Jump to content


Vehicle repo and s.92 of the cca 1974


postggj
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3694 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

THIS IS SECTION 92

 

2 Recovery of possession of goods or land

(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(2) At any time when the debtor is in breach of a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to land, the creditor is entitled to recover possession of the land from the debtor, or any person claiming under him, on an order of the court only.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

 

 

NOW THAT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE CREDITOR/REPO AGENT WOULD NEED A COURT ORDER TO REPO OFF PRIVATE LAND/PROPERTY

 

NOW SAY HE DID NOT HAVE A COURT ORDER BUT THE LAND OWNERS PERMISSION TO REMOVE THE VEHICLE

 

EVEN WITH PERMISSION, THE LEGISLATION STATES COURT ORDER TO REPO

 

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS

Link to post
Share on other sites

3.1

 

Subject to paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 this practice direction applies to claims made under the following provisions of the Act:

(1) section 141 (claim by the creditor to enforce regulated agreement relating to goods etc),

 

(2) section 129 (claim by debtor or hirer for a time order),

 

(3) section 90 (creditor’s claim for an order for recovery of protected goods),

 

(4) section 92(1) (creditor’s or owner’s claim to enter premises to take possession of goods),

 

(5) section 140B(2)(a) (debtor’s or surety’s application for an order relating to an unfair relationship);

 

(6) creditor’s or owner’s claim for a court order to enforce a regulated agreement relating to goods or money where the court order is required by –

(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreement),

 

(b) section 86(2) (death of debtor or hirer where agreement is partly secured or unsecured),

 

© section 111(2) (default notice etc not served on surety),

 

(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of a negotiable instrument in breach of terms of section 123), or

 

(e) section 105(7)(a) or (b) (security not expressed in writing, or improperly executed).

 

 

 

3.2

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS

 

SECTION 92 (1) OF THE CCA 1974

 

(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

 

AND THIS IS PRACTICE DIRECTION 7B PARA 3.1 (4)

 

(4) section 92(1) (creditor’s or owner’s claim to enter premises to take possession of goods),

 

 

COMMENTS PEOPLE

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I see it.

 

If there is no consent from the debtor, a creditor needs a court order to enter 'any premises' to repo HP goods, regardless of whether the goods are 'protected' or not (i.e. the 1/3 rule)

 

The case of Spring House v Mount Cook Land (CoA 2001) outlines that a private driveway is classed as premises.

 

Here's the case:

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1833.html&query=title+(+Spring+)+and+title+(+House+)&method=boolean

 

Therefore a HP repo CANNOT be carried out from a private driveway unless they have the owners permission or a court order (a return of goods order is not sufficient)

 

I really hope this helps anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

spot on

 

Thanks :whoo:

 

It's a bit of a shame that the act doesn't outline much to do with the possible sanctions that could be brought for wrongful removal. I'm guessing that would mean a claim for damages, either via the tort route or maybe perhaps breach of contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several causes of action you could use in this situation:

 

  • Trespass
  • Wrongful Interference with Goods
  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Unfair Relationship/Extortionate Credit Bargain

The ONLY defence to any of these is Informed Consent.

 

With trespass the claimant doesn't need to show any that any damage was caused, the mere act of trespass is sufficient to warrant a claim for damages.

 

A Breach of Statutory Duty is actionable by a measure of the damage, injury or loss caused. In this situation I would think that the loss of the vehicle and the cost of a replacement vehicle at the very least are apparent losses that can be claimed for.

 

It would be the Unfair Relationship/Extortionate Credit Bargain part that would allow for the return of all monies paid. When making a claim it is crucial to have a clearly defined cause(s) of action with a basis in law and clarification from statute and case law of what the acceptable remedies are, that way you can give them little room to wriggle out of it.

 

There is case law on this but I will have to find it out when I have more time.

 

Hope that helps.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Ghandi

"You must have the resources to deal with the judicial intervention - the confidence not to be overawed, the resilience to respond, the tenacity to challenge, the tact to mollify, the authority to inform and persuade."

