Jump to content

Let Them Knock

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Let Them Knock

  1. I really don't want to argue with anyone else's opinion on the point of repossessing from private land. I speak from experience - two seperate cases of unlawful repossession where cars were taken from ungated driveways (albeit both several years ago). In both cases the car was returned without anyone going to court. In one case the car was lawfully repossessed about three days later. The agreement had been breached (by the unlawful repossession), the breach was rectified (by the car's return) and then lawfully repossessed.
  2. Schrodinger's cat was both alive and dead, wasn't it? That aside, as I previously said (and GarageFlower has now said), the car may not be damaged. Not all autos are when towed, and virtually all cars now have dual braking systems. However a person may NOT repossess from land which they have entered as a trespasser - open or not.
  3. As already said, repossession from private land without a court order or the landowner's permission is unlawful. Did they fail to take a payment when it was due because they stopped the direct debit before they collected the car? If they did they are in breach of the agreement by preventing you from make a payment as due and agreed. They are required to do no more damage than is necessary when recovering a car as this will reduce its value and so penalise you if it goes to auction. Of course, we don't know for sure if the transmission has been damaged. You have already learned
  4. Almost exactly the amount she still owes but she had a successful PPI re-claim paid to her directly earlier this year..
  5. Briefly: A friend owes NatWest a balance of £13k on a personal loan account from 2006. She pays them £10 a month under a self-administered DMP and interest is frozen. The account was defaulted in early 2008. A CCA request has found that the CCA is 'misfiled' and unavailable (unenforceable). She also has two other overdraft accounts (under £5k in total) which are now Statute Barred, although I haven't yet sent the SB letters. I made a F&F offer on the loan account (on her behalf) of about 16% in July which was ignored. I re-made the same offer in October which was turne
  6. SB (Statute Barred) applies to most debts, not just credit agreements. Come May 2013 it will be SB so, in you position, I would do my best to delay them and string them along but, as Brig says, your choice. Just remember, any payment or written acknowledgement of the debt will start the six-year-clock again.
  7. No chance you have used 'cheque cashing' and a cheque you paid in didn't clear, is there?
  8. If the agreement was made in Scotland they can only repossess with a court order, however much you have paid,
  9. She should consider herself lucky that she has the option to get the car back, albeit by paying the arrears. I think there is little or no chance of reducing the amount she will have to pay AND getting it back. She has already shown herself as a poor risk by going into arrears so why would they let her stay in arrears and give the car back? Finance companies usually only repossess as a last resort so I assume your friend has already had opportunities to discuss her problems with them and has failed to do so. I wish her good luck.
  10. Wiser heads will be along soon BUT, in the meantime DO NOT send a cheque with F&F offer. They will cash the cheque and still (legally) chase you for the balance.
  11. I take it Advantage have not been back in touch yet? There are very limited circumstances in which they can repossess a car and, to the best of my knowledge, only one that allows them to do it without going through a set process including contacting you first. That one is: if they genuinely believe the vehicle is at risk. Examples of this are: it was about to be taken abroad, about to be sold-on, about to be stolen (rung-up), it was obtained by fraud, etc. It sounds that they are in breach of their agreement with you for no good reason. From what you have said about the car, it
  12. Excellent links, thanks Bandit. The bits that 'jump out' at me are: Failing to make the debtor fully aware of the status of the debt where: the debtor has offered a settlement payment lower than the total amount owing. This should cramp the style of those DCAs that are offering F&F on SB debts. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claims are not vali, I hope this one has some teeth in practice. Where businesses s
  13. Typical DCA bullying tactics. It is not your job to prove the debt is statute barred it is their job to prove it isn't.
  14. In the absence of other information, I am going to hazard a guess here: Perhaps Advantage have contacted the dealer and told him to repair the car and he sent out the collection truck for it. The driver has thrown you some bull-poo about repossession and paying the balance, etc cos his boss is peed-off with having to repair the car. Like I said, just a guess. You are not in default of your agreement and the car isn't 'at-risk' so, if Advantage have 'repossessed' it they are in breach of the agreement. As far as fraud is concerned (personally I think it is nonsense), if they belie
  15. Unbelievable - you couldn't make it up could you? Sounds like they are digging themselves into a huge hole. Just as well you retained the original inspection certificate. Did they give you any paperwork when they 'repossessed' the car?.
  16. Five weeks since the first post, several replies and still no second post! Sounds like the OP didn't hear what he wanted to hear and hasn't had the decency to acknowledge the advice given.
  17. Well, they can close him down, bring prosecutions, etc. DTI are the big boys in this game, if they get involved you can be sure Trading Standards, OFT, etc will soon be on the bandwagon too. Your MP is the person to get involved though, especially if you can unearth a few other cases or get some publicity that may bring some to light. He/she can take it up directly with the DTI. Not related to your case at all but look here to see what the did with a business just up the road in Ashington - http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/2002/02/01/director-convicted-of-bogus-hol
  18. Looks like he makes a living from doing exactly this Director Check shows: Director Summary Allen Young has 4 current or previous company director or secretary appointments. Short name - Allen Young Director ID : 914707133 Year of Birth: 1981 Address 1 Pickersgill Court Quay West Sunderland Tyne And Wear SR5 5DF Company Summary Company NameCompany Status ANDERSON REUTERS (UK) LLP
  19. Can't argue with that, it just weakens the SB argument a bit.
  20. Err, there is a CCJ on this debt, isn't there?
  21. Hard for the dealer to claim no knowledge as he filled in the v5c with one name and the v5c2 with a different name. Close are not fools, and it won't be the first time they have encountered this scenario. Also, let's remember that the payments have been made on under this agreement so any fraud here would have to be committed by the dealer, fraud needs intent and (potential) gain. IF the two friends did this without the dealer's knowledge (which I seriously doubt) the worst charge they could face would be gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (and the associated conspiracy, per
  22. Update: I received a telephone call from NatWest (Birmingham) today. The helpful gentleman refused the F&F offer of £2100 because my friend is currently paying £10 a month (and for the next 112 years at this rate). He did say that Fredrickson are now out of the loop. He then asked me if my friend has any 'medical issues' that would help him to reconsider the offer. As it happens she has. He asked for a doctor's letter confirming this. A couple of questions: 1. Has anyone any experience of NatWest taking medical conditions into account in considering a F&F, please
  23. It is the dealer who is deep in the cakky here. Two honest friends approach a motor dealer with a problem and seek his professional advice. He gives it and they follow it. He is obliged to be honest with them (CPUTR 2008) but he isn't. There is no fraud by the two honest friend because there is no INTENT to defraud. The dealer has defrauded Close by submitting a dishonest application - they WILL nail him for the amount they paid out to him - about that have no doubt. That will give them their money back so they should then refund to the other party (your honest friend) all payme
  • Create New...