Black Horse took my car this morning.

[daisy lighter]

Civil law and it's interpretation is about what the court considers to be reasonable. In this case the lender's representative came to the door, said they were repossessing the car and Catflap (presumably) handed over the keys and didn't instruct them to leave (again, presumably).

Presumed correctly.

I asked for a couple of minutes to get my stuff out of the car. She went back and sat in the what ever they're called things that they drive cars onto.

I called her when I was done, handed over keys and logbook.

Like I said it was civilized. If it was done without a court order she must have thought I was a real mug.

 

Yesterday I couldn't see my own posts and started another account so that I could check that my posts were posted. Today I can see them from catflap!!

And I have learnt how to quote properly.

[postggj]

i see you lurking wanabee

 

please join in

 

ime gettimg bored debating these questions:-)

[PaulW922]

The agreement was terminated by the lender yes? In which case that would be the date of default. A copy of the termination notice should confirm that and enable you to put the default date back two years.

 

a default is issued prior to a termination. it gives the debtor 14 days to rectify and after 14 days has elapsed the creditor has up to three months to register a default

 

a termination notice can be issued at any time, an account does not have to be defaulted to be terminated, as long as advance notice has been given

 

an acount can be sold after default without termination also

 

I give up -

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Hello, the first issue that I can see here is that a termination is not necessarily permanent. If both parties agree then a terminated agreement may be reinstated, it would appear that when you rang Black Horse and agreed to pay the £400 you were unwittingly giving your consent to have the agreement reinstated.

They were subsequently permitted to issue a further default and terminate again, this time by virtue of repossessing the car.

 

From here on I would be requesting to see copies of the second default and termination notices and all paperwork pertaining to the court order.

 

I see you have stated that this is a HP agreement but it is still important to ascertain whether or not it was a regulated HP. It is possible that if the vehicle was bought in relation to your business there's a chance the agreement may be unregulated.

 

Were there any insurances added to the agreement?

[daisy lighter]

Hi wannabe -

 

No insurances as I was self employed at the time. Fairly sure it was regulated HP, but I will check that.

Makes sense, I guess, that they could have reinstated the agreement after my call and payment. From what I've been reading this is not really typical BH behaviour.

 

Maybe they had lost all my paperwork and data so when I phoned them I just reminded them. And they had to try and reinstate everything?

 

 

[mcjohnson]

A lot of presumptions going on here!

 

Everyone is presuming the OP has paid at least 50% - I am not so sure; the fact the account hasn't been credited for over 15 months means the interest due on the balance (and can be counted in the 50% equation) has inevitably risen from the original projection, which would have been based on the payments being made according to the payment schedule.

 

Until the OP can determine, from the statement of account, whether the 50% mark had been passed then all other debate regarding the legality of the repossession is pointless. If the 50% mark has not been breached then the repo guys have done nothing wrong, because at no point did the OP order the repo man to leave their property nor did the OP refuse to hand over the vehicle.

 

The OP has no hope of VT'ing the contract, on the basis that - in 15 months - they have (by their own admission) paid virtually nothing towards the financing of the vehicle, whilst continuing to enjoy the use of the vehicle. Clearly, unless those arrears are cleared, the contract could not be VTd.

 

What I don't get, from the OP's original post, is why they're concerned about a default on their credit record when they've got a bankruptcy on there...

[mcjohnson]

Wannabe - how do you contest that the £400 was an "unwitting agreement" - why else do you think the OP believed they were giving BH £400, other than to keep their vehicle, by which token they must have known they were bound by their agreement with BH?

[daisy lighter]

hello mcjohnson

 

I was originally looking for advice on the default date. I have said several times that I have no argument about the car going.

I didn't do anything intentional to keep the car, it just happened and I appreciate that it did.

Like I said earlier I thought it was a fair cop when the car went yesterday.

The default date makes a huge difference to me as I was discharged in Nov 2009. 6 years on my file brings me to 2015 before the BR goes. The default will last until 2017. I lost everything in the BR including my house. My house went because there was so much equity in it. I had previously worked really hard at overpaying it and it ended up being why I lost it.