 

Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.

 

<-- If I have helped in any way please click my star!! ;)

Oh and I am a lady!! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how I see it.

 

If there is no consent from the debtor, a creditor needs a court order to enter 'any premises' to repo HP goods, regardless of whether the goods are 'protected' or not (i.e. the 1/3 rule)

 

The case of Spring House v Mount Cook Land (CoA 2001) outlines that a private driveway is classed as premises.

 

Here's the case:

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1833.html&query=title+(+Spring+)+and+title+(+House+)&method=boolean

 

Therefore a HP repo CANNOT be carried out from a private driveway unless they have the owners permission or a court order (a return of goods order is not sufficient)

 

I really hope this helps anyone.

 

That is exactly right and what I have been telling people on the forum for a long time. Also even when a court order has been granted, only a County Court bailiff with a copy of the order in his hand can take the vehicle from private premises.

 

Of course the repo firms take no notice and work on the assumption that people don't know their rights.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Another poser

 

what if when the repossession on private land was done

 

the hire purchase agreement had all ready been defaulted and terminated by the creditor

 

does section 92 of the cca 1974 still apply

 

comments people and please keep it relevant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another poser

 

what if when the repossession on private land was done

 

the hire purchase agreement had all ready been defaulted and terminated by the creditor

 

does section 92 of the cca 1974 still apply

 

comments people and please keep it relevant

 

Yes, the fact that the agreement has been terminated does bot change the fact that they are trying to take the vehicle from a 'premises'

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq

Link to post
Share on other sites

what ime after is to quote case law on a pertic of claim for the replacement of the vehicle and refund of all payments made under the hire purchase agreement for

 

breach of statutory duty

 

but its the relevant case law i need to quote so some links please

Link to post
Share on other sites

May i also add for future reference (if it helps)

 

the creditor does not have to physically remove the vehicle, just restricting your use will suffice. once they have restricted your use of the vehicle, (most common tactic is to clamp the vehicle) then they are equally stuffed.

 

section 92 (1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession (the act of having and controlling property).

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need to clarify one point

 

say the vehicle was parked on next doors drive and you are on holiday.

 

Repo men turn up and say to your neigbour they are there to repo the car and neighbour being innocent gives consent to the repo

 

my question is

 

1/ has the repo agent committed an offence under the dpa 1998 by saying he is there to repo the car

 

and

 

2/ given that the neighbour has given consent does s.92 of the cca still apply

 

i cant see anything in section 92 that mentions consent by the landowner to bypass the requirement of needing a court order

Edited by postggj
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have learned from my own experience that this is in fact an incredibly complex piece of legislation. However, there are several causes of action you can use depending on how complicated you are prepared to make it.

Probably the most relevant offence committed is that of the tort of Conversion, (the civil equivalent to theft), based on The Wrongful Interference With Goods Act 1977 and there are a multitude of remedies and case law that can be applied depending on the entire circumstances of the individual case.

There is Scottish Case Law on Section 92 itself but this can only be used as "persuasive" as far as I know.

The other case laws available to use are to do with trespass, conversion and breach of statutory duty, all of which are relevant and can be used to back up your claim. I'll look them up later today and post up the links in PDF.

I have found that Judges tend to have limited knowledge of this sort of thing so everything really does need to be covered in minute detail down to the exact definition of premises, which has already been covered in this thread. The creditor will do everything they can to squirm out of it and rely on the lack of case law on section 92 to argue their case.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Ghandi

"You must have the resources to deal with the judicial intervention - the confidence not to be overawed, the resilience to respond, the tenacity to challenge, the tact to mollify, the authority to inform and persuade."

 

Strength does not come from winning. Your struggles develop your strengths. When you go through hardships and decide not to surrender, that is strength.

 

<-- If I have helped in any way please click my star!! ;)

Oh and I am a lady!! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...