Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19 they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.  First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail. The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companys have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid.  PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.   They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."   Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.
    • Evening all,   I am looking for a little bit of advice, any would be appreciated. I am a bit hesitant in giving all the in's and out's as I am not sure of the forums procedures and I do not want to compromise my situation.   Basically as a result of a few issues in my life inflicted/self inflicted I ended up in a bad situation financially. A company brought a debt off a lender I had used and took me to court, I really mis-managed this and although I attended court with a case the verdict went against me. I accepted this but never heard anything back from them and admittedly as I was struggling didn't pro actively seek them out to make payment. So, on my Credit report I had a CCJ due to expire Sept. 2022, which I associated to that particular incident. Anyhow, I have recently received a Notice of Application for Attachment of earnings order, however, this is regarding a completely different debt/Court procedure to the one I participated in. The creditor, to my knowledge has never contacted me and until this week I have never received any correspondence to this case from the creditor or county court.    Basically, I was just after a bit of advice, on how to go about this. I am worried that if my employer is advised of the CCJ, it makes my position uncomfortable, maybe untenable which will only be negative to my situation.    So can I still contest this and possibly get it removed via the courts, can I delay it for 3 months to get it statue barred, do I pay the whole amount (to a company whom brought it at a pittance) or do pay it off and if so, can the figure be negotiated and how long would it affect me credit score?   I apologise for the number of questions, and appreciate any advice. My concern is the application ruining a very good job for me.   Thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Bill of Sale - Repossession question... any experts?


Lefty
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4225 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

Hi folks

 

I would like to know if a vehicle hp agreement (apparantly) secured by a Bill of Sale allows for repossession of the vehicle, without notice, and on the "debtors" private drive.

 

Basically, are the general laws of Hire Purchase thrown out of the window when the agreement is secured by a bill of sale?

 

I always though a vehicle could only be repossessed (without a court order) if less than 1 third into the agreement, and if in a public place.

 

Any guidance on the law would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick correction...

 

It's not a Hire Purchase agreement secured by a Bill of Sale, it's a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement secured by a Bill of Sale.

 

Any help GREATLY appreciated.

 

 

Cheers

Lefty

If the left side of the brain controls your right, and the right side controls your left, then left-handed people are always in their right mind!

 

Please help to support this site with a small donation... every little helps...

 

CAG- The Nation's Weekly Info Store!

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Hi folks

 

I would like to know if a vehicle hp agreement (apparantly) secured by a Bill of Sale allows for repossession of the vehicle, without notice, and on the "debtors" private drive.

 

A Bill of Sale gives no authority to the lender to repossess any vehicle without an order from the court - the lender can 'seize' the vehicle and when he does so - he must leave a visibile notice that you have 5 days in which to rectify the default. Previous to this he will have (should have served a default notice by virtue of the CCA 1974 allowing 14 days and they are known to follow this through very quickly with a termination notice - no doubt to 'speed up' sending your account to the repossession agent).

If the vehicle is on 'private' land - I understand that section 13 of the Bill of Sale Act 1882 covers this for you.

 

 

Basically, are the general laws of Hire Purchase thrown out of the window when the agreement is secured by a bill of sale?

 

You have corrected this in your next post - when a bill of sale is involved it usually has nothing to do with a HP agreement - but to be honest; the way the lenders are running amock with the CCA and other laws and regulations - one cannot be sure unless close attention is made to the kind of agreement entered into.

 

I always though a vehicle could only be repossessed (without a court order) if less than 1 third into the agreement, and if in a public place.

 

Not as far as I have learned - a vehicle can never be repossessed without a court order by virtue of S.7a of the BoS Act 1882 and the CCA 1974 S.87

Any guidance on the law would be greatly appreciated.

 

It's also worth viewing a copy of the Encyclopedia of the Laws of England that Hip Hop kindly pasted a link to in one of his threads recently - I found information that I had not considered previously - its brilliant - check the entire section in it on Bills of Sale especially that on Bills of Sale as security.

 

Cheers

Lefty

 

Hope this proves to be useful information?

 

Apple : )

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...