Bill of sale defective so is credit agreement secured on it

[rosyb]

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

[rosyb]

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

[sequenci]

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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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?

[rosyb]

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 July 7, 2011 by rosyb
emphasis

[rosyb]

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

[rosyb]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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

[sequenci]

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.

[sequenci]

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

 

Sure makes a change from arguing with her indoors.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Never argue it's just heated discussions:ballchain:

[raydetinu]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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

[rosyb]

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

[rosyb]

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

[postggj]

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

[rosyb]

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

[rosyb]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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!!!

[rosyb]

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

[rosyb]

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

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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