Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well I sent them the letter of claim, the only responses so far was a few emails reopening the claims on the parcels where they asked for information such as proof of value (which I get) but other things like photos of the parcels, which I haven't got as I never took photos of them. It's been well over the 14 days since I sent the letter now anyway, so what do you think I should do now?
    • Know it has already been answered, but? Does not explain why JCI has registered a different default date when they get the information from the original creditor, Virgin
    • Since you were stopped at the time there is no requirement for the police give you anything there and then or to send you anything before they have decided how to deal with the offence.  They have three choices: Offer you a course Offer you a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) Prosecute you in court  The only option that has a formal time limit is (3). They must begin court proceedings within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Options (1) and (2) have no time limit but since the only alternative the police have if you decline those offers is (3) they will not usually offer a course beyond three months from the date of the offence and will not usually offer a fixed penalty beyond four months from that date. This is so as to allow time for the driver to accept and comply with their offer and to give them the time to go to option (3) if he declines or ignores it.  Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, the action they take will usually be in accordance with the National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance on speeding enforcement. In a 40mph limit this is as follows Up to 45mph - no action. Between 46mph and 53mph - offer a course Between 54mph and 65mph - offer a fixed penalty Over 65mph - prosecution in court So you can see that 54mph should see you offered a fixed penalty. Three weeks is not overly long for a fixed penalty offer to arrive. As well as that, there has been Easter in that period which will have slowed things down a bit. However, I would suggest that if it gets to about two months from the offence date and you have still heard nohing, I would contact the ticket office for the area where you were stopped to see if anything has been sent to you. Of course this raises the danger that you might be "stirring the hornets' nest". But in all honesty, if the police have decided to take no action, you jogging their memory should not really influence them. The bigger danger, IMHO, is that your fixed penalty offer may have been sent but lost and if you do not respond it will lapse. This will see the police revert to option (3) above. Whilst there is a mechanism in these circumstances  to persuade the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (rather than in accordance with the normal guidelines which will see a harsher penalty), it relies on them believing you when you say you did not received an offer. In any case it is aggravation you could well do without so for the sake of a phone call, I'd enquire if it was me.  I think I've answered all your questions but if I can help further just let me know. Just a tip - if you are offered a fixed penalty be sure to submit your driving licence details as instructed. I've seen lots of instances where a driver has not done this. There will be no reminder and no second chance; your £100 will be refunded and the police will prosecute you through the courts.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Bill of sale defective so is credit agreement secured on it


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4686 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

Fortunately I have some information coming from a very reliable and trusted source in a short while,

perhaps it will put this to bed for the OP.

 

It dose not matter if the BOS is correctly executed or not as far as the op is concerned.

I am not sure you know what the issue is. As far as I can see the OP wanted to know if the agreement is enforceable. It is.

The security in whatever state it was in should not have been seized by the creditor.

If the BOS was valid the act prohibited seizure via section 87.

If the BOS was not valid the act prohibited seizure via section 87.

Either way the OP can sue for damages and maybe even conversion.

IN view of moneys owed under the agreement, if the BOS was not valid and the op had paid more than half of the agreement then section 99 would operate and there should be nothing further to pay.

If the BOS was correct then the value of the car would be added to the amount paid and subtracted from the total credit this would be the amount owed. THis is interesting but the main thing is the fact that the OP can counter claim.

An in depth analysis of some 19th century act may be of interest to you and me but it is not going to make a lot of difference to the OP.

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

rosyb,

I dont think it says that at all? needs explaining in english?

Its the creditor that has to return the security ( BOS ) and refund any monies received.

It does not mention lender at all!

oh dear, got a headache!

 

 

You know this is very rude

You ask a question, i try to explain the answer to you.

If you do not undertand my reply, then say i do not undertand, and i will try to explain further.

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

IN view of moneys owed under the agreement, if the BOS was not valid and the op had paid more than half of the agreement then section 99 would operate and there should be nothing further to pay

 

I'm not sure that's right.

 

Since when was a Bill of Sale a HP or Conditional sale agreement.

 

Bills of sales are used becuase they circumvent the likes of s99, surely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

rosyb,

I dont think it says that at all? needs explaining in english?

Its the creditor that has to return the security ( BOS ) and refund any monies received.

It does not mention lender at all!

oh dear, got a headache![/quote

 

Hi Raydetinue.

 

Can you find anywhere in this thread a statement that the ''goods'' have been seized, been over it a few times and can't find anything,

that involves the seizure mentioned in post 51?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's right.

 

Since when was a Bill of Sale a HP or Conditional sale agreement.

 

Bills of sales are used becuase they circumvent the likes of s99, surely?

 

Yes i thought i said if the bos was not valid?

So section 99 would not be circumvented.

 

Rosy

Edited by rosyb
emphasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

many thanks people

 

i have my answer

 

any repo will be unlawful with a duff default notice and the debtor will be able to pursue for brach of contract

even if a compliant default notice is issued later

 

s.92 and redress under s.132 of the cca 1974

 

See above

 

What did you think"repo" meant

 

! out of ten for observation

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's right.

