Blackhorse Car HP - Claim issued

[middenmess]

Good News - Blackhorse have decided to discontinue in full with their claim.

 

Well done 8)

[Jamesx81x]

Thanks am just looking for info with the last post if anyone knows?

 

Would it be a case of writing to them first then court action if they do not agree?

 

Thanks

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hi Guys

 

Good News - Blackhorse have decided to discontinue in full with their claim.

 

Just a few questions to finish this off:

 

How do i now get them to remove all HPI markers from the car and fully sign it over to me?

Can i still request costs incurred from them?

Also the default they have placed on file is inaccurate so can i request they remove it?

 

Thanks for all the advice

 

James

What fabulous news!! A million congratulations to you!

 

You are absolutely within your rights to claim all your costs to date, I believe you need to write to the court and request your costs under CPR 44.12.

 

The position they are in now is that, having discontinued, they can't claim against you for the same reason again unless they get permission from the court, which is highly unlikely! The net effect, it would seem, is that they have now well and truly forfeited all their rights with regard any further liability on this agreement

 

I would write to them first explaining that you are now going to claim all your costs back and you require all markers removed, your credit file amended and confirmation of release from all further liability. If this is not forthcoming you will be left with no alternative but to make an application to the court which will incur further costs blah blah blah!

 

Well done you for standing up for yourself against a bunch of ugly bullies!

[Jamesx81x]

Yeah have fired a letter off to them.

 

Thanks for all the help and everyone who has posted advice on this post it has helped a great deal. I have asked the mods to show this post as a success put not heard from them as yet.

 

I will let everyone know the end outcome of everything as and when!

 

James

[Jamesx81x]

Hi Wannabedebtfreesoon / Everyone

 

I have received a letter from the claimants solicitors today in which they have agreed to pay my cliamed costs which is good but not that they had much choice.

 

What has amazed me is that they are asking me to come to an agreement to commence payments under the HP agreement if i intend to keep the vehicle. They also state that their clients are entiled to recover the vehicle and payments owed.

 

What planet are these people on? They stated they did not continue legal action due to the the agreement been terminated on the back of a deffective default notice yet they think they can still harrass me for payment.

 

Am i able to request the court reject the notice of discontinuance and let it go to the hearing or is it possible for me to issue a claim against them to get the car signed over to me and get them off my back?

 

Thanks

 

James

[gh2008]

Ah ..... the wonderful state of limbo

 

This is the same as with most CC claims, where although the agreement is unenforceable, the debt still exists.

 

They cannot reclaim the vehicle lawfully (IMHO as this would be enforcement of the agreement) HOWEVER neither are they obliged to just hand it over to you.

 

Catch 22

 

Possible way out would be to show to the Court that an unfair relationship has occurred and that the vehicle should be given to you and debt written off. You would have to show prejudice against you enough to warrant that sort of settlement ........ not straightforward at all

 

War forward I would perhaps use an amount of the costs to involve a solicitor to write to them clearly setting out what they can and cannot do with regard to the agreement, debt and vehicle. That way any actions on their behalf outside of that would put them in the $h1t.

 

jmho though ... would be interested in the thoughts of others on this as this is not from experience, just my understanding

[Jamesx81x]

Thanks gh2008

 

What i do know is that they can only reclaim the vehicle through court action to which they already did and discontinued. For further court action they need the permission of the courts along with a very good reason as to why they ended the original proceedings. The defective default notice was the main reason they terminated but it was far from the only reason.

 

They have no legal basis to form a successful claim so why they think i am just going to come to an arrangement with them after i defended in full i do not know.

 

They are also going on about contractual liability but surely that came to an end when they terminated the agreement. As it stands there is no agreement between myself and the claimant.

 

Finally them admitting the default notice was defective leaves them with no option but to remove the entry from my credit file does it not?

 

I will see if anyone can shed more light on it but the fact they think they can just issue further claims as and when they please is beyond a joke.

 

Thanks

 

James

[gh2008]

All correct apart from CRA reporting which they can do as long as the reporting is accurate. There is/was still an agreement albeit an unenforceable one.

 

If the info is incorrect (amounts/dates etc) then write to the CRAs demanding they remove the data - they will reply saying they will check with the OC etc and they *may* remove it due to the discontinued claim and they may not.

