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

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I cant actually decide if the man is: ignorant, arrogant or just plain stupid!!!!

Don't trouble yourself with decision making, the answer is all 3!

[beyondhope]

The "new" statement of case is absolutely riddled with outright lies, I can feel a renewed Contempt of Court issue rearing its ugly head

 

"The claimant has made no fewer than 3 applications to have the defence struck out"

Actually it was 1!

 

"It is denied that the agent entered the claimant's premises"

and included is a note from the agent saying he recovered the car from my property! Part 34 is becoming increasingly tempting and possibly my new best friend

 

Ok so in laymans terms -

we cant count and are being picky

we deny it but we admit it

I know we will change our defence and try scaring Ms Wannabe

 

Hmm yes I can see how you are totally strengthening your case Mr P

 

I still dont actually see the significance of how many applications have been made, you are liberty to make them so why shouldnt you? maybe its me thats thick lol

 

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Ok, time to give put the rage aside for tonight. A curry and X Factor will do nicely thanks

[beyondhope]

Don't trouble yourself with decision making, the answer is all 3!

 

Im feeling inclined to agree!

I guess im on a waiting game now until I get directions from the court They faxed AQ over at 3.30pm on Tues and posted us a copy which arrived 'late' they want a stay, they want mediation, they want to settle, they want a 2.5hr hearing

[beyondhope]

Ok, time to give put the rage aside for tonight. A curry and X Factor will do nicely thanks

 

Enjoy!! x

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Ok so in laymans terms -

we cant count and are being picky

we deny it but we admit it

I know we will change our defence and try scaring Ms Wannabe

 

Hmm yes I can see how you are totally strengthening your case Mr P

 

I still dont actually see the significance of how many applications have been made, you are liberty to make them so why shouldnt you? maybe its me thats thick lol

 

It's in Part 3 that if an applicant makes multiple applications and 2 or more are dismissed as totally without merit then the applicant can be deemed a vexatious litigant and a civil restraint order can be applied for. Yes of course I totally fit that bill lol!

[beyondhope]

It's in Part 3 that if an applicant makes multiple applications and 2 or more are dismissed as totally without merit then the applicant can be deemed a vexatious litigant and a civil restraint order can be applied for. Yes of course I totally fit that bill lol!

 

Again I dont understand the relevance when the above has toss all to do with anything as you say you 'totally' fit the bill

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hello guest, sorry you're not going to find out what is up my sleeve until it lands on your desk. My lips are sealed. Don't you think it's shameful that you have to resort to reading the Consumer Forums to glean information?? Very sad, very sad...

[beyondhope]

hello guest, sorry you're not going to find out what is up my sleeve until it lands on your desk. My lips are sealed. Don't you think it's shameful that you have to resort to reading the consumer forums to glean information?? Very sad, very sad...

 

love it!!!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I'm gonna have to quieten down for a bit, Mr P is learning too much lol!! I'll email you the secrets

[beyondhope]

I'm gonna have to quieten down for a bit, Mr P is learning too much lol!! I'll email you the secrets

 

hahahaha ill await emails with great anticipation!

[cyril1982]

Finally received my disclosure and statement of case from them and their "new" defence is that the agent was able to stand on the pavement and reach the car so he actually never entered my premises!

 

 

the law is that if the car is parked on your private property they need a court order not if the repo agent has to walk onto your property they need a court order.

 

the law is all about where the vehicle is, end of.

 

there are a number of lifting systems that would allow a repo agent to lift a vehicle off private land without actually entering it himself physically.

 

lets hope the judge doesnt uphold this defence or we will no doubt see a sudden surge in cranes trying to squeeze up narrow residential streets to lift cars off peoples drives.

 

i'd just reply to mr p's letter with a one line reply..... "you're a d1ck head" and leave it at that...lol

[cab1ne]

the law is that if the car is parked on your private property they need a court order not if the repo agent has to walk onto your property they need a court order.

 

the law is all about where the vehicle is, end of.

 

there are a number of lifting systems that would allow a repo agent to lift a vehicle off private land without actually entering it himself physically.

 

lets hope the judge doesnt uphold this defence or we will no doubt see a sudden surge in cranes trying to squeeze up narrow residential streets to lift cars off peoples drives.

 

i'd just reply to mr p's letter with a one line reply..... "you're a d1ck head" and leave it at that...lol

 

nice one cyril nice one son, nice one cyril lets have another one

 

cab

[middenmess]

there are a number of lifting systems that would allow a repo agent to lift a vehicle off private land without actually entering it himself physically

 

Completely automatically with no assistance from the operator to attach or connect up in a restricted area like a driveway???

 

Even manoeuvring a jib or any other of object into the immediate air space of your property requires the permission of the property owner in the absence of a court order I believe.

[postggj]

many thanks uit can you give a link to what section of the cca 1974 states the regs about not being able to repo off a private drive except by a court order

 

you know me

 

true or not

 

I NEED TO SEE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE CCA 1974

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

It's fine really, I have it all up my sleeve. I'm sorry I can't give any more details at the mo but like I said, forums have ears!

It is not just the CCA 1974 that is involved here, but I'm just not prepared to give Mr P a heads up so I'm keeping quiet for the next few days. He has pushed me too far this time

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Completely automatically with no assistance from the operator to attach or connect up in a restricted area like a driveway???

