RCI cancel HP/want Van back after ONE missed payment - help

[AndyPlumber]

Hi i am hoping somebody will give me some advice.

 

This morning somebody knocked on my parents door asking for me, (I live in Devon and they live in Manchester)

it was about my van and they asked my dad to contact me to tell me to give them a call.

 

I called the guy and he told me to contact RCi Financial services LTD regarding payment arrears.

 

I rang them and asked what it was all about and they said that i was in arrears and that they were taking the vehicle back and had cancelled my finance agreement.

 

I was not aware that i was in arrears,

they told me they had sent me letters and and rang my mobile,

i explained that i have not recived anyletters or phone calls,

I asked them to confirm the mobile number they had on file and it was the right number,

at which point they replied that the number was not recognised on their system, it was coming up as an unrecognised number.

 

I have checked my bank account and can see that I did miss a payment in November but payments from then have been going out.

 

I told RCI the Direct Debits have been going out of my account but they say the agreement has already been cancelled

and that the monies they have taken were used to pay the arrears incurred since January.

 

They told me the agreement has been cancelled and that the matter is closed,

I either hand the vehicle back or pay the finance off, the amount they quoted is £10,159.00 but the original finance was only £9,368.12,

i have paid 12 months worth of direct debits at £205.00 per month (£2460.00).

 

They have not not taken into consideration that i was not aware of the situation that has arisen or offered me the opportunity to bring the finance up to date.

 

I am self-employed and need the van for work, if i loose my van i will not be able to work and i am desperate to avoid this situation becoming a reality.

 

I have never had any problems with finance companys and RCI's attitude has been very unhelpful and unproffessional, Please help!

[dx100uk]

so much for helping customers huh.

 

well dont hand the van back under VS

do it under VT

but thats a while off

 

what type of agreement did you have

loan or HP?

 

dx

[AndyPlumber]

Hi thanks for your reply.

 

The agreement was under hp

 

Andy

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

You should apply to the court for a time order, provided you can pay the arrears back within a reasonable time (say 6 months or so), this would enable you to keep the vehicle. Don't hang about though, looks like you have paid less than a third of the total purchase price so RCI can simply repossess your vehicle without a court order if they want.

[dx100uk]

but not from private property/your drive without your consent

 

if you park it on the road - a public place then they can.

 

 

.....................

 

 

nicked this from somewhere on here moons ago

 

If this is a regulated hire purchase/conditional sale agreement where the car is specifically mentioned on the agreement,

and you have paid more than one third of the total purchase price, [but check the T&C's too]

they can only repossess the vehicle with either a court order or your consent.

ideally one should never VS , but VT

if you initially gave consent by signing the VS form its ok, but the key is that that consent is revocable.

In other words, it still has to exist at the time of repossession.

if it is a fixed sum loan agreement (personal loan), no mention of the car at all, they can't touch the car,

they are stuffed as far as repo goes. they can't even obtain a court order for a repo,

the only way they would be allowed to take the car is if you gave them consent to do so.

if they take the car, it is highly arguable that you had withdrawn your consent when they took the vehicle (otherwise why would you deny them access?).

If they did repo without your consent, then the good news is that the CCA requires them to repay you everything you have paid under the agreement,

including your deposit - so effectively you will have had a totally free car for the time you had it.

 

..............

 

 

dx

[sequenci]

As dbabylon quite rightly states a VT will not be possible if the agreement has already been terminated by the finance firm. A SAR could be a good idea, especially to check the terms & conditions of the agreement to see what might trigger a default in the first instance.

 

A Time Order sounds almost certainly to be the route to take here as Gaston points out; more info here:

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=06_time_orders

 

It's best to make the application the the back of the creditors application for the return of the goods to save money.

[cyril1982]

regarding a time order, i thought you could only apply for a time order in defence of a creditors attempt to seek a court otder for return of the goods.

 

since it appears that 1/3rd hasn'r been paid the creditor wont be seeking a court order.

[AndyPlumber]

Hi sorry i have not replied to any post.

 

On wednesday my van was recovered by RCI Ltd,

the guys who came to collect the van were not nice people,

one of them insulted my partner,

they both threw all my posessions from the van all over the private driveway as i live on private lands living within a 1800's manor house in the courtyard,

so i do not own any land on site other than inside my Cottage,

i told them i haven't had any letters or calls and they could not take the vehicle.