 

Since when was a Bill of Sale a HP or Conditional sale agreement.

 

Bills of sales are used becuase they circumvent the likes of s99, surely?

 

Sorry just to clarify this is not a bill of sale agreement, this is consumer credit agreement using a bill of sale for security.

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

If if you read the post 51# you stated that the goods should not have been seized, at no point

has actual seizure been mentioned.

 

Good night and now for peace.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sequnci do you think will ever hear the last of this:jaw:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just to clarify this is not a bill of sale agreement, this is consumer credit agreement using a bill of sale for security.

 

Rosy

 

That's what I meant.

 

Certainly NOT HP or Conditional Sale, and therefore s99 would not apply in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never argue it's just heated discussions:ballchain::ballchain::blah:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry If I mentioned goods, meant whatever is secured by the BOS.

Rosby mentioned vehicle which was never part of this thread?

see post #47 in

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?307788-I-really-need-some-advice-re-car-repossession-asap-please./page3

re BOS and CCA Hip Hop won that one.

useful info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks she also mention the goods should have not been seized,no mention of any such action was made.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I meant.

 

Certainly NOT HP or Conditional Sale, and therefore s99 would not apply in the slightest.

 

No you are absolutely right it isnt, appologies, it is a fixed sum agreement so the value of the security would be taken into account in the same way.

 

IF i were to be the type to squirm a bit i may say that if i was defending this and my client had paid half the price, i would be mentioning to the court, that if this had been a HP agreement then there would have been nothing more to pay.

 

To be fair this this not the main issue of the thread but hands up.

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

If if you read the post 51# you stated that the goods should not have been seized, at no point

has actual seizure been mentioned.

 

Good night and now for peace.

 

Getting pedantic now siezure = reposessed

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep the debate comming people:-)

 

so ill throw this into the equation just to end this bit of the debate so we can move on

 

we have a

 

consumer credit agreement to purchase a car which is secured by a bill of sale

 

does not matter if a third has been paid, say no payments have been received in this case

 

if the bill of sale is defective for what ever reason and the creditor does a repo on a defective bill of sale then i take it

 

THE PROTECTION EMBEDDED IN THE CCA KICKS IN, BE IT S.90,92,140, WHATEVER

 

THE CREDITOR CANNOT RELY ON THE SECURITY OF THE BILL OF SALE TO CIRCUMVENT SAY S.90 BEING THE BILL OF SALE IS DEFECTIVE

 

MANY THANKS PEOPLE

 

KEEP IT COMMING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks she also mention the goods should have not been seized,no mention of any such action was made.

 

Mentioned way back in post 4 by the OP where he said," repo"d sily me i took that to mean goods were siezed

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry If I mentioned goods, meant whatever is secured by the BOS.

Rosby mentioned vehicle which was never part of this thread?

see post #47 in

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?307788-I-really-need-some-advice-re-car-repossession-asap-please./page3

re BOS and CCA Hip Hop won that one.

useful info.

 

Seen many of these agreements before ,i think i have a couple in a file somewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioned way back in post 4 by the OP where he said," repo"d sily me i took that to mean goods were siezed

 

Rosy

Quite right it does mention repo but DOES NOT SAY IT HAS TAKEN PLACE!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep the debate comming people:-)

 

so ill throw this into the equation just to end this bit of the debate so we can move on

 

we have a

 

consumer credit agreement to purchase a car which is secured by a bill of sale

 

does not matter if a third has been paid, say no payments have been received in this case

 

if the bill of sale is defective for what ever reason and the creditor does a repo on a defective bill of sale then i take it

 

THE PROTECTION EMBEDDED IN THE CCA KICKS IN, BE IT S.90,92,140, WHATEVER

 

THE CREDITOR CANNOT RELY ON THE SECURITY OF THE BILL OF SALE TO CIRCUMVENT SAY S.90 BEING THE BILL OF SALE IS DEFECTIVE

 

MANY THANKS PEOPLE

 

KEEP IT COMMING

 

 

The creditor should not have reposessed without a defafult notice irrespective of if the BOS was effective or not.

 

Section 87 would apply this is a fixed sum DCS loan uinder section 11 of the act with the vehcle being used as security.

All the BOS does is change the ownership duriong the purchasing period, in the case of the bos the ownership would be with the grantee(creditor), in this respect it is very similar to a HP agreement(where ownership is assigned on the last payment to the lender), if the BOS was inafective the olwnership would remain with the grantor from the start until the agreement is paid, defaulted or terminated, in a similar way to a convetional secured loan.

 

Rosy

 

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

many thanks people

 

i have my answer

 

any repo will be unlawful with a duff default notice and the debtor will be able to pursue for brach of contract

even if a compliant default notice is issued later

 

s.92 and redress under s.132 of the cca 1974

 

Now it doesnt take Sherlock Holmes to work out the sequence of events does it," Repo unlawful" followed by "default issued later". or perhaps i am just brilliant

I was after all correct in this instance

Rosy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have been on Wickipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...