussions throughout the credit industry. Simply taking control of goods as you state would fail the agreement, therefore to person that signed this agreement can and would take legal recourse through the Courts, against both the EA and OC as far as I can see!

As part of this discussion this I think is an extremely important question and needs verifying with statute and case law, will you please provide this asap?

From what I can see the only legal way this can happen is for the OC to release the debtor willingly therefore there is no longer an HP agreement or a Court decides....

OK just this once. Although this as a fundemental part of this and has been discussed on here several times.

There has to be a term on the agreement(made when the agreement was executed) which says that if the goods are being subject to an enforcment power, the agreement is terminated. This is an agreement between the debtor and the lender, nothing to do with the bailiff, however it does activate when the bailiff takes control of the goods.

DB sorry to say some T&C's are generic as we all know, again this issue has been discussed at length I might add but yet again no clear LAW regarding this, not all agreements have this stated, as I said above where is the legislation that allows an EA to have the agreement terminated because they took control of goods, this they CANNOT do without the express order of a JUDGE... OR the OC in the agreement... IF the OC relinquishes the agreement then the goods are returned to the OC as they are the owners, unless the OC deems that the hirer has paid enough to allow the agreement to terminate, again this will breach the agreement between the OC and the hirer..

We can find many agreements here on CAG but having read a lot of them I have not seen any that say the EA can end the agreement let alone decide if the legally binding agreement is or not enforceable, they do not have that power nor ever have they had it....

Read the above post again please.

End

What I think needs to happed now is a detailed summing up over the next day or two and see if there can a sort of guide that will help debtors in this position!

Dodgeball, with all due respect, I fail to understand the points you're trying to make.

To simply assume that a bailiff taking a vehicle and levying that vehicle will render any hire purchase agreement void is utter nonsense. Whilst some agreements might have a clause stating that the debtor will be in breach of contract if the vehicle is levied, that does not mean that the finance company will automatically cancel the agreement.

If the debtor is upto date on all payments, then I highly doubt any finance company would cancel the agreement based on that breach alone. Chances are the finance company will simply follow the relevant procedure to recover their asset, and invoice all costs to the bailiff, whilst giving the debtor the car back.

Finance companies would rather stand by their customer, then a bailiff trying his luck.

A bailiff has no idea how much finance is left on a vehicle, and there is no way to find out. Firstly, they can not contact the finance company for a finance statement of account because this is contrary to the data protection act, and secondly, the debtor has no obligation to show the bailiff any account statement. Simply showing a contractual document that says the vehicle is on hire purchase, and is property of the finance company should be sufficient.

But hey, if a bailiff fancies trying their luck, then be my guest, hopefully this silly judgement can be thrown in the bin. And as the lowest court, the county court judgment means nothing in respect to the wider picture.

Dodgeball, with all due respect, I fail to understand the points you're trying to make.

 

To simply assume that a bailiff taking a vehicle and levying that vehicle will render any hire purchase agreement void is utter nonsense. Whilst some agreements might have a clause stating that the debtor will be in breach of contract if the vehicle is levied, that does not mean that the finance company will automatically cancel the agreement.

 

If the debtor is upto date on all payments, then I highly doubt any finance company would cancel the agreement based on that breach alone. Chances are the finance company will simply follow the relevant procedure to recover their asset, and invoice all costs to the bailiff, whilst giving the debtor the car back.

 

Finance companies would rather stand by their customer, then a bailiff trying his luck.

 

A bailiff has no idea how much finance is left on a vehicle, and there is no way to find out. Firstly, they can not contact the finance company for a finance statement of account because this is contrary to the data protection act, and secondly, the debtor has no obligation to show the bailiff any account statement. Simply showing a contractual document that says the vehicle is on hire purchase, and is property of the finance company should be sufficient.

 

But hey, if a bailiff fancies trying their luck, then be my guest, hopefully this silly judgement can be thrown in the bin. And as the lowest court, the county court judgment means nothing in respect to the wider picture.

Firstly it was BA that first mentioned the termination thing, not that i do not fully agree with her. As for your comment about lenders standing by their customers, sorry not sure which planet you are referring to but it is not thtis one.

secondly i find it very unlikely that a lender would have a clause in the contact if he did not indented to use.

.

