Black Horse giving me stick need help please

[rjex]

I got a car on credit back in 2003 the credit was about £10,000 I paid £6000 of the car but fell behind with payments and they took the car back getting around £2000 for it. I still owe about £2000 on the loan for the finance. I have been paying a reduced fee monthly to black horse, however being inquisitive I asked for the origninal credit agreement. Which they provided when looking through it I noticed that in black and white it said that I had paid an £1100 deposit. Thinking back the carsalesman said that I could not get the finance on the car because of my credit rating at the time and so I needed to pay an £110 deposit. I told him I did not have a deposit, so he went away came back and said it had been approved. It is not until now that I noiticed that this mysterious deposit had appeared on the credit agreement.

 

What I need help with is this when you give the car salesman your details does he have direct contact with a member of the finance agency in this case black horse ?

 

If the car dealer directly speaks to the finance company then does this mean that he contacted black horse and they said no to the credit on the car. Only to phone them again and either say we paid the deposit when we did not to get a car sale. Or did the two individuals come to an arrangement so that the credit could be given when it should not have been. So that they could both make a profit on the both the car and the finance.

 

Also there is a signiture on the bottom of the page under the heading signature on behalf of the lender, is this from a member of black horse. If it is then they must have been aware that a deposit was not paid.

 

Can someone please help, I have taken this matter as far as I can with black horse and they have told me that I have commited fraud. So I need a bit of help to go a bit further I had no idea that the figures on the credit agreement were incorrect and the conversation agreeing the finance was between the car dealer and black horse and not me. I am at a loss to answer why they think I have commited fraud as I have almost paid all the finance off and are still paying them and I have no car.

 

Please help

[Laurel&Hardy]

You haven't `commited' fraud with this car because you haven't been taken to court and convicted of fraud, so nobody can claim that.

 

You say that you signed the agreement in 2003, when? Could the six year rule stand?

[rickyd]

From what you've stated here if anyone committed fraud it certainly wasn't you. How have they come to that decision anyway? All you did was buy a car on a loan agreement, which you're still paying for.

 

Its perfectly possible that the salesman would have a contact at the finance company to discuss potential loans etc so there's nothing sinister in that. I can't quite get my head around the deposit though. In the past it wasn't uncommon for salesmen to inflate the price of a car from say £80000 to £10000 and then ask for £8000 finance stating that your trade in or deposit had been worth £2000, although I'm sure this practice has disappeared nowadays.

 

The loan agreement should have a lenders signature, it would be unenforceable without one, but it will be a signatory approved by the lender who may have nothing to do with that particular loan. It certainly doesn't mean they knew about the dodgy deposit.

 

Coming back to your specific question, I think you need to contact the lender and ask what they think you've done wrong, then we may be able to resolve your problem.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Did they repossess the vehicle with or without permission from the Court?

[rjex]

Thanks alot for your comments, they say I have commited fraud because they have said that I was aware of this discrepency in the amount of deposit paid. They imply I was in cohort with the car dealer which was not the case.

[rjex]

It was agreed with them to take the car not with a repossesion order

[rjex]

I am not sure about the six year rule as it was a credit agreement and not a HP agreement

[Toulose LeDebt]

Thanks alot for your comments, they say I have commited fraud because they have said that I was aware of this discrepency in the amount of deposit paid. They imply I was in cohort with the car dealer which was not the case.

 

Edited - Sorry just saw your reply.

 

What do you mean by a credit agreement ?Are you able to scan the agreement and let us see it? Take out any personal details though.

[andie_303]

Hang on here - I think you have been done by them

 

You'd paid 6k of a 10k car they didn't have a court order to repossess - why did you not VT therefore being left with no outstnading payments??

 

[andie_303]

sorry just reread and saw you were in arrears - sorry ignore me

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'm inclined to think that their repossessing the vehicle implies that this 'credit agreement' was an hp or conditional sale agreement by any other name. Either title to the vehicle was held by the creditor or by the debtor.

If the creditor then they could repossess but without a Court order they were / (are) royally screwed.

If the debtor then the credit was not secured against the vehicle ergo the creditor had no right to repossess since all that could be deemed owing upon termination was 'money' and not 'goods and money'.

[andie_303]

Hi toulouse - I think the OP agreed to the repossession so therefore they wouldn't have needed a court order.

 

However I agree that this sounds like it was a HP agreement

[rjex]

At top of agreement says personal loan then underneath credit agreement regulated by CCA 1974

[Laurel&Hardy]

At top of agreement says personal loan then underneath credit agreement regulated by CCA 1974

 

Sounds to me like the loan was unsecured and thus had nothing to do with the car...in which case they had no right to take it without a court order.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Sounds to me like the loan was unsecured and thus had nothing to do with the car...in which case they had no right to take it without a court order.

 

Seconded.

[rickyd]

Its starting to sound like theft (of a motor vehicle) or did they accept the car in lieu of repayment of the debt?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hi toulouse - I think the OP agreed to the repossession so therefore they wouldn't have needed a court order.

 

However I agree that this sounds like it was a HP agreement

 

Voluntarily handed back or not the law states 'the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court'. Of course if it was voluntarily terminated the OP's liability is strictly limited to 50%. They can't possibly have it both ways can they?

 

Or did they pull out the old Voluntary surrender document.............

 

90.—(1) At any time when—

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional

sale agreement relating to goods, and

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the

goods, and

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except

on an order of the court.

 

The penalty for being in breach of Sec 90:

 

91. If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90 (a) the regulated agreement, if not previous terminated, shall terminate, and (b) the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the debtor under the agreement.

 

 

But it does sound alarmingly like the car was taken unlawfully and auctioned off when the OP was entitled to keep the car or sell it himself for a fair market value as the credit agreement was a personal loan.

 

I bet a shilling if the OP can scan up the agreement, the T&C's, the default notice, the termination notice, any doocument signed upon return of the vehicle etc. One of us will find something in his favour contained therein.

[heliosfa]

This sounds exactly like my OH's setup with Black Horse:

 

• It was a "Personal Loan" (so all of the rules re. HP/Conditional sale don't apply and the debtor owns the ccar outright)
  
• THey treated the loan as a Hire on their systems (payments refered to as Rentals)
  
• They will probably have put an entry on the HPI register to say they have an interest in it (officially, they don't)
  
• They/the recovery agents make you think it is a HP when they want the car back and use a "Voluntary Surrender" form (again, a HP procedure)
  

IF you check my thread, you will find that there have been a few avenues discussed - torts for Trespass/conversion, the fact they may have "made" the agreement a Conditional Sale by the way they acted (so secction 90 may apply).

 

The biggy, which I am currently going down, is undisclosed commission. Have you SARed them yet? if so, does it have a ccopy off the Dealer's Proposal?

 

H