Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


peterbard last won the day on September 16 2010

peterbard had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,493 Excellent

About peterbard

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. HI Just to clarify. The section of the HP act ensures that an unsuspecting purchaser of a vehicle that is under an HP contract (third party) has good title transferred to them at the point of sale; in other words the HP Company cannot reclaim it. This does not apply to a Bill of sale or log book loan where the title to the goods remains with the creditor until the loan is repaid. So the creditor can take the vehicle, without a court order. The technicalities are interesting. The HP act 1965 was repealed by the consumer credit act 1974 all except this, which is contained within part three of the old act. In a conventional HP agreement title remains with the creditor until the last payment. What the act does is transfer ownership to the seller (hirer) just before the sale, thus legitimising the sale as far as the new buyer is concerned. IF the car was stolen from the hirer then sold this would not apply because the transfer of title would only be effective to the original hirer. Also the sale of the vehicle does not make the agreement unenforceable, the act states that anything within it does not alter the creditors right to pursue liabilities either through the civil or criminal courts( criminal is unlikely) . He can still issue a default notice and enforce on default of payment by the hirer. Peter
  2. I found this intersting Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, can the noble Baroness kindly tell the House what use is made by judges in England and Wales of the statutory powers vested in them that allow them to ameliorate or even to disallow conditions in a loan agreement that are unconscionably harsh upon a vulnerable borrower? Baroness Wilcox: I do not have the answer to that question today, but I will certainly look into it, write to the noble Lord and put the answer in the Library. Yes she will have a problem because there isnt any, as far as this is concerned were better served by the Money lenders act 1927. Peter
  3. HI Tawny owl. To be honest i dont know. As far as i was aware the £73 m was still ear marmed for the CU developement over the next four years. i heard about certain elements of the "Gateway initative" being withdrawn but i did not hear that the funding had been withdrawn. I will find out. I dont know if you have seen this from Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120110-0001.htm#12011050000493
  4. Hi Tawnyowl Yes it is disappointing, although the message does seem to be reaching some policy makers. The major players here are well practiced in manipulating public perception regarding these loans. They perfected their art in the states and Canada some years ago. If you look at the TV adverts for instance, stylised pastiches of smiling sixties style families or cartoon characters. It all hides the fact that these loans are targeted at people in dire financial circumstances. People who aren’t directly involved are given the impression that these are harmless financial products. Of course the numbers of people in debt will eventually force the government to do something as they have abroad, but in the mean time they are making hay whilst the sun shines. Peter
  5. HI Thanks Tawnyowl I wrote it some time ago 2008 I think, there has been legislative changes to the details since then, most of them positive, variations in the terms of loans that can be offered ,relaxation of the common bond even interest given on savings. The principles remain the same though, and they are always looking for volunteers. I found one of the few benefits of continued ill health and the inability to obtain gainful employment is that it gives you time to indulge in voluntary work, nothing better than the camaraderie created amongst people doing things that they believe in for absolutely no money IMO. Peter
  6. Hi Apologies if this has been posted before, it is from Credit Today 19 Jan. The cynical side of me suggests that their withdrawal from this market may be more a result of the poor recovery statistics on these badly documented loans than any worries about the morality of them or the “way that they are going.” “Debt collection agency Fredrickson International will stop collecting debts owed to payday lenders due to concerns about the level of complaints and regulatory scrutiny the sector is generating. The firm, part of Interlaken Group, said it will continue to service paying accounts for existing customers, but has closed its doors to any new business from payday lenders because of “grave concerns” it has about the market. The decision will apply across all its businesses, which include Credit Account Management, a subsidiary which manages whole panels of collections agencies (DCAs), in a move that places pressure on competitor firms which collect for payday lenders. Jan Michael-Lacey, sales and marketing director for Interlaken Group, told Credit Today: “We will no longer be working in the payday loans sector, as we have reservations over where the market is going. “The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is scrutinising the sector, and the volume of complaints being generated about this industry has given us grave concerns.” Lacey added that the firm would wait for further announcements around the regulation of payday loans before it considered whether to take on payday loan clients in future.”
