Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Court bundle complete and delivered, application to submit late evidence opposed, hotel room booked, just off to buy my outfit

 

3 days to go......

[Blackpashir]

Court bundle complete and delivered, application to submit late evidence opposed, hotel room booked, just off to buy my outfit

 

3 days to go......

 

Just read all ur posts (took me quite a while) very best of luck really interested in outcome

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Just read all ur posts (took me quite a while) very best of luck really interested in outcome

Thanks so much for your support, it's really appreciated

 

I took a trip down to Worcester the other day and had a look round the Court, it is immense!! I am very nervous but I've come this far and I will see it through to the end no matter what the outcome. I am hoping that being in such a grand Court building with reporters constantly posted outside will ensure that the Judge lottery issue will be minimal!

 

Thanks again to everyone for your support, I couldn't have got this far without it x x x

 

1 day to go........

[gerson]

Hi wannabe.

 

Good luck for tomorrow (not that you need luck). Time to nail them and put this behind you

 

G

[GSMGuy]

Yup - Sending positive thoughts your way!

 

Mike

[postggj]

Ditto

[Leakie]

Good Luck Wanabe

 

Followed the thread for quite some time now,

Remember when it hit the 1000 post mark, thinking how long is this going to run,

Lets hope you have a positive outcome and make them look foolish.

 

 

Leakie

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thank you all x

I'm feeling quite overwhelmed by it all at the mo, it just seems so surreal that something that has totally overtaken the past 2 years of my life is finally coming to an end.

Win or lose tomorrow I will know that I couldn't humanly have done any more than I did

[DontPushMe]

Having had a look at all the info that you've published then it would be a sad day for the lady with the scales if you didn't win.

 

A lot of people will be watching (apart from the guests!)

 

DPM

[hallowitch]

Good Luck Wanabe there will be a lot of people in court with you tomorrow in spirit

[wackyone]

not that you need it but good luck for tomorrow wannabe.

i look forward to hearing how much they cried when the judge gives the verdict

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Well after a gruelling day in court things didn't go my way today

The judge ruled that Section 92 does not apply to hire purchase agreements??!

 

Hey ho, the High Court beckons...

[Leakie]

Hi Wanabe

 

Sorry it did not go your way,

What happens next?

I can see a 100 page thread coming

 

Leakie

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hi Wanabe

 

Sorry it did not go your way,

What happens next?

I can see a 100 page thread coming

 

Leakie

I didn't get the result I wanted but the Judge was very keen to wash his hands of it and get off home. He made several suggestive remarks along the lines of "raising that point elsewhere" and "this is a County Court, a higher Court may overturn my decision", almost inferring that this case would not end here today, and I believe that will be the only way this will get resolved. In fact it was the Judge himself that bought up the issue of an appeal, and despite his comments to the contrary, I very much got the impression he was encouraging me to do it almost putting words in my mouth

 

I am actually not too concerned about today's result as a lot of very beneficial stuff came out of it

 

It was proved beyond doubt that they entered my premises without my consent and repossessed the car, the only issue remaining now is the Judge's interpretation of Section 92 and whether it applies to HP agreements. It clearly does and is easily provable!

[Leakie]

Hi wanabe

thanks for letting us know some of the details

at least the judge was sort of on your side

may be it is a good thing it's going to the high court,

I will keep following to the end

 

Good luck for round 2

 

Leakie

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thank you 8-) I could go on indefinitely about the details!

 

In fairness to the judge, it was listed for a 1 day trial and I suppose it was his duty that it was concluded one way or another within one day. As it happens it already went on past 4.30 even though the court closes at 4! If he had gone on to find in my favour, the subsequent findings, decisions and judgement may well have gone on for at least another hour.

[Leakie]

Hi wanabe

at least youdid not lose the case.

and can fight another day

I will follow and support you to the end

I am not in the same positon as you

i have problems with Council tax and baliffs

but it is people like you that gives me stength to fight to the end

This is what CAG is about 1 person but many friends,and alot of support

if I did not get the support I would have given up a long time ago,thanks to people like Ploddertom and Rae

We share experiences and learn from each other, this is the great part of CAG

long may it continue.

