Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The client wants workers under 48 hours.   The client pays the wages.   End of story.
    • Thank you all for your comments....   What do I do now? do I just ignore them? or is there a letter I can send?
    • Guys/gals,   There's been a misunderstanding and for that I apologise. I didn't answer the initial questions because my appeal was just a couple of days away and didn't want to get bogged down with extraneous things that were not factors. I also - perhaps erroneously - got the impression that the questions were stabs in the dark hence my "if you don't know just say" response. Plus I thought my OP answered the questions however upon re-reading it I can see it may not to non-employees. Finally,  didn't want to make myself identifiable if my employer is reading (hence my redacted OP). I wasn't intending to seem difficult.   Short version: My employee has limitless OT to spare - it just wants to restrict people to WTR limits because that's what the client wants. They're happy for me to work OT once I'm under the 17 week WTR average. My appeal has been delayed from to this week so any help is appreciated.  I am one of the protected characteristics as stated in post #14.   Longer version (including answers to questions/points raised)   Why do you think other employees are able to work paid overtime hours without prior approval from the employers? Because they're not at risk of >48 hours. I am and that's why I've been told that I must have my OT pre-authorised so that I don't >48 hours. They were happy for me to work 60+ hours a week until I did so for 3 months in a row and hit the WTR limit. That's when it came to light that the client we work for states that employees must stick to WTR and my employer appears to not want to upset the client.    Ironically, when I checked their relevant HR page everything was factual in relation to WTR, it just assumed everyone would stay in WTR and didn't mention the right to opt-out. Also, when my employer took up the fight for me with the client and explained that I'd opted out, the client reportedly said they were unaware that employees can opt out.     Have you picked arguments with the company managers previously about any issues?  Are you in a more senior position and thus more expensive?  No to both. It's simply because they don't want me to exceed WTR limitations on working hours. We work on a contract for another company who stipulate their own employees must abide by WTR and therefore we must too. My employer was initially happy for me to log as many hours as I want and only changed their mind when the client pushed back.   They're happy for me to work OT just as long as I stay under the WTR limit of no more than an average of 48 hours across 17 weeks.     The company may be doing it for your welfare - do they think you are stressed, taking too much on? They may not think your output justifies doing so many hours so can refuse. They may want to free up some OT hours so others can do a few. None of these reasons apply and there is limitless OT on offer so it's not a case of wanting to share it around. About 10% of employees do OT and the company would be delighted if it was 100%. They just don't want any one person working >48 hours. Anyone can work any hours they wish outside of their normal schedule as long as they don't breach WTR. So last week we had the situation of my employer desperately begging people to work OT as they had a massive shortfall on hours and were not going to meet their commitments to the client and everyone was eligible except me. As much as they wanted to include me, as much as they would have gleefully accepted my 20 hours of OT, they felt that they couldn't and it was lose-lose for both of us.     In summary I felt it was discriminatory because:   1) The site is open 120+ hours a week and has an open-door policy on OT - the more the better and the company constantly begs for it and falls short of client requirements for number of logged hours.   2) They're initially happy for agents to work as much OT as they want and for months on end. Until you hit the WTR limit - even if opted-out   3) They insist on forcing employees to stay within WTR limitations despite employees opting out and OT being available - in which case employees are being denied not for valid issues (eg: welfare, performance issues, limited OT hours available) but because they just don't want that particular employee working the OT that a) is available and b) ends up being unfulfilled   4) So to me, it's discrimination to admit they need the hours working, they'd be happy for me (an opted-out employee) to work them if I hadn't hit the 17 week WTR average, and are only enforcing WTR because the client wants it 5) As it stands, they'd accept requests from every employee except me to work 4pm to 11pm on Friday. Likewise, they're canvassing every employee (except me).   6) They say my opting-out of WTR doesn't give me a legal right to work >48 hours but that is exactly what it does. If you have not opted out then it is illegal for you to work >48 hours therefore opting-out absolutely gives the legal right to work >48 hours. That doesn't mean a company is obliged to offer OT when it normally wouldn't or to extend it's opening hours to accommodate an employees demands for OT but it does, by default, give the legal right to work >48 hours if they OT is available. And the OT is available at my work.   7) As far as I know I am the only person of my protected characteristic and I am also the only one prevented from working >48 hours. Maybe there's a link, maybe there isn't.    
    • Jamie [email protected]   So @MarcusRashford had to shame the government in to feeding hungry children while Boris was trying to build £150,000 treehouse for a six month old child?        and That actually should say So @MarcusRashfordhad to shame the government in to feeding hungry children while Boris was trying (to get someone else) to pay to build £150,000 treehouse for his six month old child? 
    • The move by the UK, US, Canada and Japan will "strike at the heart of Putin's war machine", the UK PM says.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

can same car be repossessed twice?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4531 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I found the car i wanted to buy 9/9/08.