With a discontinued claim it does end in limbo (for 6 years from 'default')

[Jamesx81x]

Thats the thing the default notice is not accurate the only thing that should be showing on my credit file is 4 late payments.

 

As for them asking me to resume payments under the said HP agreement. What agreement? They terminated it.

 

They had their chance to go to hearing and put their case across which they decided not to. Simply been as they had no basisi for a successful claim otherwise why would they end it.

 

If they wish to initiate court action again then they should do so but am not prepared to be harrassed by these people and there should be procedures in place to stop them doing so considering they are the ones that ended this process.

 

James

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hi Wannabedebtfreesoon / Everyone

 

I have received a letter from the claimants solicitors today in which they have agreed to pay my cliamed costs which is good but not that they had much choice.

 

What has amazed me is that they are asking me to come to an agreement to commence payments under the HP agreement if i intend to keep the vehicle. They also state that their clients are entiled to recover the vehicle and payments owed.

 

What planet are these people on? They stated they did not continue legal action due to the the agreement been terminated on the back of a deffective default notice yet they think they can still harrass me for payment.

 

Am i able to request the court reject the notice of discontinuance and let it go to the hearing or is it possible for me to issue a claim against them to get the car signed over to me and get them off my back?

 

Thanks

 

James

Hello James, sorry for the delay in replying to your pm I just seem to have so little time these days. You are entirely within your rights to apply to have the discontinuance set aside if you so wish but I believe you need to make the application within 28 days of service of the discontinuance.

I also agree with GH about the dreaded limbo I lived like that for far too long, in fact the repo of my car was probably the best thing that could've happened to see an end to it! If you did want to be proactive and initiate proceedings against them it would seem that the Unfair Relationship route would be a possible way to go.

 

I suppose it all depends on what you want to do now, i.e. keep the car forever, or sell it or if you need your credit file fixing up? It seems to me that your intentions for the future will determine what course of action you need to take now.

 

Just my opinion as usual

[Jamesx81x]

Thanks for the reply.

 

What i do know is they have to go back to court again if they wish to commence recovery action otherwise the idel threats of debt collection etc are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

I am planning to keep the car for now, but as said before in my defence and the fact of the default notice been defective which they have admitted to loses them any rights they would have had under the CCA. They realistically have no possible way of winning and they know that hence the discontinuance. If my paperwork was in order there would be no way i would be discontinuing a claim for 6K.

 

As for the credit file the default notice is inaccurate therefore cannot be placed on my credit file under the data protection act. The 4 late payments are all that should be showing.

 

I am just awaiting reply to my recent letter so will see what they come back with.

 

Thanks for the advice guys

 

James

[Guest repo threat]

Hi, Help please.......

“Total Payable” under the Hire Purchase Agreement is £15,583.00 payable by way of a deposit of £1,435 and 48 Monthly payments of £293.50 and a final payment of £50

Default Notice dated ??/11/2007, I understood that 14 payments of £293.50 had been made plus £150.00 part payment as well as the deposit. I believe that the agreement was subsequently terminated and the account was then passed to: Nationwide Collection Services Ltd - £10,020 (20/05/2008) then Mackenzie Hall Ltd - £10,020 (16/09/2008) and then The Lewis Group Ltd - £10,020 (10/02/2010). Why else would they feel entitled to demand such amounts.

I understand that 34 payments (48 payments in total less 14 payments made) of £293.50 equates to £9,979. This figure is broadly consistent with the amount demanded by their collection agent.

I detail below the total payments made under the agreement, namely:-

20/07/2006

£ 500.00

27/07/2006

£ 935.00

25/08/2006

£ 293.50

27/09/2006

£ 293.50

10/11/2006

£ 293.50

27/11/2006

£ 293.50

27/12/2006

£ 293.50

26/01/2007

£ 293.50

27/02/2007

£ 293.50

27/03/2007

£ 293.50

27/04/2007

£ 293.50

25/05/2007

£ 293.50

27/06/2007

£ 293.50

27/07/2007

£ 293.50

24/08/2007

£ 293.50

27/09/2007

£ 293.50

04/12/2007

£ 150.00

11/01/2008

£ 150.00

18/02/2008

£ 150.00

20/04/2009

£ 10.95

 

I calculate the sum of the above to be £6,004.95. I calculate one third of £15,583.00 to be £5,194.33.