  7. Yes you would think so in a democracy, sometime though i think our politicians sucumb to pressures that is cotrary to our best interests. I think that this was the case in the TCE bill in my opinion. I think they lost sightt of the effects of the legislation on vulnerable members of society, when presented with a distorted view of the way Bailiffs actuallly carry oiut their duties. If you read the Hansard of the passage of the bill through the house it give you an idea of the attitude of many of our representatives, this is acurately portrayed by Mr Evans letter, unfortunately. Peter
  8. HI Caro Yes it is depressing; it didn’t do a lot for my Christmas cheer. It seems that the best that our government can offer is the TCE bill. With the local authorities being hand in glove with the bailiff companies, it is difficult to see where the political will that is necessary for change can be nurtured. It will be interesting to see what form the "window dressing" will take, lets hope it is not self regulation. Can you imagine a self regulatory bailiff system armed with section 12 of the bill. Peter
  9. HI I was unable to go to this conference due to illness however Philip evens said he would let me know how he got on at the event which he did prior to the holidays . I know hw would not mind me sharing it here. Dear Peter, I’m sorry to be so long getting back to you but the rush towards Christmas has had its distractions. I remain as pessimistic about the Conference as I was on the day. During the Q&A discussion, it was clear that people were more comfortable discussing how to deal with vulnerable people than the main issues of the day, such as illegal and unethical actions more generally and LA’s wanting an ever bigger slice of the pie. I had the impression that the LA staff simply didn’t care about the issues, although the other speakers were more optimistic and thought that some of them did see the need for things to improve. That said, one of the money advisers in the audience told me that he sensed the attitude that because LAs were having a hard time they didn’t care if they gave others a hard time as well. I thought that John Kruse’s presentation of the legal environment in which LAs act went over the heads of most of the audience: it just wasn’t something they wanted to reconcile with the pressures on them to deliver. For me, the most telling thing to emerge from the Conference was Jamie Waller’s calculation that an LA wanting 10% of the gross bailiff fees (exc VAT) is in fact wanting about 50% of the net profit from the contract! I didn’t close with my prepared presentation because I let the Q&A session run on, trying to get it on to the key issues. I understand that the PowerPoint slides used by the speakers will be posted on the LADER website but I don’t know when that might happen. It is clear to me that the whole system is in a rut and nobody has any interest in lifting it out. For example, I have often heard it said that motorists who fail to notify DVLA of their change of address get all they deserve when they don’t receive the documentation and end up facing huge bailiff fees but recently I heard from someone I respect that even senior MoJ officials now share that view. (While I believe that motorists who fail to notify DVLA should have to go to some trouble to put things right, the fact remains that the legal documentation was not correctly served and the registration and warrant have to be cancelled - and one of the consequences of their failure should not be hundreds of pounds of fees.) As I’ve often said, ‘money talks’ and Government has now become so dependent on bailiffs that it won’t take any risks with the revenue they bring in. (Of course, at some stage there will be some superficial window dressing to fulfil the commitment to five greater protection against aggressive bailiffs, if the law and the economic environment in which bailiffs operate remain unchanged, things can only continue to deteriorate.) I‘m sorry that in this season of goodwill I have no good news for you. I hope you enjoy Christmas and wish you all the best for the New Year. Philip Better late than never for me as well Peter
  10. HI Yes the Downing street service has been discontinued and replaced with this http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_066327 100000 signatures and they guarantee a hearing!!!! Peter
  11. HI You are very welcome. Lets hope you are well into the process of putting all this behind you now. As said much af the advice given on here is really only opinion,(some better informed than others), you are correct 100% in using your own judgment , as i new you would. You know how to contact me if you need me further. Peter
  12. Hi They are correct they do not have to provide an agreement for a current account overdraft, they do for any crdit cards or other loans though. Have you tried approaching payplan http://www.payplan.com/ CCCS or national debt line. Have you looked at a Debt management program or IVA. It sounds to me like you need to get your finances organised. First priority to is to do an income and expendature account and safegurd your home. One of the above will be able to help you with this but do it now. Peter
