Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. If you remedied DN by paying arrears in full in cleared funds by the specified date then repo would be unlawful UNLESS you are still in arrears AND a further DN has been served which has not been remedied. Your posts do suggest that you are still in arrears so this is a real possibility. If you intend to go down the route of allowing what you think is an unlawful repo to proceed (which can mean you get a full refund) it might be prudent to check if there is a further DN oustanding. Just to put to bed the argument over validity of the DN, 4.1.2 of your agreement clearly states that 2 payments in arrears is a default. It is concerning that you are not allowed to make part payments. That could be a breach by the Creditor.
  2. when you say that you cleared DN, did you clear it INSIDE the stated timeframe. If you didn't then you did NOT remedy the breach. This allows Creditor to TERMINATE the agreement. Once the termination notice is served, the agreement is irreversibly terminated. In law this cannot be undone and you owe the full amount less an allowance for the proceeds of sale of the vehicle. The Creditor then has full power to do what it wants with its vehicle. It can clamp it if it wishes to effect seizure. If the agreement is Bill of Sale they have full power to enter your property to do this. Once terminated, if you retain possession by hiding the car you are technically committing theft by depreving the true owner of his asset. The termination notice may have words to that effect - stating that you no longer have permission to use the vehicle. This wording allows the Creditor to get the car as stolen on the police national computer via the Industry funded Police Unit. You will be pulled over. You should tread very carefully. If you have an HP agreement, all of this assumes that you have paid less than a third. Did you pay by cheque or ask for a payment card like I suggested? This is a guide. It is not an extract from the CCA. CCA does nof specify when DN can be served. I have seen Counsel's Opinion that said one missed payment is not enough but two missed payments is fine.
  3. Oh, they do. Although confusion over who counts as independent. Case law says employee of company can witness in their own personal capacity. Advice I used to give was (i) salesman on the deal is likely NOT independent even if signing in own capacity; and (ii) if employee needs to witness make sure they give their home address and not business address to reinforce independence. As usual with BOS it is clouded with uncertainty. If (i) or (ii) are breached then BOS may be invalid. Probably would win at FOS if that was pleaded.
  4. Bills of Sale are notoriously difficult to get right. The TFC version has a huge defect which is a consequence I think of how they were set up with ACF providing the car and it does not sit well at all with the legislation or case law. It would need litigation to resolve whether it invalidates the BOS. I do often notice people claiming that BOS filed with Court out-of-time invalidates it. The later BOS Act allows for out-of-time filing and specifically states that if it is accepted by the Court then it is valid. These claims are bound to fail if the BOS was registered and accepted by the Court. Easier claims relate to the BOS not being in the correct form and not being properly signed and independently witnessed.
  5. Bill of Sale would be irrelevant here for two reasons (i) would not pass under the assigment of the debt from the original Creditor. So the amount assigned was unsecured at that point; and (ii) expires after 5 years anyway. The BOS and the CCA agreement are separable documents and the CCA agreement survives without the BOS.
  6. No, this one was purchased from a Dealer Group called Stoneacre. The clue is in the title to the thread.
  7. I have No Axe To Grind so I say it from both sides 1. All paperwork uploaded on here seems fully compliant with CCA. 2. The notion expressed that you have to miss 3 payments for a DN is misconceived. I have seen Counsel's Opinion that 2 missed payments is sufficient for a DN. 3. The refusal by the Creditor to take a smaller payment than that demanded is concerning. I know someone who worked at the Creditor who said he overheard Collectors saying this all the time. They were incentivised on full repayments. Apparently the FD overhead this, raised a fuss and an edict was issued to stop this practice. This is certainly detrimental to the customer and can be covered off as follows: (i) send in a cheque for the lower amount; (ii) all calls are recorded so simply say "please confirm for the recording that you are refusing to take a payment from me and that you are preventing me from repaying what I owe". Then raise a formal complaint to the Creditor referring to the recording. This should put a stop to it but if not go to FOS; (iii) ask for a payment card. This will allow you to make payments whenever you want.
  • Create New...