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

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

As far as I'm concerned they broke the law and you don't get a much more clear cut case for unfairness than that!!

They think they can do whatever they please and nobody's gonna say anything

 

Cab did you get my poc? I pm'd them to you

[BelstarBomb]

wannabee,

 

I'm impressed! you are a goddess.

 

good luck next month and I am keeping everything crossed for you - not that you need it!

 

Bel

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

OK, their 14 days is up tomorrow. The claim form was served on 6th April and deemed received on 8th April.

I still haven't heard anything from the court so I will be ringing them in the morning to find out where we stand.

Basically they need to have done something within the 14 days or it won't look good for them.

 

Notes for defendant on replying to the claim form (Consumer Credit Act claim)

• You must reply to the claim form within 14 days of the date it was served on you. If the claim form was

• sent by post, the date of service is taken as the second day after posting (see post mark)

• delivered or left at your address, the date of service will be the day after it was delivered

• handed to you personally, the date of service will be the day it was given to you

• You may either

• pay the amount claimed

• admit liability for the claim and offer to make payments to keep the goods

• dispute the claim

• If you do not reply or attend the hearing, judgement may be entered against you.

 

Your response and what happens next

 

Disputing the claim

If you dispute the claim or wish to claim against the

claimant (counterclaim), complete Form N9D and send

it to the court within 14 days. Remember to keep a copy

for yourself and to bring it with you to the hearing. The

court will send a copy of your defence to the claimant.

At the hearing the court may make a final order or

judgement in the claim. If the court agrees that you have

a valid defence (or counterclaim), it will tell you and the

claimant what to do to prepare for a future hearing. If

you send your defence to the court after the 14 days has

expired, and you want to rely on it at the hearing, the

court may take your failure to file it on time into account

when deciding what order to make in respect of costs.

 

So tomorrow I will have a much better idea of what their intentions are!

They will either;-

 

1. Have filed a defence
   
2. Not file a defence but will file one late
   
3. Not file a defence and won't bother filing one
   
4. Make an offer
   
5. Pay up in full to avoid going to court
   

If they haven't filed a defence by tomorrow this would seriously strengthen my case

 

If you send your defence to the court after the 14 days has

expired, and you want to rely on it at the hearing, the

court may take your failure to file it on time into account

when deciding what order to make in respect of costs.

 

So fingers crossed for tomorrow everyone! Will keep on posting

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Oh and one other option is a counterclaim, but they'll have a hard job of that considering it was them who broke the law!!

[beyondhope]

so altho u cant win by default as such you can coz the judgement can be passed without them?

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Yep!

Oh and I just looked up counterclaim and they have to submit it within the 14 days too, so roll on tomorrow!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Outrageous!!!

I have received a copy of Welcome's defence!!

They have admitted not having a court order but say there should be no consequences for this!!!!

Any advice gratefully received

Although I think I have a fair idea of what I'm going to do next

[cab1ne]

steer them into the direction of the s90's, consequences my a$$. then again word tactics come to mind,

 

there should be no consequences for this!!!!

 

definition of should:

common word used by creditors to bullsh*t the average consumer

 

cab

 

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Therein lies the problem!! They are defending on section 90 but my claim is for breach of section 92!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Nowhere in their defence have they even referred to section 92! They admit not having a court order but deny this constitutes an unfair relationship or breach of duty. They do not give any reasons for why they think this

I find it very difficult to understand how they can just deny that their actions are not a breach of duty when it clearly states in the Act that it is!!!

92 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.

 

But they admit the contravention!!! Madness!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

It's such a load of contradictory cr*p! Cos later on they say it does not constitute unfair relationship because they have acted in accordance with their statutory duty!!!

[cab1ne]

think of it this way,

 

a judge in my opinion will have to find in your favour,

his very own county court ballifs can't even come on to your property to take goods without his "order". so for a judge to say "my very own ballifs have to stick to the statute of law but welscum can do what they like without any consequences for this!!!! just ain't gonna happen.

 

s90's (ninetees) are perfectly clear, should and maybe don't come into it.

