Repo order help with defence needed.

[cosalt]

With hp they can't repo without a court order if you have paid one third. If you have paid half you can give the goods back and pay no more, however you cant be in arrears and the goods must be in acceptable condition.

[cosalt]

I dont have to take the vehicle anywhere, just make it available for collection. However collection costs are my responsibility, well they have a right to claim them back.

[frettful38]

hi cosalt, been reading this thread and is quite interesting, if for nothing else then just some general reading and info for the future. Read post 427 onwards or whichever way you prefer.

 

Good title to the thread, i think its about appeals

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/185814-d-judge-made-wrong-22.html

[cosalt]

thanks, I will have a good read later, am supposed to be working

[nks22]

Isn't there a legal difference between hire purchase and a money loan with which you buy a vehicle?

[colin21958]

Isn't there a legal difference between hire purchase and a money loan with which you buy a vehicle?

 

Yes, absolutely, a very big difference. If you have a money loan to buy a vehicle, the vehicle you buy is immediately yours; they could never "reposses" the vehicle because they never possessed it in the first place! You owe them the money and they can claim that, but they can't take the goods. Of course any subsequent judgement could result in you having to sell the car to pay it if it was your only asset.

 

With HP, its only when you pay the final payment that title to the vehicle is transferred to you, until that time the HP company owns the vehicle; you are just hiring it from them.

[cosalt]

Yes, absolutely, a very big difference. If you have a money loan to buy a vehicle, the vehicle you buy is immediately yours

 

Unless of course you buy using Black Horse ( another problem of mine ) who provide finance using a fixed sum agreement (basically a bank loan)

but then place an HPI marker against the car saying it has outstanding finance. So no termination rights but you cant sell the car, best of both worlds for them no rights for you

[frettful38]

Unless of course you buy using Black Horse ( another problem of mine ) who provide finance using a fixed sum agreement (basically a bank loan)

but then place an HPI marker against the car saying it has outstanding finance. So no termination rights but you cant sell the car, best of both worlds for them no rights for you

 

 

Not neccessarily cosalt. its not a case of lenders having their cake and eating it anymore as many will and can use this poweful info to their advantage. Here you go more reading for you, over a cup of horlicks:D

 

Unfair Contract Terms | Consumer Information

[frettful38]

Bloody hell anyone read this, its in one of front page of the forums :eek: ,

 

The Courier: Taking you to the heart of Tayside and Fife

 

not trying to put you off cosalt, just that a car was mentioned and a loan and thought of you ,

[middenmess]

Bloody hell anyone read this, its in one of front page of the forums :eek: ,

 

The Courier: Taking you to the heart of Tayside and Fife

 

not trying to put you off cosalt, just that a car was mentioned and a loan and thought of you ,

 

 

Welcome to UK 2010!!!!

 

Absolutely disgusting:mad:

[frettful38]

Welcome to UK 2010!!!!

 

Absolutely disgusting:mad:

 

is that 2010 BC?

 

:grin:

[cosalt]

Absolutely disgusting, however a night in the nick is quite appealing sometimes - we have a 3 month old daughter anything for a good nights sleep.

[nks22]

a night in the nick is quite appealing sometimes

 

Be careful what you wish for!

[cosalt]

Be careful what you wish for!

 

Yes, with my luck at the moment who knows whats round the corner

[diddydicky]

its sounds draconian but unless i have misread the story it appears that the reason for the application for an arrest warrant was a contempt of court the court ordered her to give up the vehicle and she resisted

 

at the end of the day- even in civil matters- if one has run out of legal challenges then it is nuts to give the persuer the satisfaction of being able to apply for the warrant

 

that said- i think the case will do santander a lot more harm than good

[Bigdebtor]

I thought that once you had paid a third or half of the vehicle cost, it became yours?

 

Vint

 

I asked a similar ( but opposite - if that makes sense!) question a bit earlier in this thread.

 

My recollection was that you can hand back a vehicle without any penalty or any more to pay if bought on an HP agreement privided you have already paid up 50% or more of the original price.

 

This means if the vehicle is worth less than what you now owe (provided it's less than 50% of what you started owing) then the HP OC stands the loss and can't claim it off you - but may screw your credit rating with the CRA's.

 

However someone corrected me to say the above is only true if there are no arrears etc. Once arrears are built up the 50% get out clause can't work.