Renting has not been much fun and I really want to buy again as soon as I can. Those extra couple of years of the default being on my file will make a huge difference as I am not getting any younger!

 

[ArtisanUK]

And I have learnt how to quote properly.

So the repossession of your car did you some good?

[daisy lighter]

So the repossession of your car did you some good?

 

You really are a glass half full person ? Brilliant. 8-)

 

Yes I have learnt something AND gained confidence in posting in general. 87 posts in 5 years with most of them being this past week!!

[mcjohnson]

If you read the hundreds of forums available on this site you will note that, even in exceptionally clear-cut cases of unjust defaults, OPs have persistently struggled to have default notices removed from credit files.

 

I'd be surprised if your creditor - who would be responsible for removing your default notice - would accommodate any discussion on this at all. Indeed their immediate concern will be recovering from you the difference between what they manage to get for the vehicle at auction and what was owed on the account. Regarding your credit report - in the highly unlikely event that the defaults were removed - you'd still have the payment history on your credit report for up to six years, which would show multiple payments consistently being missed.

[daisy lighter]

Hi mcjohson

 

They can't claim back the shortfall as it was entered into my BR. That's how sure I was in 2008 that the car would be going. The guy from BH came out to my house in 2008 and was given a copy of the full BR.

I included everything that could possibly come up. House shortfall in case they sold it for £1.00, tax credits, just in case they ever decided that there was a shortfall. I included everything I could think of.

I am going to remind BH just to save them the bother of chasing me.

Anything that was running before BR and goes into your BR can not have any negative CRA markings after the date of BR.

So it doesn't matter if the default is not removed, as long as its back dated to BR date that's fine for me. All I have to do now is make sure BH realize that.

 

[mcjohnson]

So basically, after including all your liabilities regarding the vehicle within your BR you decided not to continue paying - knowing full well that (if and when) BH repossessed the vehicle you would have no liabilities and BH would lose out... and now you need BH to do you a favour and 'back date' your default for your convenience... Good luck with that.

 

Clearly those organisations whose debts were written-off within the BR and you have no ongoing relationship following the BR can not make entries to a CRA. However you had an ongoing credit agreement with BH following your BR and, as such, they are perfectly entitled to report the account management to the CRA.

 

Keep us posted about the shortfall. Given that, during your BR the OR would have provided a monthly amount to enable you to pay and upkeep your car, which clearly hasn't been spent according to the OR's intentions I suspect BH may challenge you for the shortfall - particularly as secured debts can not be included within a BR, and your car financing is secured against your vehicle BH may argue that the debt has not been discharged.

 

My understanding, and this has been confirmed on several websites I've read, is that if you're declared BR and have a car on HP and you chose to give the car back to the finance company then you can write the shortfall charges off against the BR. However, if you chose to keep the car, then because the debt is secured against the car, it isn't included within the BR and as such BH could still pursue for both the balance due under the agreement.

Edited April 30, 2011 by mcjohnson

[daisy lighter]

So basically, after including all your liabilities regarding the vehicle within your BR you decided not to continue paying - knowing full well that (if and when) BH repossessed the vehicle you would have no liabilities and BH would lose out... and now you need BH to do you a favour and 'back date' your default for your convenience... Good luck with that.

 

I don't think you read the whole thread.

 

I told BH that I was going to declare BR in 2008. Their rep visited the house and was told I couldn't afford the car.I did not decide not to pay. I couldn't pay and expected the car to go. It was left for BH to organize the collection - not me.

In 2010 I phoned them, as I had had no contact from them. I asked for a settlement figure. At that stage I wanted to pay them money. I made contact even though I seemed to have for what ever reason, a free car. We couldn't agree on an amount, I paid them £400 as an incentive (their word not mine) to come back with a more realistic price. They never came back to me. And they have all my contact details. Always have had.

 

Am I right in thinking that your concern with my situation is that BH have obviously made errors on my account, errors that, for once benefited the customer rather than the lender and you have a problem with that?

 

For some reason you think I should take responsibility for their mistakes?