I note that the Default Notice dated 21/11/2007 states that £5,544.00 was the total amount paid at the date of the notice. Since 21/11/2007, A further £460.95 was paid as follows:-

04/12/2007

£ 150.00

11/01/2008

£ 150.00

18/02/2008

£ 150.00

20/04/2009

£ 10.95

 

Again, I calculate a total of £6,004.95 paid to date. This calculation is consistent going forward as well as backwards with all the documentation issued by Black Horse Ltd and its agents up to 12/04/2010

I was therefore concerned by their suggestion that less than £5,000 has been paid to date. I also note that the Default Notice dated 26/10/2010 (I have yet to establish how the agreement was somehow re-instated prior to this date) states that £4,503.11 was the total amount paid at the date of the notice. A difference of £1,040.89 compared to the Default Notice dated 21/11/2007 (£5,544.00 less £4,503.11) and a difference of £1,501.84 to my calculations of the sums paid to-date (£6,004.95 less £4,503.11).

It is clear to me that their information is misleading and inconsistent for which I remain confused and unable to understand my current position with accuracy. I have also today spoken to them and they advise me that 4 default notices have in fact been issued and that the agreement has not in fact been terminated and inviting me to voluntarily terminate the agreement. When I queried why their agents had been instructed to demand and collect the balance of the 34 remaining payments in 2008 if the agreement had not been terminated, I was advised that they were not responsible for third party agents. I explained that for me to now voluntarily terminate the agreement would be folly and possibly prejudicial to my legal position.

I have requested that they forward to me a copy of:-

1) The original Hire Purchase Agreement

2) All four default notices

3) The termination notice that was issued in 2008.

4) The instructions issued to your collection agents.

I am now in receipt of their letter dated 8th December 2010, which details the payments under the account but still omits the deposit paid at inception. I also note that they have now added 3 further entries in respect of late payment Interest and also an “LPI Adjustment”. These 3 entries are disputed in their entirety. They were not included in the 6 monthly statements since 2008. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2007 clearly sets out the post sale information requirements. To now add some £1,059.89 is an attempt to diminish the effect of the sum of £6,004.95 as an amount paid under the agreement.

In so far as the agreement with them, I consider that I have paid more than 1/3rd of the “Total Payable” under the agreement. I do not consent to the retaking of the vehicle by them.

[Guest repo threat]

is Blackhorse guilty of sharky practices here ?

[Guest repo threat]

i suppose its only a matter of time before the £6,000 i paid becomes less than 1/3rd of the total amount payable

[Jamesx81x]

Hi guys

 

Got my money back for fee's which was good. Am really bemused by their recent letter though.

 

They admit in their letter that court action was ended due to the default notice been defective and also admit in writing that therefore their clients terminated the agreement unlawfully.

 

Yet after stating this they further state there is a legal contract between me and theur client and also that 'should' they choose to issue further court action then they will advise the courts of my failure to agree repayments.

 

Am i missing something here or am i right in thinking how the hell would they bring a further sucessful legal case against me after admitting they stopped the first case due to a defective default notice?

 

They are getting beyond a joke and want done with them to be honest, is there anyway i can get them off my back? Either tell them to pursue further action or stop the idle threats?

 

James

[gh2008]

check my post #108

 

Report them to the OFT though as they shouldn't be threatening legal action as they cannot win.

They can hassle you, sell it on to a DCA (who can then issue their own claim against you) but they cannot issue another claim themselves.

 

You will probably find that they will still maintain the default with the CRAs as well - you *may* be able to get that removed - check out lots of info in the CRA forum

[Jamesx81x]

Thanks gh2008

 

Do you know of any OFT publications/guidelines that state that?

 

Also regarding the credit file entry i know from previous experience of defaults how much of a paint it can be to get things sorted. That said when a company clearly states that the default notice that was issued was incorrect, this is a clear admission that they are breaching the DPA by placing it on my file therefore have no legal defence for it.

 

James

[gh2008]

an S87 Default Notice is NOT the same as a default on the CRA file which indicates a complete breakdown of the relationship and the debtor defaulting on the agreement.

 

I think it's covered by the CPUTR check those out and search teh OFT website for guidance notes and other papers

[Jamesx81x]

Before anyone can place a default on your file they first have to send the consumer a legitimate accurate default notice.

