Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Car Cash point - 2 loans - 2 X Bill of Sale - legal?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2816 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Good morning,

 

I have found that my wife has taken two loans out with Car Cashpoint, one in 2012 and the second last year 2014.

 

I have checked the agreements and Bill of sales and they appear all correct and registered.

I have seen on here that the issuing of 2 bill of sales is legally not correct and maybe fraudulent.

 

Can I ask why please?

They did not clear the first account with the second loan just gave a top up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you sign a bill of sale, you effectively transfer ownership of your vehicle to the logbook loan co

 

It wouldtherefore not be possible to effect a transfer to a different company by way of a BOS as it is no longer your car

 

As these loans were with the same LBL co, no technical challenge would be possible

 

Where are you as regards your specific problem with the loan eg default , repo etc

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ho and thanks for the reply.

 

She is in arrears and is considering giving the car up.

 

 

I have identified some irregularities with the accounts in that when she was paying they were only crediting to one account, on the second account they were adding charges for non payment.

 

 

When these issues were identified they completed internal transfers but only to interest and not paying anything back to the principal sum. Also they did not remove the charges.

 

Saw posts from applekart in 2010 that said about the multiple bill of sales running concurrently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

under the cca code, she can of course hand the car back, in full and final settlement of all liabilities but this is not a legal right

 

you can of course do a formal complaint as regards the payments and charges, which could be forwarded to the fos if rejected

 

I would not recommend time and money spent on legal challenges as regards lbl,s, highly complex and unlikely to suceed

 

if you have been issued with a compliant default notice you need to reach an agreeement with the lbl co as regards agreed repayments

 

in order to avoid the car being repossessed

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

She has entered a formal complaint regarding the charges and account mismanagement and also mis-selling of the second loan as they gave this even though the first account, although up to date at the time, had shown late payments and charges and therefore query due diligence on responsible lending.

She has also requested written confirmation that if the vehicle is surrendered that it would be full and final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all,

 

Would appreciate thoughts on below letter sent to Car Cashpoint reference issues regarding 2 loans taken out by my wife, she is currently in dispute with them. Do the issues raised have any mileage or am I just wasting my time. If can do anything, how should I follow up as fairly sure they will come back with a standard reply?

 

 

Dear Mr ......,

 

Re: Agreements number ...... and ......

 

Thank you for your written response, dated 13th October, to my letter of complaint.

 

I note your comments regarding the complaint of irresponsible lending and your statement that "payment history on this agreement was also extremely good with no significant concerns whatsoever". The statements you have provided show that there were 9 missed payments on the account and 6 late charges levied on the account at the inception of the new loan. Also as of 13th February 2013 an agreement was reached, with yourselves, to increase weekly payments to £30 to bring the account up to date.

 

Additionally when loan reference ......., for the sum of £460, was started the existing loan, reference...... was indeed in credit by £240.27 due to the continued over payment that had been agreed to clear the arrears. You had continued to accept over payment which resulted in no 'benefit' to me as a customer and by issuing and allowing a new loan were in fact re-lending over 50% of this loan to me of my own monies and charging me interest for that privilege. Had you offered to either suspend payments until such time the account was back in balance or indeed returned the over payments this may have been enough for me to not require further lending. At 16/05/2014 the account actually reached a credit balance of £255.14.

In light of these facts I believe your lending decision on agreement number ...... was unfair, irresponsible and did not show due diligence and therefore is in breach of CCTA and Consumer Credit lending guidelines. This is also in breach of section 7.2 of the loan terms and conditions and is an unfair and deceitful contract.

 

I note regarding charges applied to the account when payments were made your comment that these will be manually removed, however you do not state which charges are to be removed and I would therefore request you provide full details and an updated statement of account showing these changes.

With regard to the statements provided, these are incomplete statements not showing amount loaned or interest payable. Further they do not show amounts outstanding pursuant to section 77B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as stated in the fixed sum loan agreements. They only show installment due, payments made and charges applied. I therefore request full and correct statement of accounts for both loan ref: ...... and .......

 

I note that you, in your response, have not addressed the issue of allocation of payments. I also note that your terms and conditions do not state how payments will be applied. I further note that the copies of terms and conditions you have supplied are incomplete with section 7.1 not detailed in full.

On the following dates statements show that the outstanding balance has been brought up to date with the account at a zero balance yet no reduction of the principal amount has been applied;

Loan ......

19/05/2014, 23/06/2014.

 

Loan ......

24/12/2014 - this payment actually took the account into a credit position.

 

If all outstanding payments have been brought up to date it is logical, as payments due include interest and principal repayment, to expect to see co-responding reductions recorded to both interest and the principal amounts.

 

Taking account of the above issues I believe there is sufficient evidence of financial mismanagement of the accounts and believe that account ........ amounts to an unfair contract that was completed deceitfully and was an irresponsible lending decision.

 

I look forward to your early response and suggested remedies to the issues raised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

would need to see all the docs,agreements and statements to be able to comment

 

wait and see what they come back with

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

An update on this one.

 

 

Sadly wife's complaint was not upheld and an agreement on payments was made.

 

New question,

the first loan taken out - is now complete in that all principal and interest has been paid back.

 

 

There is however late charges outstanding of £168.

 

 

Does the bill of sale still apply to this as she is currently setting up an IVA

and if it is not then would include those charges as an unsecured debt on the IVA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

late charges are a PENALTY and unlawful under FCA rules.

 

 

get reclaiming them back

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive merged your old thread on this to

it has more history

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill of sale irrelevant if they have realised their security , the dispute would be regarding the associated credit agreement

 

However as said before would need to see docs and agreement in order to comment

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...