Thirdly the intent of the lender will depend on many things, the fact is that in this case the judge recognised that there was a right for termination under the agreement. and it is this particular case we are supposed to be talking about, that and wht is actually happening on the street as we speak.

The rest of your post has been covered many times on this thread, i suggest you read back.

Incidentally no one has said anything abut an agreement being void, it is or can be terminated this is not the same as it being void, basic contract law, perhaps you should read up a little before you start calling peoples comments nonsense.

Sorry really not discussing any more irrelevancies on here, or things that have already been discussed, so unless there is anything new, or I have any new information i will not respond further.

I am unsubscribing , i am sure someone will pm me if anything of note is discussed , cheerio.

Hi

I received an email from the FCA this afternoon regarding my query about if the protected goods status should protect the goods from seizure. I wanted to now if the order of the court mentioned in the act can be replaced with the order which the bailiff uses to enforce under the TCE, this was the disappointing response.

Dear ,

 

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry I misunderstood your question.

 

According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 at any time when—

 

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

 

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

 

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

 

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

 

As you can see the Act makes provisions for court orders to allow bailiffs to take control of goods on hire purchase. Any decision made by the court will over rule ours and I can’t comment or give an opinion about this matter.

 

 

I hope this clarifies our position.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Jacqueline Renner-Thomas

 

Associate/CCC/Authorisations Division

I had a feeling this may be the case as stated earlier in this thread.

Dodgeball,

i am no expert so please forgive my ignorance but??

Surly the reference to:

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

That is in relation to section 90(1) CCA 1974

That is the creditor cannot seize protected goods if a third has been paid except through the creditor seeking a return of goods order from the court when in breach of that finance agreement

Case law does not take precedent over statute

Confused.com

Dodgeball,

 

i am no expert so please forgive my ignorance but??

 

Surly the reference to:

 

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

That is in relation to section 90(1) CCA 1974

 

That is the creditor cannot seize protected goods if a third has been paid except through the creditor seeking a return of goods order from the court when in breach of that finance agreement

 

Case law does not take precedent over statute

 

Confused.com

Yes i agree with you and it was this contention that i put to the FCA, however they seem to believe that this would apply to any court order in relation to the goods of the debtor.

Keeping in mind that this was y third attempt to get a coherent response form them , all they seem concerned about is that they are not seen to prejudice any court case that may have ruled on the subject.

As regards the statute, it is not of course the creditor who is seeking to take the goods.

Anyway a bit new data to throw into the mix.

Incidentally thias is what i actually wrote earlier on this thread

Sorry really not discussing any more irrelevancies on here, or things that have already been discussed, so unless there is anything new, or I have any new informationn i will not respond further.

I am unsubscribing , i am sure someone will pm me if anything of note is discussed , cheerio.

seems some have difficult in reading what is written, may explain the nonsense they write.

Also excellent idea regarding separating the discussion threads.

I apologise if this has already been covered but i am not reading through 9 pages of arguing / bickering

Want to know if this goods can still be sold if on finance would also apply to cars with a log book loan on them

I apologise if this has already been covered but i am not reading through 9 pages of arguing / bickering

 

Want to know if this goods can still be sold if on finance would also apply to cars with a log book loan on them

Good question. Does it depend on the terms of the loan ? Wonder how a EO reacts when there is a large log book loan on a vehicle, as surely it would affect how easy it could be sold ?

The general consensus is that it is a grey area

That is my own opinion as i know nothing on Bailiff law and enforcement, only quoting current statute

Where that statute seems to conflict with recent lower court judgements that do not set precedent , i will always default to statute.

But that is just me, you will have to make your own balanced judgement until this has gone to the high Court through an appeal and legal precedent/case law set

Good question. Does it depend on the terms of the loan ? Wonder how a EO reacts when there is a large log book loan on a vehicle, as surely it would affect how easy it could be sold ?

I asked my mate who works for marstons he didnt know either. He did say the vast majority of EA's would blag it and give the impression they could and would take it but ultimetly leave it if push came to shove.

Reason i asked is because a fmotl posted a vid recently - went in to a logbook loan company asked for 250 over 3 yrs. with interest would mean it was approx 330 quid. Offered to give company 300 cash and pay £1 a month for 3 years. Obviously we know why.