Guys, I need help. If someone buys a motorcycle from another person in good faith and for value and with no knowledge of any encumbrances or interests vested in the property to another person, and then it subsequently transpires that the person who sold it (but not the thief) did not have legal title to the motorcycle as per section 21 SOGA 1979, can the latest buyer be deemed as equity's darling similar to the bona fide purchaser of property for value in good faith and without knowledge in land law? Regards, Deano

Would they seriously take the amount from my cash account? They haven't done this despite numerous letters over the past year. Deano

Rebel11, Thank you for your advice. It is most appreciated. I will send the SB letter. Deano

I had a loan with Halifax PLC over 15 years ago for £3000 and as far as I was aware I had paid it all off. I did not close my current account, but rather used another bank to do my banking. About 3 years ago I reverted back to the Halifax and within the last year I have received correspondence advising that there is an outstanding amount. Due to the Halifax adding interest, this amount now stands at £824.79 and I have received correspondence today advising that if this amount is not paid, legal action may be commenced. Correct me if I am wrong, but as this would appear to be a breach of contract, are the Halifax not limited to issuing proceedings within a maximum period of 6 years and if they do not, then they cannot enforce recovery of this outstanding amount? Could anyone please advise as I have no idea as to why they did not commence this action years ago. Thanks

Thanks Martin.

So as not to fall foul of section 15 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a credit hire company will draft its agreement so that the bailment of goods under that agreement does not exceed 3 months. However, my question is this. If the credit-hire company permits the hirer to keep the goods for longer than 3 months, can it simply ask the hirer to sign further separate agreements not exceedings 3 months and successfully recover the entire amount from a third party insurer?

Dear All, I have it on good authority that I can claim back a refund/allowance due to purchasing specialised tools for my work, which my employer has not paid for and for which I receive no financial relief from my employer. These have all been paid for from my own funds. Does anyone have any advice as to how I go about this? I am not referring to the paltry £100-£150 relief given each year on buying tools, but rather a refund on the thousands of pounds spent over the past few years. Thanks

Sorry. This Thread Was Duplicated!

That is great news and a great moral victory. I have been reclaiming an abundance of CDWs recently, so it appears the ignorance is now being replaced with an appreciation of the law !

Hi Mossycat, Please do keep me updated on the progress of your claim. Do you have a trial window? Did you issue online using the moneyclaim service? Let me know if you require a copy of Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 3559 (Comm). Deano

Mossy, I utilise this argument in my negotiations with insurance companies. It never fails because it is the law. Certain people who look at the scenario from the wrong angle assume that CDWs are betterment, but that is simply incorrect due to what I have explained. Good luck with proceedings and remember Marcic v Davis and Bee v Jenson

Upon receiving a hire vehicle a customer is not in the same position after the accident as he/she was before. He/She is not on his/her own vehicle, but the hire company's. He/She is obliged to return the hire vehicle in the same condition as he/she had received it. Were his/her own bike damaged, he/she could have deferred repairs, performed his/her own repairs or not even bothered with repairs. These courses of action would not have been options with a hire vehicle. Should the customer be responsible for damage to the hire vehicle, he/she would be subject not only to a claim for repair costs, but also loss of use profit whilst the vehicle is out of use. By causing the customer to utilise a hire vehicle the third party has exposed him/her to risks which he/she did not previously face. Therefore, nil excess he/she achieves by result of paying a Collision Damage Waiver is a reasonable arrangement, consequential on the third party's negligence. The issue of recovery of payments for Collision Damage Waivers has been decided upon by the Court of Appeal in the unreported case of Marcic v Davies (1985), where the Court held that the claimant who hired a replacement vehicle and paid the waiver fee to achieve a nil excess was entitled to recover that fee since if there had been no collision the claimant would “never have come under any contractual liability to the hire company. It was entirely reasonable that he should pay the waiver fee to cover himself against contractual liability which he would otherwise never have been under” – per Lord Justice Brown Wilkinson. Please also see Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 3559 (Comm) pp 15,16. I trust this assists.

Thanks guys. I am actually dealing on behalf of 10 colleagues at work and have secured payment for 6 of them already. I am legally trained so it has been relatively easy but the waiting has been the hardest part. SCM have stated that the only reason they are settling WOP is because they do not wish to pre-empt a decision from a judge over claims which aren't worth a great deal as the banks are in discussion with the OFT and hope to have these charges vindicated. I don't think so, but nice try. Good luck to all of you awaiting payment. It will happen..FACT !!!!

SCM settled my claim in full on the day the Court had ordered us to serve evidence on each other. £2000 richer and well worth the wait.

Thanks Trish