 

They insisted they were taking with or without my consent.

 

They broke a few things out of the van and i thought the law state they have to respect your property and you.

 

i got a form off them which i had to sign and when i read the back it stated that if i didn't hand them the V5 document and vehicle documentation the i would be charged,

they didn't evan ask for any of these.

 

and now to get my vehicle back i have to pay £10,000 or it goes to auction and i will be liable for the shortfall when they sell it.

 

Regards Andy

[sequenci]

regarding a time order, i thought you could only apply for a time order in defence of a creditors attempt to seek a court otder for return of the goods.

 

since it appears that 1/3rd hasn'r been paid the creditor wont be seeking a court order.

 

You can apply for a time order as soon as an arrears noptice has been served, it's expensive at that point though (£175). Most people would usually wait to apply as per a response to a return of goods order.

[AndyPlumber]

My vehicle was taken by a recovery agency on Wednesday 29th February,

 

i spoke to the finance company that afternoon to see what options i had regarding getting my vehicle back,

i was told that i had to either pay off the loan or that i could buy the vehicle back for the amount that is outstanding, £10,159.00.

 

I told them that i wanted my vehicle back and that i would like to buy it but would need to obtain a loan,

i asked how long they would hold it for,

 

i also asked if they would accept confirmation of the loan in writing as assurance that the funds would be available,

 

i was told yes, they would hold the van for a period of 2 weeks.

 

I secured the loan the following day, the money was transfered to my account that evening, 2nd March,

 

i rang RCI first thing on Friday morning fully expecting to be able to buy my van from them and was extremely shocked to be told that the van has been sent to an auction company,

200 miles away in Nottingham, the auction date is the 16th March.

 

When i challenged this decision i was told that the 2 week holding period is not something that they would ever have agreed to and that i had been given incorrect/false information.

 

I am very surprised that they acted so quickly especially as they knew that i wanted my vehicle back,

it makes no business sense for them to not want to accept my payment for the full amount owing,

i am now expected to attend the auction and try to buy my van back,

 

if i am unable to attend the van will no doubt sell for far less than the £10,159.00

 

RCI require and i will be responsible for the shortfall,

this seems highly unfair in light of the fact that i was willing to pay them this amount in full on Friday morning.

 

Is there anything i can do legally to either fight the shortfall, or reverse the auction decision?

 

The money is in my account and i would like my vehicle back as soon as possible,

without it i am unable to work, this is costing me £120.00 per day, the longer this goes on the more i will loose.

 

As i mentioned above i may end up paying RCI for the shortfall and this will have to come from the money i currently have

which will determine whether i will have enough money remaining to purchase another van, if not i will be forced into unemployment.

[dx100uk]

correct me if i''m wrong guys but..

 

Even if you have not paid a third or more they cannot take the car without a court order from private property.

 

 

i think you've got them

you can legally demand the car back and you've got nowt more to pay.

 

dx

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

i think you've got them

you can legally demand the car back and you've got nowt more to pay.

 

dx

 

Really? Where do you get this from?

[postggj]

This is section 92 of the cca 1974

 

92 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.

 

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

 

breach of statutory duty

 

(140 cca1974)

 

s. 91. cca 1974

 

If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90—

 

the regulated agreement, if not previous terminated, shall terminate,

 

and

 

the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement,

 

(PROTECTED GOODS)

 

and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the

debtor under the agreement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2012 by squaddie

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

The section 91 remedy only applies to a breach of section 90, which is not the case here. And furthermore, it does not allow the hirer to get the vehicle back anyway. So to suggest that taking a vehicle from a drive (which doesn't belong to the OP anyway) entitles the OP to get the vehicle back AND have the balance written off is just pure fantasy. The best the OP could hope for is about £10 damages for trespass, that's if he owns the drive in question in the first place.

