A slight aside, but potentially interesting to you all. Check out the decision in Yeoman Credit, Ltd. v. Waragowski

 

There have been arguments that the 50% rule *could* still be excerised post-default. There was a great deal of discussion at the time; I really don't know if anything came of it.

100 Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc. agreement.

(1)Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

(2)Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the “installation charge ”) the reference in subsection (1) to one-half of the total price shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one-half of the remainder of the total price.

(3)If in any action the court is satisfied that a sum less than the amount specified in subsection (1) would be equal to the loss sustained by the creditor in consequence of the termination of the agreement by the debtor, the court may make an order for the payment of that sum in lieu of the amount specified in subsection (1).

(4)If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention, and subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly.

(5)Where the debtor, on the termination of the agreement, wrongfully retains possession of goods to which the agreement relates, then, in any action brought by the creditor to recover possession of the goods from the debtor, the court, unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances it would not be just to do so, shall order the goods to be delivered to the creditor without giving the debtor an option to pay the value of the goods.

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.

(2)Termination of an agreement under subsection (1) does not affect any liability under the agreement which has accrued before the termination.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a conditional sale agreement relating to land after the title to the land has passed to the debtor.

(4)In the case of a conditional sale agreement relating to goods, where the property in the goods, having become vested in the debtor, is transferred to a person who does not become the debtor under the agreement, the debtor shall not thereafter be entitled to terminate the agreement under subsection (1).

(5)Subject to subsection (4), where a debtor under a conditional sale agreement relating to goods terminates the agreement under this section after the property in the goods has become vested in him, the property in the goods shall thereupon vest in the person (the “previous owner ”) in whom it was vested immediately before it became vested in the debtor:

Provided that if the previous owner has died, or any other event has occurred whereby that property, if vested in him immediately before that event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the property shall be treated as having devolved as if it had been vested in the previous owner immediately before his death or immediately before that event, as the case may be.

My position is the same as yours

I am doing a Degree course and claiming ESA

ESA50 IS for ATOS, so no harm in mentioning it

The only time studying at home is if you are on JSA, and the studying takes you above 15 hours a week

In my opinion ATOS will not take any notice of your condition, the ESA50 is there to see what work you can do with limitations, even if that means pushing a button, you will be deemed fit to do that work

Legislation may have changed, so if it has please give a link to the regulations that state a vehicle can be returned back to the dealer who sold the vehicle, who in-turn deals with a finance company when a VT is involved

I myself have had a total of four cars which i have done a voluntary termination after reaching the half way point

On one occasion they came and collected the vehicle from my home address

A second time the finance company told me to take it to a dealership 30 miles away

The remaining two occasions i was told to take the vehicle direct to a designated auction house

On each occasion of doing a VT, i had to inform the finance company in writing direct, and give them 14 days to comply with my request. Not once did i have to contact a dealership. The finance company told me that the only exception would be if the finance company had a contract with the car dealership and i was purchasing a new vehicle from that dealership.

As stated, i know no difference but a link to the legislation to support your reasoning Dodgeball would be nice about surrendering the vehicle to a motor trader direct with a VT will put this to bed. I am asking for educational reasons to advise future posters, not through any point scoring nonsense

The average fine is £175 with £50 costs which go to victim support

if there is a next time, slam the door on these wanabe cops

your only fault was in conversing with them

And totally unlawful

What is needed is finding out who is telling Briton JC to adopt this stance

TELLING AN INDIVIDUAL IS ONE THING

PUTTING IT IN WRITING IS EVIDENCE

Lets sort this out

To reject the vehicle of unsatisfactory condition is done under Part II Section 14 SOGA

By supplying a dodgy motor, the trader will be in breach of contract

Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987 has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault

The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. (Scott and Scott v Blade Motor Company 1997.)

Rogers v Parrish 1987 has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund,

If a product that was not of satisfactory quality at the time of the sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer is entitled to a full refund if it is within a reasonable time of the sale,

Darren Egan vs. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (18 October 2007) is a Court of Appeal case which saw the consumer who attempted to reject his vehicle lose out dramatically.

The legal expenditure of both parties was around £100,000

Lord Justice Ward to exclaim: "...one or other parties to the action, if not both of them..." were "...completely cuckoo.

