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

[Annoying Twit]

I don't know, but wonder if the material in this link is relevant: http://trialandappeal.blogspot.com/2005/11/good-judgesbad-judges.html

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I don't know, but wonder if the material in this link is relevant: http://trialandappeal.blogspot.com/2005/11/good-judgesbad-judges.html

Thank you

I'm sure there was a lot more to this perverted judgment than met the eye, but whatever the reasons I'm still left with only one option.

 

I can't tell you what an effect this whole debacle has had on my health lately, the stress of writing an appeal that will be going to the High Court is beyond words. I can't even count the amount of times I've wanted to throw the towel in just so I can have something that faintly resembles a normal life again!

 

I know I'll never forgive myself if I don't see this through now so I'm battling on

 

It's funny how little gems of wisdom come from the most unlikely places:

BBA PPI Judicial Review Case- "......deals with contraventions of rules by making them actionable as breaches of statutory duty. "Actionable" means giving rise to a cause of action in a court of law."

 

Who'd have ever thought the word 'actionable' was actually a legal term??

[Annoying Twit]

I admire you for your tenacity. There are times in my life where I let myself be trodden on because it was too much effort to do something about it.

 

However, having read through this thread, and followed some other ones, my personal opinion is that there is something seriously wrong with the culture in our legal system. Particularly where litigants in person are concerned. It seems to me that judges will pass down verdicts which make no sense whatsoever, but in looking back over the history of the case, it's almost as if the "other side" know that they don't have to bother creating a proper case as they're just going to win anyhow. In your case, my reading of the matter is that the judge's pronouncements that S92 doesn't apply to hire purchase agreements (if I remember this all correctly) is just insanely wrong. How and why did this judge make this decision?

 

That confusion is why I was googling things when I came up with the link in my previous post.

[postggj]

Thats why this is going to appeal

 

we will then have case law to quote to stop this ever hapening again

 

the judge lottery must stop

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

I admire you for your tenacity. There are times in my life where I let myself be trodden on because it was too much effort to do something about it.

 

However, having read through this thread, and followed some other ones, my personal opinion is that there is something seriously wrong with the culture in our legal system. Particularly where litigants in person are concerned. It seems to me that judges will pass down verdicts which make no sense whatsoever, but in looking back over the history of the case, it's almost as if the "other side" know that they don't have to bother creating a proper case as they're just going to win anyhow. In your case, my reading of the matter is that the judge's pronouncements that S92 doesn't apply to hire purchase agreements (if I remember this all correctly) is just insanely wrong. How and why did this judge make this decision?

 

That confusion is why I was googling things when I came up with the link in my previous post.

Tenacity has been waning lately but I'm doing the best I can to muster up enough to get this done!

 

The judge appeared to deliberately 'skim over' S92 when summing up as did t'other side when closing.

It was like this:

T'other side in closing submission, something along the lines of- 'I will draw the court's attention to Sections 90, 92 and 140 and say that the goods were not protected at the time of repossession, the consequences of which are somewhat draconian. When considering a judgment for Unfair Relationship, the court has wide ranging powers and would ask that the court bear that in mind when reaching a decision.'

 

The judge in giving his judgment- "Judgment for the Claimant in the claim of Trespass" and then "The goods were not protected and this was not a Chattel Mortgage therefore no Court Order was needed and so no breach of statutory duty occurred"

 

At no point did anybody pay any attention to what I consider to be the main point of my claim! It's so infuriating

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Followed up by T'other side's solicitor adding this to their website AFTER the trial:

"What happens if the borrower defaults? Because the loan agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, the lender can't seize the car without going to Court for an order, if the borrower has paid back more than 1/3 of the loan. Even if less than this has been paid back, the lender can only seize and sell the car if it's parked in a public place such as on the road. If it's on private land (eg in a garage or on a drive) a Court order is needed otherwise the lender risks a claim for common law trespass or breach of statutory duty (although it should be noted that if the trespass is minimal and no damage is done the Court will only award nominal damages)."

 

The bold section is the 'addition'

[postggj]

Cam you do a link wanabe

 

pm me if you ned to

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Cam you do a link wanabe

 

pm me if you ned to

 

LINK

[postggj]

Wanabe

 

as to the breach of statutory duty and s.140

 

what were you asking the court for by way of compensation

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Damages for breach of statutory duty are measured by loss so I claimed the value of my 'lost' car and my 'lost' expenses at having to replace it as a result of their breach.

