Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4482 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

Hi Guys! I am new to this forum, but unfortunately not new to my HPI debt, which is now contorlled by DLC AKA Hillesden Securites!

 

I bought a car on Hire Purchase in 2008

The car broke, and as a result had a new gearbox fitted under warranty, which itself broke 2 months later

 

Peugeot refused to fix under warranty, saying it was drivers error,

black horse did not want to help, and I could not keep up the finance!!

 

The debt now stands at £12000+.

 

I am currently bankrupt,

the insolvency service are aware of this debt with the car,

but cannot take it on fully until the car is reposessed!!

 

Currently DLC own the car, but are refusing to reposess!

they contatntly ring me, which is NOT allowed under section 285 of the insolvency act!!!

 

Peugeot are charging me storage which is currently at £1572.00, they will not release the car until payment is made

(I am liable as i well know and am fine with) but they will not release the car to me as DLC own the car,

but DLC will not reposess and will not give a reason as to why!

 

Until they do, the insolvency service will not take this debt on fully!!!

 

Please help I need to know what to do,

DLC are very threatening, but this does not bother me,

but what does bother me is the smarmy comments i get when they think they have won because they will not reposess the car!

BUT even after I am discharged from bankruptcy,

 

They debt will still be included in my bankruptcy estate as the debt was incurred before I was made officially bankrupt!!

 

Sorry to go on, but this debt is going on as is the problems with DLC!!

 

Thankyou in advance for any advice

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thankyou for your reply so quickly!

 

How do I find the new thread where it has been moved too??

 

I have an update, BlackHorse said they no longer own the car, but DLC have bought the debt!

 

They advised me to do a HPI check, which I have in front of me, and it says...........Black Horse own the car!!

 

I am the registered keeper, but NOT the legal owner! so why will they not reposess!??

 

Many Thanks again for such a quick reply!!

 

Tom :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

its here where you are.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly

stay off the phone to DLC

everything in writing only

 

you are under no legal obl to talk them on the phone.

 

and i dont think you owe anything on the car all.

 

the car and the loan are two sep things

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is where it is getting confusing,

 

Peugeot will not release the car until money is paid for the storage costs. They won't release it to me, because I am not the legal owner, I am only the registered keeper. Having my name on the log book is not proof of ownership. Because the money is owed on the car, they need to reposess, so as to claim some money back on it. Then the shortfall will be added to my bankruptcy estate. The insolvency service will not take the debt on now, because I still have the car (in theory) so they would potntially be buying the car for me!!

 

DLC are refusing to reposess the car, peugeot won't realease it to me, so every day it sits there, its more storage costs on my head

 

BUT if I get the car, and they still wont reposess, bailiffs will come, and guess what..........reposess the car!??

 

I wanna lose it today.........................

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise also to now stay off the phone with them, but all I really need now is for them to reposess the car, then the money owed goes into my bankruptcy estate, then bobs your uncle, I'm debt free! But it isn't as simple as it sounds. Blakc horse said they no longer own the car, but DLC do, DLC say they do not have the facility to reposess the car, but I cannot legally sell it because of the outstanding money owed on it!??

 

I shall be back later to check the post

 

Many thanks again

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

as the car was very obv not fit for purpose

 

i do not think your 'owe' anything on the agreement.

so it does not need to be worried about it at all.

 

forget the car and what you owe

 

let them sort it out.

 

thats why its gone to a dca

 

blackhorse obv know this.there is absolutely no way this would ever get to court.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

and who has advised BK?

 

are your debts THAT bad?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By BK I guess you mean bankruptcy? I had no choice really, my debts are that bad, my wife and I barely pay the bills, and often juggle around paying less to some bills to get through! So I had to choose this route. Back to the car, I have been advised legally, that, I do owe money, ALTHOUGH bankrupt, the debt is not yet covered by my bankruptcy estate, because I still have to goods, whilst I have the goods, the debt is a finance deal, when they reposess the car, it is a debt, with no goods to show for, hence then it becomes a debt covered by my bankruptcy, but the problem I have is that I cannot get the car reposessed by DLC or whoever owns the damn thing, this is where my troubles start....

Link to post
Share on other sites

forget the BK for the minute.

 

if you were to start a thread solely on the car issue, then the eventual outcome

i bet of the advise would conclude you owe nowt.

 

the car was not fit for purpose - end of!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont trust blackhorse as far as you can kick then - do some reading

 

also forget whatever a dca says

 

they have no legal powers whatsoever

and are only interested in getting money out of your

by telling you whatever they need to fleece you.

 

WHO told you you legally owe for the car?

 

its a heap of crap, that was never fit for purpose from day one.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...