Paid for hpi check 10/9/08.

collected and paid cash for the car (3k) 12/9/08.

 

Roll on june 2009. The car was taken from outside my house by repossession agents acting on behalf of 'logbook' loans. I try to dispute what they are saying. They show me a letter clearly stating that THEY ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE VEHICLE. I hpi check the car again. It clearly states outstanding finance;logbook loans.

 

The man who sold me the car had used the car as security for a 6k loan on 11/9/08- ie the day before i collected the car.

 

I came to an agreement with logbook loans to buy back the car from them for 1500. They give me a receipt to say they have no further interest in the vehicle.

 

Tonight I have had a phone call from 'welcome finance' saying that they have tracked me down as the current owner of the vehicle. There is outstanding finance on it from an agreement dated 24/9/08.

 

I cannot believe it, i will have to sleep in the car to make sure they dont take it again.

 

i am desperate for any legal knowledge if anyone could help

xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the car i wanted to buy 9/9/08.

Paid for hpi check 10/9/08.

collected and paid cash for the car (3k) 12/9/08.

 

Roll on june 2009. The car was taken from outside my house by repossession agents acting on behalf of 'logbook' loans. I try to dispute what they are saying. They show me a letter clearly stating that THEY ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE VEHICLE. I hpi check the car again. It clearly states outstanding finance;logbook loans.

 

The man who sold me the car had used the car as security for a 6k loan on 11/9/08- ie the day before i collected the car.

 

I came to an agreement with logbook loans to buy back the car from them for 1500. They give me a receipt to say they have no further interest in the vehicle.

 

Tonight I have had a phone call from 'welcome finance' saying that they have tracked me down as the current owner of the vehicle. There is outstanding finance on it from an agreement dated 24/9/08.

 

I cannot believe it, i will have to sleep in the car to make sure they dont take it again.

 

i am desperate for any legal knowledge if anyone could help

xx

 

Hi Foxy welcome

 

You have been a victim of fraud, you will need to take this-along with your paperwork to the police get the ball rolling-keep a carefull notes on how much you are out of pocket..

 

 

You are the owner full stop, the letter you state you have says they have no intrest-buy LBL have sold the loan on to a DCA- You will need to get info from the DCA- I would recommend a SAR to them on the account. Send all letters by Regietered post, send them a copy of the letter that show they have no intreast and state quite clearly that you own the car. Let them do the hardwork.

 

Have a good read of the post and stickys. Oh DCA's cannot take the car.

Don't panic and don't worry. The guys that turn up are agents-**** suckers feeding on the bottom of the pond. They are NOT Baliffs-they will lie and cheat to get what they want. You are not dealing with LBL anymore.they have no intrest.

 

trooper68

Trooper68:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply.

 

From what i understand Welcome finance are not a DCA. They lent money to the same person using the same car as security.

 

We found out that he (man who sold us the car) had a duplicate logbook. From reading other posts i see that LBL dont take the logbook from you when you have a loan through them.

The date of his agreement with LBL was 11/9/08.

 

Maybe he was surprised that LBL didnt keep the logbook so he then lent against it again on 24/9/08 with welcome finance.

 

Our logbook shows that i aquired the vehicle on 14/9/09, it wasn't printed until 25/9/09 though.

 

By this point the finance should have been showing from LBL though if Welcome did a finance check? Are LBL legally obliged to record their financial interest in the car, if so how soon?

 

There could be more companies out there looking for the car!!

 

The car is my only source of income. I have a personal loan of 6k although i only paid 3k for the car. I have since had it LPG converted, fitted a huge roofbox, paid for it to be badged as a taxi. It is a people carrier used for airport transfers only. I have a diary full of work:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply.

 

From what i understand Welcome finance are not a DCA. They lent money to the same person using the same car as security.

 

We found out that he (man who sold us the car) had a duplicate logbook. From reading other posts i see that LBL dont take the logbook from you when you have a loan through them.

The date of his agreement with LBL was 11/9/08.

 

Maybe he was surprised that LBL didnt keep the logbook so he then lent against it again on 24/9/08 with welcome finance.

 

Our logbook shows that i aquired the vehicle on 14/9/09, it wasn't printed until 25/9/09 though.

 

By this point the finance should have been showing from LBL though if Welcome did a finance check? Are LBL legally obliged to record their financial interest in the car, if so how soon?

 

There could be more companies out there looking for the car!!