With 140 the court has powers to return all sums paid and release from all further liability and that is what I claimed.

[postggj]

THE REASON IME ASKING IS OUR FRIENDS WELCOME DID THS TO A GIRL AT WORK.

AS SHE IS IN THE UNION , IT GOT PASSED TO ME TO LOOK INTO

 

IT MIRRORS YOUR CASE AND I RELISH A BITE AT THIS APPLE:wink::wink:

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

THE REASON IME ASKING IS OUR FRIENDS WELCOME DID THS TO A GIRL AT WORK.

AS SHE IS IN THE UNION , IT GOT PASSED TO ME TO LOOK INTO

 

IT MIRRORS YOUR CASE AND I RELISH A BITE AT THIS APPLE:wink::wink:

 

It's just so infuriating, they'll never stop doing this. They think they're above the law and the Judges give them more and more reason to carry on

[beachbird]

it has been in the papers if a car is untaxed and been sawn off the road they can now take it away and crush it, this is disgusting because times are really hard and people cant afford to tax their cars straight away but save for this and still want the cars its on their own property so whats the problem is not hurting anyone is it its not on the road with out tax,

[postggj]

it has been in the papers if a car is untaxed and been sawn off the road they can now take it away and crush it, this is disgusting because times are really hard and people cant afford to tax their cars straight away but save for this and still want the cars its on their own property so whats the problem is not hurting anyone is it its not on the road with out tax,

 

 

you need to read the regs again

 

if a vehicle is SORN off road then

 

they cant remove it

[lady-in-red]

if they have no insurance as well its a new law

[lady-in-red]

think beachbird might be right on this one i also saw this

[mcjohnson]

If the vehicle has a valid SORN declaration, then it can legally parked on private property with no tax or insurance. However, for tenants, it would be well worth checking your tenancy agreement as many require vehicles parked at the property to be (at least) insured - this particularly applies to apartment blocks with communal car-parks; clearly to try and protect the assets of all the tenants that use the facilities.

[postggj]

http://wzeu.search-results.com/r?t=p&d=apn&s=zuk&c=a&l=dis&o=15918&sv=0a65293e&ip=6d91900e&id=56C9E0C71F7E09E6331C7CF0BD7A0170&q=sorn+regulations%2Finsurance&p=1&qs=121&ac=24&g=526aTudkyC2+SB&en=gs&io=0&ep=&eo=&b=a005&bc=&br=&tp=d&ec=1&pt=Continuous%20Vehicle%20Insurance%20-%20Motorcycle%20Action%20Group&ex=&url=&u=http://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a6810

 

 

have a nose at this thread to end this debate

 

this is wanabees thread so please start your own if you want to debate SORN ISSUES

 

THIS THREAD IS TO IMPORTANT TO GO OFF TOPIC

[mark1arby]

Yes! This thread is SO SO important!!! Wanna you must be commended for carrying this through. Well done M8!!!

 

MARK

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Mark!!

You've been sorely missed

So glad to see you back

 

Yes I can hardly believe it myself, those early days seem such a long time ago now, especially cos I'm off to the High Court today to hand deliver my permission to appeal notice Who'd have thought it would have come to this from such small beginnings!

[Surfer01]

That article appears to be providing incorrect information. See http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl for coeect info. Apologies for temporary hijacking.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Application for Permission to appeal lodged with High Court today

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

So to take the car back from you, that is on private land they need a court order? Would this mean they would add the cost of getting that court order to your debt?

Only if they win.

I would imagine that anybody who didn't give their consent to having their car repossessed from their private property would have a good reason for doing so, maybe one that would be best dealt with at a court hearing??

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Thanks for the reply, but if i lost what would it cost me? £50 or £500 or worse? I am thinking that a judge is not going to give me a free car.

It would entirely depend on the circumstances, has the creditor done something they shouldn't have or do you have some kind of gripe with them?? A judge would be highly unlikely give you a free car at an ordinary Return of Goods hearing, unfortunately there's so much more to it than I could give you a straightforward answer to.

[Leakie]

Hi Wannabe

Glad you are carrying on,

Keep Strong and I am sure you will win in the end.

You deserve it

 

All the best

 

Leakie

 

 

Have the site team changed things again,

no date and post numbers or is it me,sorry for digressing