 

By having a default on my credit file for longer than its supposed to be there for?

 

Really ?

 

 

And, no I did not have any allowance from my OR for the car. She knew I couldn't afford it, she told BH to sort it out. That's why they came to my house. Before you have another go my OR has been aware of the situation the whole time.

 

I do not need BH to do me a favor by backdating the default. I expect that they will do what is correct.

Edited May 1, 2011 by daisy lighter

[mcjohnson]

Do you have written confirmation from BH, following the meeting after your bankruptcy, that your vehicle is to be voluntary surrendered and when it would be collected?

 

The tax and insurance on your car would have been a big hit on your monthly allowance, given that your OR wouldn't have budgeted for those amounts. Thus I don't get why, for 18 months, you didn't contact BH to ascertain why they hadn't collected the vehicle - and then (when you did contact them) it was to ascertain a settlement figure, not to collect the car. How could there be a settlement figure, by the information provided you didn't have an agreement with them to settle - it had been terminated some 18 months earlier; what's to settle? It's bizarre that, following your BR you couldn't afford to even run the car on a monthly basis yet - 18 months later - you've somehow managed (during BR) to amass enough funds to consider settling the account outright...

 

Then, for some reason yet to become clear, you pay them £400 - which is clearly to keep the car in your possession. At this point you must know, and I'm pretty certain BH made it clear to you, that the monthly payments have to be made; They weren't, and following this BH impose a default notice and subsequently terminate the agreement.

 

I don't see what BH have done wrong that they need to correct? Do you seriously expect that, following the payment of £400 in June 2010 you didn't have to make anymore regular payments?

Edited May 1, 2011 by mcjohnson

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

As far as I can see it can't hurt to write a letter and see if they will consider removing or backdating the default.

Things definitely didn't happen the way they were supposed to but the reasons for that are neither here nor there really, the main thing is to get the situation resolved somehow.

Do you know if they have received some payment from the shortfall listed on the BR??

[daisy lighter]

Do you know if they have received some payment from the shortfall listed on the BR??

 

No I don't know that - but I will find out. Good idea.

 

Thanks wannabe

Edited May 1, 2011 by daisy lighter

[daisy lighter]

Mcjohnston Post 38 & 40

 

I have explained this enough times for you. There is no point in my explaining to you again.

 

Your posts express your somewhat arrogant and condescending attitude to my situation very well.

 

Have you informed the guys who own this site, the mods, the site teams and all who visit here that you have decided to change the entire ethos of CAG?

 

That this is no longer an advice and information site?

 

That you have taken over as Moral Judge of CAG?

 

If, for some reason you want to drive people away from these boards, well, you are doing a good job.

Edited May 1, 2011 by daisy lighter
Spacing

[dx100uk]

yes i cant say that has not already crossed my mind about that user

 

and not only in this thread either.....

 

CAG is here to HELP people

 

the user is obv very much an asset but needs to turn that to good use

 

dx

[mcjohnson]

You can't actually help anybody until you fully understand the true nature of their posts. There are clearly a lot of people on this site that need help and assistance and, of course, I will help and assist where possible. With a masters in business administration, including knowledge of contract law, and over 15 years in business I can be exceptionally resourceful.

 

However, to be able to help somebody you have to iron out all the inconsistencies to understand what actually happened and, as I mentioned in my initial posts, there are significant inconsistencies to your version of events. You seem less than keen to resolve these inconsistencies, which makes it exceptionally hard to understand what actually happened and thus, offer the correct support to you. Nor is there any point offering you advise that is likely to result in unsuccessful action. Wannabee recommends that you write to BH and ask them nicely to remove the default; Wannabee will also be able to tell you how unlikely this is to actually achieve anything. Thus I wouldn't advise that, I would advise you research the various legislation and your contract with BH to see if their default conforms with both and, if it doesn't, then you present your research and conclusions to BH. You're far more likely to be successful if you can build a legitimate case as to why it should be removed. You stated in a previous post that you want BH to do "what is correct"; well they have done what they believe is correct, it is now up to you to prove what they did is incorrect.