 

All the best

 

Leakie

 

PS I have been following your blog

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

and the same absolutely goes for me, if I didn't have the support of CAG I may well have given up in favour of the easy life a long time ago!

 

Long live CAG

[slgsue]

OMG I have been reading your thread all day and think you are inspirational!!!! My eyes are stinging now but may I wish you all the best in your ongoing battle and this has certainly pushed me into getting my loan agreement (god why oh why did we ever take it out) out and having a proper route through it.

 

Keep up the fight Wannabe ............... as a certain jedi knight would say "the force is with you!" x

[cab1ne]

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.

(2) Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required

to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the

amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the " installation charge") the

reference in subsection (l!(b) to one third of the total price shall be construed as a

reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one third of the remainder of

the total price.

 

(3) In a case where—

(a) subsection (l)(a) is satisfied, but not subsection (l)(b), and

(b) subsection (l)(b) was satisfied on a previous occasion in relation to an

earlier agreement, being a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale

agreement, between the same parties, and relating to any of the goods

comprised in the later agreement (whether or not other goods were also

included), subsection (1) shall apply to the later agreement with the omission

of paragraph (b).

(4) If the later agreement is a modifying agreement, subsection (3) shall apply

with the substitution, for the second reference to the later agreement, of a reference to

the modifying agreement.

(5) Subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, to an agreement if the debtor

has terminated, or terminates, the agreement.

(6) Where subsection (1) applies to an agreement at the death of the debtor, it

shall continue to apply (in relation to the possessor of the goods) until the grant of

probate or administration, or (in Scotland) confirmation (on which the personal

representative would fall to be treated as the debtor).

(7) Goods falling within this section are in this Act referred to as " protected goods".

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.

92.—(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled

to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase

agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire

agreement.

(2) At any time when the debtor is in breach of a regulated conditional sale

agreement relating to land, the creditor is entitled to recover possession of the land

from the debtor, or any person claiming under him, on an order of the court only.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of

statutory duty.

[postggj]

THIS IS SECTION 92

 

2 Recovery of possession of goods or land

(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(2) At any time when the debtor is in breach of a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to land, the creditor is entitled to recover possession of the land from the debtor, or any person claiming under him, on an order of the court only.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

HOW THE HELL CAN A JUDGE SAY SECTION 92 DOES NOT APPLY TO HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, ITS HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE

DID HE GIVE ANY EXPLANATIONS AS TO HIS REASONING

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Having slept on it I am totally incensed this morning

 

I have gone over it a thousand times in my head, his exact words were 'the goods were not protected and this was not a chattel mortgage so no court order was needed' WTF????

 

The secret commission issue was another mysterious debacle! Even though I could show evidence that commission of over 30% was paid for the PPI he still ruled that only 2% commission was paid, (based on their verbal evidence alone), and that wasn't enough to make any real difference to anything, despite the fact that it was a secret!!

 

The more I think about it the more convinced I am the judge made deliberate mistakes just so it would go to the High Court and he didn't have to deal with it.

 

Even their barrister was shocked when the judge gave his verdict, as just a few minutes earlier he was practically saying we know we messed up on S92 but please be lenient with us when making an order under S140.

 

The judge went to great lengths to prove that they entered my premises and repossessed the car but then failed to rule on it in accordance with statute??!!! Strangely, in summing up, he put great emphasis on the fact that the car was in my 'possession' at the time and even drew our attention to the word 'possession', its all so bizarre I can barely believe it.

 

The only place for this case has to be the High Court.

[sequenci]

My word, what a nightmare!

 

Good luck in the appeal!

[whitecraig_wizard]

I've been following your exploits for sometime, on behalf of all of us,

 

Thank you, to your husband who has supported, to your family and friends who were there for you.

 

You remind us all that when things are dark and overpowering that the needs of the one are answered by the many. Together we can and do move mountains.

 

Best wishes

[sillygirl1]

You could ask for the senior circuit judge to review the case as clearly the judge didn't know what powers he had in a county court.... might be a case against the judge here/