You can't be traced, if there is nothing on any database. It would have to be a mobile anpr trace which would be very lucky of them. They might not even know about the car, as the debt is not for anything related to a car and DVLA records might not have been checked.

 

As said on the other thread, you should speak to the DRO company about this. You might be responsible for some of the HCEO fees and can include them in DRO. I am not sure all of the HCEO fees would be automatically cancelled, if they stopped enforcement, because they could not get you to pay. Hence why DRO company should be aware of situation.

+1

You can't be traced, if there is nothing on any database. It would have to be a mobile anpr trace which would be very lucky of them. They might not even know about the car, as the debt is not for anything related to a car and DVLA records might not have been checked.

 

As said on the other thread, you should speak to the DRO company about this. You might be responsible for some of the HCEO fees and can include them in DRO. I am not sure all of the HCEO fees would be automatically cancelled, if they stopped enforcement, because they could not get you to pay. Hence why DRO company should be aware of situation.

+2

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

Hi steve

I am sure some one will be along with a more definitive response but it may help you to read the

following thread.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest.

Regards

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

Steve start a new thread

And tell us the full story

Quick answer is no

As its not yours

But start a new thread anyway

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

Steve

I think the thread you have been directed to quite an old one. There has been a lot happening on this over the last 12 months, you really are best starting your own thread so that people can give the up to date information. In the mean time do not risk it and hide your car if the bailiff is due to call.

All nonsense posts removed......

Regards

Andy

Hi steve

I am sure some one will be along with a more definitive response but it may help you to read the

following thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest.

The above thread and the subject matter, (vehicles subject to finance/HP can be taken into control by an enforcement agent if there is a 'beneficial interest) is of vital importance. Another debtor is currently arguing the 'beneficial interest' point in court. It may well be that I will be updating the above thread very soon.

I'm unsure why this post is repeatedly removed? The only point I am making is the case referred to above is not a precedent setting case as it is in a lower court. This means the critical issue of beneficial interest will not be determined one way or another by the judgment. It will remain arguable either way.

Surely it is in members' interests to be aware of this?

I am trying to word it and reword it in a way where it cannot be read as having a dig at anyone. It is simply stating information.

The above thread and the subject matter, (vehicles subject to finance/HP can be taken into control by an enforcement agent if there is a 'beneficial interest) is of vital importance. Another debtor is currently arguing the 'beneficial interest' point in court. It may well be that I will be updating the above thread very soon.

I made a very brief mention yesterday that another case regarding 'beneficial interest' is going through the court system. It is another County Court case and the outcome (when it is known) cannot of course be used as a 'precedent'. If the outcome is similar to a previous one, this will only serve to further harm all debtors whose vehicles (that are subject to finance) are seized by an enforcement agent.

If the outcome is not in favour of the enforcement company/local authority, I would strongly suspect, (although I don't know) that the importance of the subject matter, will lead to an immediate appeal being issued. A precent will therefore be set one way or another.

I intend starting a new thread today on a slightly different subject and may well refer very briefly to the subject of 'beneficial interest'. This will of course be in the 'discussion' area of the forum.

yes, v-interesting indeed.

It is interesting. What has been posted is only pretty much what I have said already, yet it was removed twice.

Purely on a point of accuracy, the precedent would only be set if there was an appeal by one side or another. As we do not know whether this will happen, we cannot state a precedent will therefore be set one way or another.

The issue of whether or not it would serve further to harm all debtors is significant, but regardless of that, debtors need to be aware of what the situation is. A discussion will be interesting reading. It will be important to ensure the information is balanced, explaining both sides of the argument so people are as informed as possible. I will read it with great interest.

As said previously the advice is simple.

If your vehicle is on HP(not a PCP of a hire contract) then treat it as if the EA can seize it .

It is far easier than having them take the vehicle and then trying to argue some technical point whilst they have your car.

 

If your vehicle is on HP (not a PCP of a hire contract) then treat it as if the EA can seize it .

And could not be simpler.

As I have said quite a few times, approx 80% of vehicles are purchased under a finance scheme and in the vast majority of these cases, the 'finance' is through a Personal Contract Plan. A PCP is not 'hire purchase' and the vehicle will be completely exempt.

There could never been a situation of a 'beneficial interest' applying to a vehicle obtained under a PCP.

Yes, it will be interesting to see the result of the current case. I agree entirely the vehicle should be kept out of the way - it is always better to play safe if there is any doubt.