 

DX; if you've got a problem with my posts then please feel free to contact me directly and not bluster. Just because I chose not to pander to the whim of everybody that posts on here, making everybody believe they've got infinite rights, doesn't give you the right to try and evolve me into some kind of pantomime villain. You're clearly upset that I disagreed with you (in another thread) that - despite your contestation - someone couldn't keep their car and get all their historic payments back; a truly ludicrous assertion, and it's that kind of blowing smoke up people's asses that leads to problems taking 5 times longer to resolve and very rarely to the level of expectation that has been built up.

 

I think CAG is an immense website, when used effectively and properly - the bank charges and current PPI work is testament to that. However, if you prefer to lose posters like me - who have a plethora of business and academic experience and want to help - that isn't a problem with me.

[GSMGuy]

I have to say.. I also find mcjohnsons' posts neither helpful nor constructive.. GSMGuy wonders in fact, if we may not have a "mole" in our midst??

 

Mike

[mcjohnson]

Afraid to disappoint, Mike, but I'm actually a business consultant for a global brand - and it's nothing to do with banking or Finance either.

 

Look, and as I iterated in my post which you apparently found completely unhelpful, 99,999 out of 100,000 if you investigate why BH think you defaulted when you did and you can clearly demonstrate an error on their part then they will remove the default. As I demonstrated in my previous posts - and you clearly don't appreciate the fact that i've pointed out that it isn't as clear-cut as others would have you believe - there is logic as to why BH believed they had the right to issue a default, termination and repossess your vehicle. They are not going to change that position until they see evidence that contradicts their position. A nicely worded letter is the 1 in 100,000 option.

 

I'm sorry I don't tart-up my posts with "yeah - we're gonna nail them" and "Oh my god, they're so wrong" and "You must be so mad" - all these kind of sentiments are completely useless and achieve nothing. You've got an issue that needs solving, I've suggested a solution, and it's quite facetious to suggest that this is less helpful than someone telling you to write a nice letter.

[dx100uk]

i can't say that i'm not warming to you...i am...likewise p'haps you are warming to cag too.

 

what however i think what you need to understand, is, that most of what seasoned members post about, is proved by actual outcomes witnessed from threads in this forum.

 

having been here many years, i can understand that coming from the industry and seeing some of the things achieved via cag , might come as a suprise.

 

it is sometimes very difficult for someone in a 'trade' to understand that what they have learned and p'haps believed over many years of working in that field, is, actually not 100% correct .

 

dx

[GSMGuy]

Afraid to disappoint, Mike, but I'm actually a business consultant for a global brand - and it's nothing to do with banking or Finance either.

 

Look, and as I iterated in my post which you apparently found completely unhelpful, 99,999 out of 100,000 if you investigate why BH think you defaulted when you did and you can clearly demonstrate an error on their part then they will remove the default. As I demonstrated in my previous posts - and you clearly don't appreciate the fact that i've pointed out that it isn't as clear-cut as others would have you believe - there is logic as to why BH believed they had the right to issue a default, termination and repossess your vehicle. They are not going to change that position until they see evidence that contradicts their position. A nicely worded letter is the 1 in 100,000 option.

 

I'm sorry I don't tart-up my posts with "yeah - we're gonna nail them" and "Oh my god, they're so wrong" and "You must be so mad" - all these kind of sentiments are completely useless and achieve nothing. You've got an issue that needs solving, I've suggested a solution, and it's quite facetious to suggest that this is less helpful than someone telling you to write a nice letter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all input into my thread, good or bad, but felt the bias was more towards bad lol..

I have just updated it with another letter received from Santanders' solicitors if you'd care to look..

 

PS sorry for hijacking this thread

 

Mike

[dcahelp]

mcjohnson, you're a sledgehammer, nothing subtle about you is there?....

 

Catflap, just so I'm clear.... its not the car itself your concerned about, its the default on your credit file that worries you most? Am I right?

 

Forgive me you may have said previous....

 

Can you not put a notice of correction on your credit file? I might be way off and I am sure post or wannabe will correct me if I am, its just a thought.