 

The car is my only source of income. I have a personal loan of 6k although i only paid 3k for the car. I have since had it LPG converted, fitted a huge roofbox, paid for it to be badged as a taxi. It is a people carrier used for airport transfers only. I have a diary full of work:(

 

did you send of the logbook straight away? if you did the envolope stamped would be proof. Besides you both have been a victim of a crime-so you should report it as such. As long as the Police are aware you are a victim so to speak. Besides still SAR them-you never know what it will turn up-plus they have to give you everthing to do with the account (of the car) you will get a clearer picture of what they have. Have you seen a copy of the BoS?

 

Ahh I think they cannot touch it as its a taxi-I think that there may be a really old law covering that also that the car has been modified if they do take it the have "unjust enrichedment", besides its your only sorce of income...My advice at this point would be to have a chat with a Sol, perhaps someone that knows consumer law.

 

trooper68

Trooper68:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

STOP!!!!!!!!!!

first off Welcome Finance do not do logbook loans meaning you have the protection of the hire purchase act.

If their finance wasnt showing and you have your hpi check still you are in the clear as you can claim good title as you brought the car in good faith.

1st check what agreement it is on with Welcome Finance with them.

2nd check your hpi and if your in the clear tell them so they should back off oh and if it is hp they cannot repo without a court order anyway

3rd finance companies are NOT legally obligated to record finance on hpi, however if it is HP (ie not a logbook loan) if they dont and you are a private purchaser and do a hpi before buying you can claim to have brought the car in good faith and they cant touch it.

Edited by Pacman2
Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a point you have there pacman..

 

Do you think its a case of LBL sold on or there was HP on it and that they have found it? She did say there was no intrest on the HPI check when she did one-something is not right here at all..

 

trooper68

Trooper68:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxy-questions.

 

You said you came to an arrangement with LBL for £1500, did you get any work on the car before they turned up? Do you suspect that LBL have sold on the debt to welcome or did welcome just come out of the blue stating they own the car? Cos if welcome are the HPI owners-did not own the car-you paid LBL for nothing...see where i'm coming from.

 

Any work to fix or convert the car could be enrichment.

If welcome was the HPI owners LBL had no legal right to clain ownership-you paid £1500 for nothing....

 

trooper68

Trooper68:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for taking an interest in my situation.

 

The lpg conversion, roof box and taxi plating were all done within 2-3 weeks of buying the car in sept 08.

 

from the dates of the agreements i would think that LBL had more claim to the car than Welcome?

LBL 11/09/08

Welcome 24/09/08

 

If LBL took longer than the 7 days to do the register BOS with the court thing maybe LBL didn't show when Welcome did their HPI check on 24/09/08?

 

My HPI check was done on 10/09/08 - before either of these agreements were made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you for taking an interest in my situation.

 

The lpg conversion, roof box and taxi plating were all done within 2-3 weeks of buying the car in sept 08.

 

from the dates of the agreements i would think that LBL had more claim to the car than Welcome?

LBL 11/09/08

Welcome 24/09/08

 

If LBL took longer than the 7 days to do the register BOS with the court thing maybe LBL didn't show when Welcome did their HPI check on 24/09/08?

 

My HPI check was done on 10/09/08 - before either of these agreements were made.

 

The point here foxy is one of law bills of sale mean that wether or not log book loans registered their interest on hpi they could repo the car (welcome could have argued the toss with them as LBL being a company is NOT protected by the HP act but this is a different matter)

Welcome however do HP agreements if they havent put it on hpi BEFORE you do a hpi check and buy the car regardless of who you buy it off (for instance LBL which is what you have effectively done) they cannot pursue the car any further once this is brought to their attention as you have brought the car in "good faith" which is protected under the hire purchase act 1964 C.53 please read Hire Purchase Act 1964 (c. 53)

in other words your car tell them so!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxy-questions.

 

You said you came to an arrangement with LBL for £1500, did you get any work on the car before they turned up? Do you suspect that LBL have sold on the debt to welcome or did welcome just come out of the blue stating they own the car? Cos if welcome are the HPI owners-did not own the car-you paid LBL for nothing...see where i'm coming from.

 

Any work to fix or convert the car could be enrichment.

If welcome was the HPI owners LBL had no legal right to clain ownership-you paid £1500 for nothing....

 

trooper68

 

Ignore LBL for now one thing at a time from my understanding Welcome have now approached saying you owe them money after paying off LBL (since youve paid LBL off they are no longer an issue so i wont bother going into this one but i think that yes they could have taken the car, certainly i think they would have).

Welcome would have taken a HP agreement out with a customer either for the car or on the car as a HP agreement you have rights and protections you dont have with a log book loan one of the is called having brought the car in "good faith" if you can show you did all reasonable checks as a private individual buying the car (ie you did a HPI check and it didnt show up, you got log book etc) then the Law ie Hire Purchase Act says that you brought the car in good faith and welcome cant touch it end of!

Welcome Finance do not buy debt they are a finance company it would be a debt colection company that would be interested in buying the debt not them

Edited by Pacman2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...