 

Even manoeuvring a jib or any other of object into the immediate air space of your property requires the permission of the property owner in the absence of a court order I believe.

Wholeheartedly agree!

[cyril1982]

Completely automatically with no assistance from the operator to attach or connect up in a restricted area like a driveway???

 

Even manoeuvring a jib or any other of object into the immediate air space of your property requires the permission of the property owner in the absence of a court order I believe.

 

there are various ways it can be done without the agent actually stepping foot on your property, the easiest being the use of a spectacle lift recovery truck rather than the tilt and slide flat bed type used in wannabe's case.

all you have to to do with a spec lift is reverse the device under the cars wheels and lift it up and drag, all can be done from several feet away from the actual property. of course you'd be a fool to tow a vehicle any distance on a spec lift without securing it with straps but you could easily drag a vehicle off a drive without steping onto the property to fix straps.

 

but as you say, and i agree, even by using a mechanical device the agent has entered your property, and in any case the law relates to where the vehicle is and not where the repo agent stands.

[cyril1982]

many thanks uit can you give a link to what section of the cca 1974 states the regs about not being able to repo off a private drive except by a court order

 

you know me

 

true or not

 

I NEED TO SEE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE CCA 1974

 

http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/services/individuals/srvdisputes/hire_purchase_agreements/

 

here is a link to a solicitors website which clarify's this matter, i happen to know this firm having used them in the past, not for a consumer contract issue but they are a reputable legal firm and here is what they have to say about the matter.....

 

"If however, you have paid less than a third of your debt, the creditor will only need a Court Order when they want to remove goods from your property. However your creditor will not need to obtain a Court Order if the goods are in a public place. For example, if you have a hire purchase agreement on your car, your creditor does not need a Court Order to remover it from the street."

 

note the term used is "to remove goods from your property" not "to enter your property" it's really quite simple the court order is required to take the goods off your drive, not to enter your drive.

 

in fact there is no need for a court order to enter your drive, if there was we would be able to outlaw those annoying door to door sales men, no, it's not the stepping on the property that a court order is required for, it's taking of goods off the property that the court order is needed for, no matter how you do it.

 

try again mr p, this is an epic FAIL:confused:

[JonCris]

postgi Why should removing a vehicle from private property without consent be mentioned in the CCA????

[JonCris]

http://www.stephensons.co.uk/site/services/individuals/srvdisputes/hire_purchase_agreements/

 

here is a link to a solicitors website which clarify's this matter, i happen to know this firm having used them in the past, not for a consumer contract issue but they are a reputable legal firm and here is what they have to say about the matter.....

 

"If however, you have paid less than a third of your debt, the creditor will only need a Court Order when they want to remove goods from your property. However your creditor will not need to obtain a Court Order if the goods are in a public place. For example, if you have a hire purchase agreement on your car, your creditor does not need a Court Order to remover it from the street."

 

note the term used is "to remove goods from your property" not "to enter your property" it's really quite simple the court order is required to take the goods off your drive, not to enter your drive.

 

in fact there is no need for a court order to enter your drive, if there was we would be able to outlaw those annoying door to door sales men, no, it's not the stepping on the property that a court order is required for, it's taking of goods off the property that the court order is needed for, no matter how you do it.

 

try again mr p, this is an epic FAIL:confused:

 

No but you could withdraw their licence (in writing) to enter the boundary of your property which includes your driveway Then if they do, for any reason, that's trespass init

[cab1ne]

No but you could withdraw their licence (in writing) to enter the boundary of your property which includes your driveway Then if they do, for any reason, that's trespass init

 

you don't need to write anything,

once you have told the person to remove his person from your property, that person is then trespassing.

 

cab

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

postgi Why should removing a vehicle from private property without consent be mentioned in the CCA????

Thanks for your input JonCris and you are totally correct! The removing of a vehicle from private property is covered by several Acts of Parliament, including Criminal law, as well as S.92 of the CCA 1974. I am aware of these Acts and have case law at my fingertips to prove as much! We all know their argument is fatally flawed it is just a case of putting pen to paper now and telling them as much. It is the sheer arrogance of the man that riles me the most, how dare he pertain to be a professional and then send me such drivel as could be compiled by my 5 year old child!! If you have made errors at least have the common decency to admit it!

 

you don't need to write anything,

once you have told the person to remove his person from your property, that person is then trespassing.

 

cab

Yes absolutely, trespass is a very valid argument as there are several types of trespass which, incidentally, are not in any way dependant upon setting foot on the property, (as we discussed last night ;-) )

You don't even need to ask them to leave, the fact is that they cannot enter your property unless you have given your permission!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hardy ha ha ha!! Just got more drivel in the post! OMFG this one is a classic!!

 

They must be getting worried now because they are threatening court action if I use any of the documents they have provided for any other reason than the hearing! What like scanning and posting on a thread?? He has also mentioned something in his latest letter that I have NEVER told him direct BUT is on my thread!!

 

It's a good job I have never used ANY documents for anything else then!!

[middenmess]

Not worth arguing really but once you have supplied documents under a legal request I can't imagine any circumstance in which you could retrospectively limit the use of them!

 

Drowning man and straws comes to mind!