  13. HI Long time no see. This seems to be rearing its ugly head again, for those who arn't familliar with the history, and with the upcoming consultation in mind here is a letter from the dim and distant that illustrates the origin of the problem. Pretty accurate i would say Dear All Wednesday 27 June 2007 was a good day to make bad law. While the press were focusing on the transition of power to Gordon Brown, the House of Commons finished dealing with the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill. The Report Stage was quickly followed by the brief Third Reading, and the Bill was passed without any changes to the bailiff law. In spite of efforts by backbench Labour MPs, the Government easily rebuffed changes - including a regulatory body for bailiffs, changes to the powers of entry and re-entry and provisions for vulnerable people. After a few formalities, the Bill will receive Royal Assent, when it will become the Courts, Tribunals & Enforcement Act 2007. Although it will then be 'law', that will be in an technical sense only. It won't become law in the sense that bailiffs can act on it until the various provisions are implemented. At the moment, we have no idea when the new bailiff provisions will be implemented, although I think it unlikely they will all be implemented at the same time. (But it will be interesting to see how long it will take for some bailiffs to begin acting as if the Bill is law already. Yesterday, I was reminded of the report of bailiffs who had claimed the Bill was in force a few days after the draft was published last July!) Of course, the most difficult of the new provisions might never be implemented. I recall how, after the Courts & Legal Services Act 1991 was passed that it dawned on officials that the new provisions for administration orders were unworkable. I think it had something to do with the definition of the word ‘debt’. Those provisions were simply left ‘on the shelf’ and the remedy to them is now in Part 4 of the TCE Bill – 16 years later! I have now given up predicting how the new bailiff provisions will work in practice. Actually, I don’t think anyone really knows how it all will work. First, a lot depends on the regulations to be made, particularly the new fee scales. Second, the new procedures need to be interpreted in the light of commercial risk. I still think it entirely possible that the Government has done inadvertently what the Scots did inadvertently in 2002 – that is, pass new law that effectively ended seizure of goods from people’s homes. But we must wait and see. I anticipate bridging the gap between what the new law says and what Ministry of Justice officials says it means will create challenges for practitioners and debt advisers. This won’t just be limited to Part 3 (the bailiff provisions) but include all the other enforcement measures and the debt relief provisions. The Courts & Legal Services Act 1991 also contained a new definition of the goods that bailiffs couldn't seize for certain types of enforcement: when the new law was implemented, the Lord Chancellor’s Department issued ‘Best Practice Guidance’ on how it should be interpreted. Unfortunately, a few years later the High Court said the Guidance did not accurately explain the law! I expect history to repeat itself! Since the Bill started its passage through Parliament, in the House of Lords last November, I have had the privilege of working with some intelligent people of goodwill of all political conviction who have wanted to cooperate to develop good bailiff law. Unfortunately, there weren’t enough of them to dent Government resolve. Looking ahead... I think the Enforcement Law Reform Group will meet again when the first consultation paper on the regulations is published. At that meeting, we should consider afresh the Group’s membership, in case any of the interest groups that have been welcome guests at recent meetings wish to join formally. The Group also needs to consider candidates for the Chair, as I indicated at the last meeting. There is no need for hasty decisions on either of these issues but we should make a start. With my best wishes, Philip Philip Evans Chair, Enforcement Law Reform Group Peter
  14. Hi I suppose the difference would be, that it is Camalot's money they are giving away, so they can make any rules regarding its dispercement they like. In the case of a company reclaiming its money from a debtor, its the court that makes the rules. Peter
  15. Proof of documents Best evidence rule There is a very old common law rule that the contents of a document must be proved by primary evidence. The rule is often said to be an aspect of the best evidence rule. The best primary evidence of a document is the original, although it has been held in Slaterie v Pooley (1840) 6 M & W 664 that an informal admission is primary evidence of the contents of a document against the party making the admission. Thus, under the general rule, a party suing for damages for breach of a covenant for quiet enjoyment will have to prove the covenant by reference to the original lease. Secondary evidence of a document There are a number of exceptions to the general rule: Where the original has been lost and has been found after due search. Where it is impossible to produce the original, such as the inscription on a foundation stone; Where production is legally prohibited; Public documents; Documents covered by the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879. When secondary evidence can be given, the contents of the document can be proved by copies of the original, whether these be manuscript copies, or photocopies or some other method, including copies of copies. The only condition is that the witness producing the copies must be able to say that the copies are true copies. Other side having the original In this situation the old rules allowed a notice to produce the document at trial to be served on the other side. The notice did not compel production, although noncompliance may be grounds for drawing adverse inferences. However, the primary purpose behind the procedure was that it laid the ground for allowing secondary evidence. Secondary evidence was admissible where There was evidence of due service of the notice to produce; and There was evidence that the original was in the possession of a party served with notice to produce; and The party served had not produced the original. It was held that once secondary evidence had been adduced, the original could not be adduced to contradict the secondary evidence.
  • Create New...