Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

VT - Startline motor finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2134 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

Currently have a car on finance with Startline, agreement started in Nov 2014, car was £7400, 57 reg Seat Alhambra, total payable being £10800.

 

Fast forward a few years to now, growing family and the car is no longer suitable, not enough boot space when using all 7 seats, so have looked around and found something bigger.

 

Finance sorted and all good to go, BUT the valuation on the Alhambra is now £1000 less than settlement figure, hence wanting to VT.

I am well over the 50% mark, closer to 2/3 of the total.

 

From reading various forums and sites, there seems to be varying timescales to offer when notifying the finance companies of VT, I've seen 14 days, 7 days and 0 days,

 

is there any requirement to give them any notice or could I write/email and terminate the agreement immediately?

I only ask as the next payment is due in 7 days.

 

Thank you.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no time limit

 

you are over 50% you don't need to pay further

 

from my notes:

 

Section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act gives the debtor the right to terminate a hire purchase agreement,

simply by giving written notice of termination.

.

The right to terminate applies at any time before the final payment becomes due, unless the creditor has already terminated.

.

contrary to the line taken by many finance companies,

.

the debtor need not have paid half the total amount payable,

.

and nor do they have to pay any arrears,

.

before exercising the right to terminate.

.

Sections 99 and 100 set out the debtor's liability on voluntary termination. The sections are complex,

.

but their main effect can be summarised in brief as follows.

.

.If the sum of payments made and arrears before termination exceeds 50% of the total price,

than the debtor is only liable to pay the arrears.

.

Otherwise, the debtor is liable to pay half the total price, less any payments already made.

.

so the debtor can terminate at any time if he has reached the 50 % mark

.

the debtor can terminate at any time before the 50 % mark but would be liable for payments still to reach the 50 % mark,

.

does not matter if the account is in arrears at the time or request to do a voluntary termination.

.

you need to specifically nail them down that this is a VT and NOT a VS [volutary surrender].

 

dont get caught out!!

 

take extensive photos of the car inside and out

and underneath and in the engine compartment ALWAYS.

 

if they try and charge a repo fee or collection fee they cannot:

 

173 Contracting-out forbidden.

 

(1)A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

 

This term is covered by the above section of the CCA 1974 in that it breaches this:

 

99 Right to terminate hire-purchase etc. agreements.

 

(1)At any time before the final payment by the debtor under a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement falls due, the debtor shall be entitled to terminate the agreement by giving notice to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement

 

In other words nothing can stop you voluntarily terminating.

 

The only charges you must pay are the ones contained in the legislation and itemised in section 101, the charge mentioned is levied after the agrement is terminated and is void in any case. All it means is that no one will collect the terminated car(their car), well that is ther problem it is no longer yours , your attachment to the car has been terminated.

.

although dependant on the way your agreement is written, they can charge excess mileage

.

this has been accepted at county courticon level, but afaik has not been tested in a higher court

..

..............example letter..ADAPT TO SUIT.............

.

You must vt under s99/100 cca1974. do not sign any of their forms, or agree to pay anything.

.

The car has just to be in reasonable condition for its age.

 

If you have paid in excess of 50%,

with no arrears there will be nothing to pay.

.

Send them the following letter,

they MUST action your request,

you should endeavour to be present at the vehicle inspection---

.

VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT UNDER S99/100 CCA 1974

.

Account No: (xxxxxxx)

.

 

Dear Sir,

I am writing to notify you that I am exercising my right to terminate the above Agreement

under Section 99 of the consumer credit act1974.

.

You will understand that the aforementioned section permits the debtor to terminate the agreement

at any time before the last payment is due.

.

There is no restriction regarding the exercising this statutory right,

particularly none in respect of any perceived arrears or monies due on termination

.

I understand that I shall be liable to you for the amount calculated under the formula in Section 100

of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

.

**As I have/have not paid more than the amount calculated under the formula in Section 100 the amount due is £XXXX/zero.

.

The above agreement will be terminated 14 days from the date of this notice.

.

Please send me details of how the vehicle can be returned to you.

.

You will be aware that statute prevents you from levying a charge for the recovery of this vehicle;

guidelines also state that if you require me to deliver this vehicle

it must be no more than a short (reasonable distance) from my registered address.

.

Please confirm receipt of this request in writing within 7 days of receipt.

.

-Yours etc...

..

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Having VT'd on 18th May, which they accepted, they are now chasing me for the May payment which was due on the 21st May.

I'm still waiting for their collection agent to make arrangements to collect the vehicle,

 

having spoken to Startline on the phone earlier,

they've tried telling me I'm still liable for the vehicle until they've collected it and I still have to make the payments until then!

 

I queried them on it, told them that as far as I was aware, my liability for the vehicle ended on the day I VT'd, therefore so did my requirement to make payment. They disagreed with this and informed me I am now in arrears and would affect my credit file!

 

So where do I go from here?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant re write the consumer credit act

I have hi lighted the relevant section of post 2.

no they cannot mark your credit file

 

you terminated 3 days before due payment and you are already well past 50% mark.

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

Choosing to Voluntary terminate your finance agreement will not affect your credit rating. It may however be marked on your file as V or VT, showing that you have chosen to end the agreement early using this process. This mark is visible to other lenders and could impact a future applications for this type of credit.

 

Multiple VTs could result in refusal for credit or a higher interest rate. We’d like to hear from you if you’ve experienced this first hand.

 

As long as you have taken reasonable care of your vehicle, you should not be charged anything further when it’s handed back. The vehicle needs to be returned in “reasonable” condition and therefore some wear and tear should be expected

 

It’s not uncommon that lenders will try and charge a collection fee for a vehicle. You are not liable for any collection charges, these must be met by the lender.

 

When you voluntary terminate your agreement you are essentially handing back the car. You will not receive any further payments i.e. your deposit back.

 

The Consumer Credit Act states that once you have invoked your right to terminate under sec99, lender’s cannot impose any further liability which includes charging for collection of the vehicle or any excess mileage charges.

 

The vehicle will need to be returned in “reasonable” condition, taking into account wear and tear.

 

The right to VT your finance agreement is written in law. Your finance company can not prevent you taking this option as long as you have paid back over 50% of the total amount due.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The saga continues! T

I'm still receiving emails, letters and text messages informing me my payments are overdue, and that I've been charged £15 for a letter telling me I'm in default.

 

I've spoken to them and they claim it's the 'system' generating the letters and not to worry etc etc.

 

I've also received their damage appraisal in which they claim there is £1800 of damage to be rectified!

 

I have disputed this, as I feel a lot of what they have listed falls into fair wear and tear.

 

They've listed all four wheels as needing repair due to scuffs and corrosion, yet on the auction report for potential buyers the wheels are said to be in reasonable condition.

 

There are various things they've listed, from needing a valet, through to various scratches, and a headlight (didnt need a headlight when it left here, and at the most it would have needed a bulb, it had a HID kit retrofitted).

 

Its an 11 year old people carrier and it sounds to me as if they expected the car to be presented in showroom condition.

 

I'm not sure if Startline are aware the car is being held at an auction site about 20 miles from where I live, so it won't be too much of a problem for me to go and inspect the car if need be.

 

Hopefully this has worked, both the auction report and Startline's damage appraisal should both have uploaded.

VendorReport.pdf

2018-JUN-13$6428110.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
Merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you've not been talking on the phone??

Dont

You owe nothing more

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

no more talking writing only

they are not entitled to anything

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...