 

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.

 

if you have'nt paid a 3rd then yes they can use it. however they have to do it right, (and they have'nt)

 

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.

 

so at this point they still have an argument, you ain't paid a third, lets take it anyway, a judge "might" be persuaded in some strange way (judge lottery)

 

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.

 

this is your "BABY" don't forget at s90 it clearly states 90.—(1) At any time when—

 

pure, plain, and simple,

 

it has nothing to do with what is and what is'nt paid or maybe this and should that.

 

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.

 

they are stuffed and trying it on,

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

thanks Cab, my point is tho section 90 has nothing to do with it. I didn't make any allegations with regard section 90, only section 92.

 

I can't decide whether to apply for summary judgement or just wait the 2 weeks until the hearing.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Although I'm hopping mad at the nonsense they've come up with, it does actually all work in my favour

 

1.) They admit not having a court order to take the car off my driveway

2.) They admit taking the car off my driveway

3.) They deny it is a breach of duty, (How can they deny the written law?? )

4.) They say it's not unfair relationship because it's not breach of duty, (The Consumer Credit Act 1974 says it IS breach of duty, therefore their argument is easily disproved)

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Also, in conclusion, they state they want the case dismissed on the basis that it was issued as a "return of goods claim" and they are confused by this.

 

It wasn't even me that issued a "return of goods claim"! I submitted my application as a Consumer Credit Act claim under unfair relationships, it was THE COURT that made the decision to forward it as a "return of goods claim", so go tell THE COURT they have confused you and ask them to dismiss the case on what they decided!!!

[cab1ne]

Thanks Cab, my point is tho section 90 has nothing to do with it. I didn't make any allegations with regard section 90, (but they can use it to defend them selfs, they can use s333 of the peace treaty if they wanted to it's irrelivent.) only section 92. (crem de'la crem)

I can't decide whether to apply for summary judgement or just wait the 2 weeks until the hearing.

 

me personally, i would wait for the hearing. they probably won't even show up. dont forget, they will try any desperate measure they can think of to make you "scared":eek:

 

its "GAME OVER" for them:p

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled.....

 

"but your honour we didn't have a court order and did it anyway and we don't see what's wrong with that"

 

I think I'm going to explode!!!!!!!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

It is totally beyond me how they can say they admit to not having a court order and deny that this constitutes an unfair relationship and further deny it constitutes a breach of duty!

 

I clearly stated in my particulars the quote from the Act that says they need a court order and if they do it without one it's a breach of duty, they just bloody ignore all the bits they don't like!!

 

The hearing is 2 weeks today and not a minute too soon I tell you!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I think I have a clearer idea now of what I've got to do. I have calmed down slightly

 

On the hearing date the judge may make a final order or judgment in the claim. If the court agrees that they have a valid defence he will tell us what to do to prepare for a future hearing.

 

I feel it my duty to make the biggest fuss ever recorded about how they DO NOT have a valid defence. In a polite and respectful way of course

[humbleman]

Don't forget to add

 

I am very saddened that they bypassed your authority and took the law into their own hands

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thank you

 

I need plenty of those little gems for the day

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

In their defence it states "It is admitted that the defendant did not possess a court order to retake the vehicle from the claimant's driveway. However it is denied that this constitutes an unfair relationship, and further denied that this constitutes a breach of duty on the part of the defendant."

 

Can anyone shed any light on this for me???

 

Do you think they are trying to say they didn't need one or they did need one but didn't get one????

 

Am I just reading too much into this???

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

They also have not referred to section 92 at any point!

[cab1ne]

They also have not referred to section 92 at any point! (if you were them "would you". not in a million years, they are really trying to brush that under the carpet, "but they have'nt met LiP WANNABE

 

i think they have defo taken the pi$$ out of "LiP"

 

wannabe "is coming to get ya"

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thanks cab

I need to stop looking at it now, it's all so ridiculous. I just can't imagine that legally trained professionals wouldn't have better arguments than this. I keep thinking I must've missed something or there's some sort of catch somewhere