 

Without that notice or if it is incorrect then the creditor cannot place the default on file as this would be a clear breach of the Data Protection Act. The ICO state this themselves. As they have admitted it is incorrect then it cannot be placed as what is showing on my file is what is on the default notice, therefore incorrect.

 

Another thing why do they keep making out there is a legal contract between myself and their client when their client terminated the agreement?

 

I will look up the CPUTR and OFT etc see what i can find

 

Thanks

[gh2008]

Before anyone can place a default on your file they first have to send the consumer a legitimate accurate default notice.

 

Without that notice or if it is incorrect then the creditor cannot place the default on file as this would be a clear breach of the Data Protection Act. The ICO state this themselves. As they have admitted it is incorrect then it cannot be placed as what is showing on my file is what is on the default notice, therefore incorrect.

 

Another thing why do they keep making out there is a legal contract between myself and their client when their client terminated the agreement?

 

I will look up the CPUTR and OFT etc see what i can find

 

Thanks

 

Could you please quote the source for your first statement - Ta

That's not my understanding - my understanding is that they have to send you a 'notice of default' i.e. a notice that they intend to enter a default on your file. This *may* also happen to be an S87 default notice but not necessarily - but, as I said that is my understanding and therefore open to be proved wrong.

 

Oh, re the contract - they are trying the Common Law route, they lent the money - the debt still exists - now pay it back. Law of equity I think or something like that

[Jamesx81x]

Accuracy of a lender’s default records

39 Records

Any default record should be accurate. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support filing a default. We would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file. Not having any supporting records may indicate a breach of the data protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate, relevant and not excessive for the purpose for which it is processed. A record that a notice of an intention to file a default was sent, if not a copy of the notice itself, will help lenders to comply with this requirement.

 

4th Principle of Data Protection Act - Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

 

Data has to be accurate, no creditor can place incorrect information on peoples credit files just because the realtionship has broken down. They are entitled to do so providing the information is correct.

 

As for the contract if that is what they are trying to do its simple, there was an agreement in place that was unlawfully terminated on the back of a defective default notice, the reason they did not continue court action as stated in writing by them. They also lost all rights under Section 87 in terminating it as they did which consumer credit laws and regulations are more than clear on so on their heads be it basically.

 

[gh2008]

That is the quote supporting my view.

 

Remember filing a default with the CRA is NOT the same as issuing an S87 Default Notice under the CCA

 

There is case law supporting the fact that without an enforceable agreement or a valid DN the creditor can still maintain the default marker with the CRAs as long as the info is accurate.

[Jamesx81x]

Exactly! As you said - Accurate

 

The info on my file is not accurate

[Guest repo threat]

hi

 

i am about to engage Blackhorse by way of a claim for contravention of s90 CCA 1974.

 

please coulkd you confirm the details of the muppetts who act on behalf of the amoebas ?

[Guest repo threat]

I note that in the case of

JULIAN HODGE BANK LTD v. MALCOLM JOHN HALL [1997] EWCA Civ 1852 (12th June, 1997)

 

that there was a pleading that the Bank stated that they elected to appropriate the Hirer's payments in accordance with their own accounts towards the extra charges first which could not form part of the total amount payable. thereby reducing the net amount available and paid under the agreement to below 1/3rd rule.

However, The Consumer Credit Act 2006 amends some of the existing requirements and introduces new requirements on post-contract transparency. In particular Certain information must be given at periodic intervals. The new requirements come into force on 1 October 2008. There are transitional provisions for pre-existing agreements.

 

1) From 1 October 2008, creditors will be required by section 77A of the 1974 Act5 to provide debtors with annual statements in relation to regulated agreements for fixed-sum credit, such as loans and hire purchase.

2) For agreements made on or after 1 October 2008, the first statement must be given within a period of one year beginning on the day after the day the agreement is made. For pre-existing agreements, the first statement must be given within one year from 1 October 2008. Thereafter the creditor must give the debtor further statements at intervals of not more than one year, until there are no sums which are or

may become payable under the agreement.

3) Under section 172 of the 1974 Act, a statement given by a creditor under sections 77(1), 78(1), 79, 97 or 107-109 is deemed to be binding on the creditor, subject to the right to apply to a court during

proceedings for just relief for any incorrect statement.

so if you receive a statement showing total paid to-date abd then a subsequent statement showing additional charges, it seems to me to be a fanciful proposition that the bank has retrospectively appropriated a previous payment to a future charge.

discuss