 

But anyway there is no way RCI would rather sell the vehicle and pursue the OP for any shortfall, than accept payment of the settlement figure and release the vehicle back. It's not being sold for 2 weeks so the OP just needs to speak to RCI and offer to pay the full balance, and they will then allow him to collect the vehicle from the auction.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Gaston Grimsdyke

[postggj]

as to section 90

 

would the goods be protected as to section 90 being that the reposession is contrary to statutory duty and that redress can be sought via s.140 of the cca

 

140a(b) would be the section for redress as by taking the vehicle in contravention of s.92 in that the creditor has done an unlawful recession of contract and taken protected goods and the debtor is released from all future responsability for the agreement

 

the point i am making is the creditor has taken the vehicle contrary to s.92 so the creditor has done an unlawful recession of contract and the debtor is released from all future obligations

 

me just thinking out of the box on this

Edited March 4, 2012 by squaddie

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

They aren't protected goods, that definition relates purely to how much has been paid under the agreement. OP has paid less than one third, so s91 doesn't apply at all. Might conceivably argue unfair relationship under s140 but there was no trespass to the OP's property so wouldn't hold out much hope. And it isn't clear there has been a breach of s92 anyway, "premises" is not defined by the Act and might be restricted to buildings, in which case it would be fine to remove the vehicle from a private drive.

[dx100uk]

i think a search of POSTGGJ posts on welcome and Yes car credit threads is woth a look

 

i think this has been successful a number of time.

 

dx

[sequenci]

Gaston is bang on here. We use the case of Spring House v Mount Cook Land when arguing the definition of premises. Even if an argue was successful I doubt there would be much in the way of damages awarded.

[postggj]

please educate me on this one

 

Spring House v Mount Cook Land

 

as i remember that was a clause in a lease where no goods shall be parked ouside a premisis. that was a caveat incorporated into a lease

 

i do not see the relevance on repossession a motor vehicle contrary to s.92 of the cca 1974

 

92 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.

 

even if the car was parked on the drive, it would still be within the highway boundary of the house as stipulated by the deeds of the property

 

so s.92 takes precedence

 

confused and intrigued and wait for clarification with eagerness

[sequenci]

We use that case specifically and only to set the definition of 'premises'. The 1974 Act is silent on the matter so you have to look to case law to try and argue that a private driveway is part of the premises.

 

Hope that makes sense.

[AndyPlumber]

Hi Again

 

I have just found out today that the van, that was supposed to be in Nottingham is actually not there it hasn't left the holding company in Bridgwater.

When I rang RCI on Friday offering to pay for the van they told me that the option to do this was no longer available becasuse it was on its way to an Auction House, it would appear that they were lying.

 

I feel that RCI had no intention of letting me purchase the van, it seems they would rather send it to auction and sell for pennies then hold me responsible for paying the shortfall, this will no doubt put me into a debt situation which surely must be illegal considering i have offered the full outstanding balance on numerous occasions, trying to resolve this matter to everyones satisfaction and benefit? where is the logic in this descision? it would seem they have no ethics and absolutely no customer service.

 

This morning i again rang RCI to ask why they have lied to me about the location of the van and i asked to speak to a managing director, they said someone would call back, upto now 10 hours later no phone call.

[postggj]

We use that case specifically and only to set the definition of 'premises'. The 1974 Act is silent on the matter so you have to look to case law to try and argue that a private driveway is part of the premises.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

still confused

 

the definition of premisis is that the surounding area is public highway and not private and maintained at public expense

[sequenci]

still confused

 

the definition of premisis is that the surounding area is public highway and not private and maintained at public expense

 

Just looking at my HP training notes (these are a little old now). I says that 'premises' isn't really defined in the 1974 Act and goes on to quote the aforementioned case to set the definition. It is a few years old now. The definition that you give - is that a generally used rule? Thanks

[dx100uk]

please educate me on this one

 

Spring House v Mount Cook Land

 

as i remember that was a clause in a lease where no goods shall be parked ouside a premisis. that was a caveat incorporated into a lease

 

i do not see the relevance on repossession a motor vehicle contrary to s.92 of the cca 1974

 

92 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.

 

even if the car was parked on the drive, it would still be within the highway boundary of the house as stipulated by the deeds of the property

 

so s.92 takes precedence

 

confused and intrigued and wait for clarification with eagerness

 

god i wish i had time to find the postggj stuff

i know he won several times on this

 

without a court order, they [a repro co.] cannot take any vehicle on private property/drive.

 

dx