Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Regulated Car Finance amended?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5398 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, I've got a regulated car finance agreement that I've now discovered has had the clause removed that means I can retunr it afetr I've paid half. Can they legally do this as it surely alters my rights? Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've got a regulated car finance agreement that I've now discovered has had the clause removed that means I can retunr it afetr I've paid half. Can they legally do this as it surely alters my rights? Thanks,

 

I'm not sure that they can.

 

Was the original agreement hire-purchase?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it simply says "Credit Agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974" at the top. It's car finance with a balloon payment at the end of the term. Don't know if this helps?

 

Is there anywhere within the agreement that says

 

'termination - your rights' ??

 

I have a gut feeling the vehicle may not be HP and just a fixed-sum loan agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a 'personal' fixed loan agreement the car belonged to you from the day you bought it - however if they still have a lien on it via HPI then their agreement falls within the CCA as to do otherwise would be like having their cake & eating it

 

In other words they can't 'select' only the bits that favour them to your legal detriment

 

For example it's alleged that Black Horse for one are fond of these types of agreements & consequently have been successfully challenged regarding ownership of the vehicle - unfortunately as far as I'm aware it's also alleged that they have never let the argument get near a court room probably because they know they will lose;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They definitely have it on HPI, It actually states on the agreement that I don't have the right to cancel this agreement under the CCA or Timneshare act, it's with Capital Bank. My argument is that surely they can't just add & remove bits to an Act of Parliament jsut to suit themselves. I cannot see how this clause can benefit anybody but them? I know I shouldn't have signed it but I didn't notice it at the time, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a 'personal' fixed loan agreement the car belonged to you from the day you bought it - however if they still have a lien on it via HPI then their agreement falls within the CCA as to do otherwise would be like having their cake & eating it

 

Yes, Blackhorse have done this to my OH. So what you are saying is that if they put it on the HPI register, even if it is a personal loan, it is classed as a HP Agreement?

 

(sorry to the OP for the potential Hi-JAck)

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Blackhorse have done this to my OH. So what you are saying is that if they put it on the HPI register, even if it is a personal loan, it is classed as a HP Agreement?

 

(sorry to the OP for the potential Hi-JAck)

 

H

 

Nope

 

It is simply a loan, you would own the car and Black Horse should NOT be putting it on the HPI register.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is no it.

 

It is simply a loan, you would own the car and Black Horse should NOT be putting it on the HIP register.

 

Yes, well, BH seem to treat loans like HP without the consumer protection. It seems like something similar has happened in the OPs case

 

For example,

 

  • They removed the car on a "voluntary surrender"
  • they had a HPI interest in the vehicle
  • Their systems etc. refer to each payment as "rental"

Now, surely despite what the agreement states it is, e.g. a personal loan, the way it has been managed by the creditor has some bearing on the nature of the account?

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, well, BH seem to treat loans like HP without the consumer protection. It seems like something similar has happened in the OPs case

 

For example,

 

  • They removed the car on a "voluntary surrender"
  • they had a HPI interest in the vehicle
  • Their systems etc. refer to each payment as "rental"

Now, surely despite what the agreement states it is, e.g. a personal loan, the way it has been managed by the creditor has some bearing on the nature of the account?

 

H

 

And your agreement was a loan agreement? And they removed the vehicle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup it was a personal loan and they lied to get my OH's "consent" for the "voluntary surrender", I have a thread running on it - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/200392-blackhorse-antics-court-action.html

 

but from day one, the creditor treated it like a HP agreement.

 

 

And it seems like several creditors have been doing this to avoid their duties under HP...

 

 

(again, sorry to the OP for a hi-jack, but there seem to be some similarities that could help ;) )

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's irrelevant whether it's HP or personal loan? The important thing is that it's regulated?

 

There is a difference,

 

e.g. the creditor owns the vehicle on a Hire Purchase agreement and is the consumer has paid over half, they can return the vehicle and have no furhter liability. The finance company can alos reposess the vehicle, but need a court order if over 1/3 has been paid.

 

With a fixed sum loan, the consumer owns the car from day one and the creditor has no claim to it and as such should not register an interest on the HPI register. The creditor cannot reclaim the vehicle as the loan is not secured on the vehicle and it is not a HP agreement, however, conversely, the consumer can't cancel the agreement after 50% has been paid.

 

Now, what several creditors have been doing is creating a fixed-sum loan agreement, so that they don't give the consumer termination rights, where they record an interest on the HPI register and don't allow you to sell the car, thus claiming some form of title, and then use miss-information by leading the consumer to beleive it is a HP agreement to retreive a vehicle.

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's irrelevant whether it's HP or personal loan? The important thing is that it's regulated?

 

er... There are HUGE differences between and loan agreements.

 

If a car is financed via a loan arrangement the purchaser owns the vehicle from the start.

 

If the car is financed via HP it is owned by the finance company until the final payment is made.

 

A finance company should not be repossessing a vehicle on a loan agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My query isn't over repo rights, it's whether they are able to remove the 'hand it back when half paid' rights. It is on a form of HP as it has balloon payment & car details are registered. If anybody needs a copy of agreement I can PM it if necessary. Thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you sanitise and post the scan up? then we can all comment :)

 

 

And this is sort of what the debate is about. on a loan agreement, you have no termination rights where as HP you do. Both agreement types are regulated by the CCA

 

BUT, companies have tried treating loans like HP to gain all their benifits.

 

remeber, not all car finance is HP...

 

H

Edited by heliosfa

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 it's whether they are able to remove the 'hand it back when half paid' rights.

 

On regulated HP agreements you can exercise this right under s99 of the consumer credit act 1974. You can return the vehicle at any point and limit your liabilities to 50% of the amount financed.

 

The cancellation right on your agreement is to do with cancelling if you change your mind at the start. You had no right to do so as I'm guessing you signed on their premises.

 

Your agreement is simply a loan agreement and not HP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, my initial thoughts are:

 

The agreement is a fixed sum loan, NOT HP however, from the terms like mileage limits and the intimation that they still own the vehicle (3rd box in Key Information) it seems like they were treating it as HP.

 

Are/were you the registered keeper?

 

do you have the additional terms that are mentioned throughout?

 

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, it was signed on trade premises. It's actually my daughter's car & yes she is the registered keeper, but I always have been on cars on HP. When I sopke to them they said that I don't have the right to cancel unless I pay the full o/s balance, no rebate & no returning when paid half.

audi 3.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what used to be more commonly known as a personal cash loan & that being the case they should not have registered it on HPI as it belongs to the borrower from day 1. - They have no legally enforceable interest in the car - If the lender is claiming they do whilst the seller is claiming they don't then they cannot expect to escape the fact that the agreement becomes a regulated HP agreement with all that that implies - they cannot pick & choose which bits of the legislation they want to accept - it's all or nothing & if it's nothing the cars yours - Call their bluff write & demand that as they claim no interest & that their agreement is not a regulated HP agreement that they remove it from HPI. If they refuse remind them of this

 

Courts must assess unfair terms in consumer contracts, says ECJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...