These matters that you describe are totally insignificant to any major problems. If the dealer fails to correct the issues raised then you can reject the vehicle and claim a refund

Being blunt, you will be "cuckoo" to bring any claim to the courts without giving the dealer an opportunity to fix the defects

Makes you wonder though

How much worse is it going to get, i think only the tip of the iceberg so far, It is now middle income workers who will be subjected to this draconian governments actions

When will people start saying enough is enough and stop acting like sheep, that other guy who this is now HAPPENING TO, IS YOU

Confusing i know

i think the cpr 15.5 request is now relevant as they are ignoring the op

QUOTE

I was just very puzzled that the OP was being advised to send CPR 15.5 - request for more time on the 10/11 June ??

Agreed, the op would have only just received the claim form

I agree

just seeking confirmation for future threads

Claim issued 6/06/2013

Claim acknowledged

No supporting documents received yet from Hagarty

CPR 31.14 has been sent and received by Hagarty 10/06/2013

Slick132

I was thinking along the lines that a DCA gets a CCJ and rushes through a Charging order on her 50% of the property if they realise she will not be with us for much longer

Will they be guaranteed her share of any future equity if the charging order is obtained before her demise, or will the charging order terminate with a death certificate

I will start the ball moving on this, YOUR EMPLOYER IS BANG OUT OF ORDER

If your employer wanted to reduce your hours then they should have consulted you. They should have told you if this would be a temporary or permanent move

Taking on a new employee two weeks previous, now stating they are lowering your contractual hours is grounds for a disagreement

You need to raise a grievance as to why your hours are being reduced, yet a new employee is being taken on

If that fails then i would consider a claim to the Employment Tribunal Service

This smacks as a definite Constructive Dismissal claim, and i do not say that very often

But you must raise a grievance first

REMEMBER TO RAISE AN EMPLOYMENT CLAIM,

It must be done three months less one day from the time your contract has been changed

Registry trust (FOR A FEE)

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trustonline.org.uk%2F&ei=w-fJUcTzLu7w0gWku4GICg&usg=AFQjCNGfz1bOOlkvhrCCpLiz2-k0kpD24w&bvm=bv.48293060,d.d2k

It seems the British government is extending this government gateway address past Universal Jobs Match.

Even MCOL is asking for a gateway address. Who next, DVLA, Passport, etc, etc

My question is on what servers will this data be secured on?

Is it monster world wide who administer the UJM site?

Some sort of confirmation will be nice

Two things TV licence (aka Capita) will not tell you, and that they have to secure to gain a conviction.

Mens Rea and Actus Reus

That is why an individuals own mouth is there own worst enemy

Again, i do not wish to sound i have a heart of stone

If some accounts are with a DCA

They might wish to try and secure the debt with a rush CCJ and charging order if they know you have equity in owning a property, in equity or not, and may not be with us for to much longer

Call me cynical, but experience has taught me to watch my back

In court procedure, you send any documents to either the claimant direct, or the claimants solicitor

All correspondents to be relied upon will be on the n1 court claim where to send

I will retire now as i do not wish to confuse as Andy is dealing with this

If welcome are the claimant, the above is irrelevant anyway

No

Everything through IND except things like an SAR, PPI/charges reclaim etc

Anything to do with financial obligations go through IND as they are administering the account

Have a look at the warranty exclusions, it will surprise you, everything excluded except Global Thermal Nuclear War

How much did the charge for this warranty

All on finance i bet

No

All it means is that welcome have delegated the administration of its accounts to IND.

Even though IND are a debt collection outfit

IND cannot issue default notice/termination, charge any fees etc that are not in the original agreement

It just means IND cant issue court claims in their own name unless a notice of assignment has been sent, which is irrelevant as no accounts have been assigned

Pads yes, BUT IF WORN AT POINT OF SALE, NEEDED TO BE REPLACED

The disks no

They needed to be replaced at point of sale if they were in such a bad condition

How did it get through the MOT

Who did the MOT may i ask??

Check out a past board member of cattles plc as well

May i ask a question on this warranty, did you get charged extra for this warranty

How long is this warranty over

You do realise any faults will be covered under the Sale of Goods Act and any extra warranty offered by car-craft will be extra

If any faults occurred withing six months of purchase, car craft will be accountable as they will be seen as inherent when you purchased the vehicle (SOGA)

Also the SOGA gives protection after six months

It goes on the value paid and reasonable life expectancy of the vehicle

Wear and tear such as break shoes, etc will be exempt though