 

I think I recollect this correctly. Can other CAGGERS correct anything I have got wrong?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

i think the case will do santander a lot more harm than good

 

I think the Sherriff should put someone from Santander in custody - to make sure they do appear in court in future when they should do so.

 

Good to see the local Dundee lawyers refused to get involved in representing Santander - they either have more scruples - or more expensive windows - than most lawyers!

 

BD

[cosalt]

Vint

 

I asked a similar ( but opposite - if that makes sense!) question a bit earlier in this thread.

 

My recollection was that you can hand back a vehicle without any penalty or any more to pay if bought on an HP agreement privided you have already paid up 50% or more of the original price.

 

This means if the vehicle is worth less than what you now owe (provided it's less than 50% of what you started owing) then the HP OC stands the loss and can't claim it off you - but may screw your credit rating with the CRA's.

 

However someone corrected me to say the above is only true if there are no arrears etc. Once arrears are built up the 50% get out clause can't work.

 

I think I recollect this correctly. Can other CAGGERS correct anything I have got wrong?

 

BD

 

Hi BD,

 

yes you are correct, the other problem with handing the goods back is that they must be in reasonable condition which of course is down to them as to what is reasonable. I know people with 5 year old cars that they have tried to charge for a few stone chips.

 

Another problem with handing the vehicle back is that even if you are up to date with payments you can still be in arrears. For example if your payment is due and was made on the 1st of the month and you do a VT on the 15th even though your next payment is not due again until the 1st of the next month you are technicaly 2 weeks in arrears. They will then try to charge you for these 2 weeks.

 

cosalt

[jim202]

Bradford & Bingley got eviction notice to evicted me but I managed will help from family to pay arrears in full, the problem is they tell me the eviction notice is still on going and they could use it in the future with out going to court again. Please help is there a letter I can send to the court telling them I have paid in full to cancel the warrant. Jim

[middenmess]

Hi Jim

 

Best to start your own thread as this will then be visible to all on CAG rather than buried inside this thread.

[jim202]

Bradford & Bingley got eviction notice to evicted me but I managed will help from family to pay arrears in full, the problem is they tell me the eviction notice is still on going and they could use it in the future with out going to court again. Please help is there a letter I can send to the court telling them I have paid in full to cancel the warrant. Jim

[middenmess]

Hi Jim

 

If you go to

 

Home Repossessions - The Consumer Forums

 

and then click on 'New Thread' and type in your question,I'm sure you'll get plenty of good advice.

[cosalt]

Update time,

 

I have phoned the court and they have confirmed that in order to claim any monies due they will need to take me back to court. They were unable to answer the question as to wether they could do that if they have not repo'd the vehichle.

 

I have phoned the claimant and paid the costs as this is something they could take further. They have said they are aware of the vehicles condition and that the collection costs will be high so ae deciding whethe to continue with the repo or go straight for the money claim.

 

So as I see it my choices are,

 

1. Appeal now

2. Wait to see their next move and if they go for the money claim try and defend this and if I still lose then apply for a set aside / appeal.

3. Try to settle the matter.

 

I have a cast iron case in defence of this and if I can get the appeal right / a fair hearing it is clear cut that I will win, and I think the claimants know this. But I thought this first time round and look what happened.

 

I know ultimately its my decision but can anyone give me some guidance ?

[Bigdebtor]

Update time,

 

So as I see it my choices are,

 

1. Appeal now

2. Wait to see their next move and if they go for the money claim try and defend this and if I still lose then apply for a set aside / appeal.

3. Try to settle the matter.

 

I have a cast iron case in defence of this and if I can get the appeal right / a fair hearing it is clear cut that I will win, and I think the claimants know this. But I thought this first time round and look what happened.

 

I know ultimately its my decision but can anyone give me some guidance ?

 

Cosalt

 

1. Why? You don't want the vehicle anyway.

2. Yes! Let them make the next move and pay the court fees - if they dare! At that point you can raise the dodgy decision already taken by that daft judge. I take it you don't really want the repo order cancelled or overturned before they take the vehicle away in any case? Would it not be nice of them to take the vehicle and pay you compensation for it when you prove the repo order wass flawed in law? Can you not either force them to take it away or charge them storage if they don't?

3. Why settle if you're sure you'll win?

 

All just IMHO (unqualified in Law - PhD in Life's Hard Knocks)

 

BD

[cosalt]

Hi BD, yes I agree totally, I just hoped someone might point out a flaw in my plan !!