BlackHorse Car HP Finince hell

[paulwlton]

I took out a hire-purchase loan to buy a car over 4 years,

after 6 payments i defaulted and was sent the default notice,

i paid the arrears off and continued with the payments

 

 

the agreement stated that when half the total amount had been paid the car could be handed back and the contract terminated.

 

After making payments for just over 2 years

I contacted the finance company and explained that i had paid above 50% of the total amount and wished to return the car as the contract stated,

 

 

it was explained that my rights to end the agreement had been made void as i had already defaulted.

 

Being financialy vunerable at the time i could not meet the payments and was defaulted

subsequently a CCJ was sought and obtained for £3000 and the car repossessed.

 

Could i have grounds to have the judgement set-aside, or am i just another victim.

Thanks for any advice.

[Guest Zooman]

just another victim by the sounds of it.

[buzby]

The HP agreement offers only 1 benefit to the applicant, is that AFTER 50% of the agreement has been paid, the company cannot take the car from you without your consent, they have to go to court to to seek a reposession order. If you've not made 50% of the payments, they can reposess without having to go to court.

 

Now, why you felt it was worthwhile continuing to pay for the vehicle UNTIL you reached the 50% threshold eludes me - the quicket the car went back the higher its resale value would have been, if effect you would have just been throwing your money away making those payments. Who suggested you do thiis?

[paulwlton]

If i had ended the agreement before i had paid 50% of the loan back, say after 6 months, i would still have had to pay the sum required which was about £3000 which was half the loan amount,

thats why i chose to carry on with payments untill 50% had been paid then rights under the contract would have allowed me to hand the car back thus terminating the agreement.

[buzby]

However, if they are now saying the loan was in default anyway - surely you would have been in exactly the same position, yet not still having to pay them for the vehicle that had been returned/reposessed? When these matters are usually being concluded, the car's residual value at sale can make a considerable difference to the credit side of the balance sheet. There are a number of wrinkles that only apply to HP (not credit) that might make it worthwhile running it past Trading Standards for their input?

[paulwlton]

On the front of the agreement it stated,-termination your rights £3,300,85 if you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue instalments, you will not have to pay any more provided you have taken reasonable care of the goods.

I had paid back £3500 when i asked if i could terminate the agreement.

[buzby]

Is this really an agreement regulated under the Hire Purchase Acts? It sound like those 'Personal Leases' that gave you an opt-out with a stipulation that the car wasn;t used for commercial travelling and had a maximum amount of mileage you could do without having a pence-per-mile charge for going over the limit.

 

That said, you might have a greater right to redress than under the HP rules - what does the cotract you sign say it is, HP, Credit or Lease?

[paulwlton]

It was a hire-purcase agreement,

it had a liquidated damages clause that set the consumers financial liability on repudiatory breach.

 

 

The OFT having looked into car finance contracts recently argued that to be fair the liquidated damages clauses either needed to strike a balance between the different measures appropriate to repudiatory and non-repudiatory situations, or limit their full loss recovery to only those situations which were in fact repudiatory.

 

Could i argue that the unfair term in the contract was applied to my situation

and this to be the basis for a set-aside.

[buzby]

Ah - this has changed since the last time (and it will be the last!) I took out an HP agreement. It sounds as though all your bases are covered, but as for having the judgement set-aside.... it may cost you far more to do this than simply accepting it, in the knowlege that it will 'drop off' in 72 months from the date of judgement.

[paulwlton]

Date of judgement was August 2000

the finance company excepted payments of £18.00 per month which i am still paying,

 

 

whats this about 72 months

 

 

i am in the belief that if i still owe the finance company money under this CCJ then the judgement will remain on my file.

Thanks for your response.

[buzby]

The record of the CCJ remains on the files of Registry Trust, who supply data to the referecne agencies, however this information is removed after the 6th anniversary is reached, even if the debt is not marked as 'satisifed' it cannot be allowed to remain on your record after this time. From what you say, it should already be expunged, and you have rights to challenge this if not. As to the payments you make to the finance company, they may be reporting this as payments made to them (and any lateness to any payment) but if it points to or makes not of these are payments to account to clear a CCJ, I would again challenge this. You need to get a copy of your credit file form all three agencies (at £2 each) and then work through them to sort out any 'errors'.

[paulwlton]

Thanks for that Okonski just a few moments ago i checked out the OFT website it gives examples of unfair terms in contracts,

Edited February 27, 2010 by paulwlton

[buzby]

It would be the only way forward, but as I mentioned earlier thie process of obtaining satisfaction cna be tortuous - and expensive! Good luck, whatever you choose to do!

[sequenci]

The HP agreement offers only 1 benefit to the applicant, is that AFTER 50% of the agreement has been paid, the company cannot take the car from you without your consent, they have to go to court to to seek a reposession order. If you've not made 50% of the payments, they can reposess without having to go to court.

 

Now, why you felt it was worthwhile continuing to pay for the vehicle UNTIL you reached the 50% threshold eludes me - the quicket the car went back the higher its resale value would have been, if effect you would have just been throwing your money away making those payments. Who suggested you do thiis?

 

it's actually 1/3 rather than 50%

[buzby]

it's actually 1/3 rather than 50%

 

Depends on the agreement - mine stated 50%.

[sequenci]

Depends on the agreement - mine stated 50%.

 

i didn't know that!

 

i thought that section 90 of the CCA states that goods would be protected after 1/3 has been paid and that section 99 allows someone the statutory right to terminate the agreement any any time before the final payment, return the goods and limit liability to 50% of the HP price.

[paulwlton]

The agreement stated - if you have paid one third of the total amount payable the owner would require a court order to take back the goods.

 

Termination: your rights

 

You have a right to end this agreement.

If you wish to do so, it goes on to say once you've paid half the total amount payable you will not have to pay any more.

However two terms in the contract relating to repudiotary breach required the repayment of all sums due plus all future rentals,

 

In September 2005 The terms were found to be unfair contract terms by the OFT therefore legally unenforcable, this will form the basis for the court order to be set-aside.

 

At the moment i'm not sure what road to go down regarding the set-aside,

has i stated in a earlier post under the court order i am required to make payments of £18.50 per month these started in 2000,

 

 

what i need to know is could i apply contractual interest 25.8% to each payment made in the same way bank charges are calculated.

I'm not sure on the court procedures regarding set-asides.

 

Will keep updating this thread

i believe there will be a number of people out there with this agreement

not realising extremely important terms whithin it are not legaly binding,

by the way the company in question is Lloyds Black Horse fiinance formerly Lloyds Bowmaker.

[buzby]

Mine was an old agreement - taken out in 1999 and of a 7-year duration. It probably has changed by now, but I certainly won;t enter into an HP agreement again. There is much greater control getting the funds unsecured (if you can) and leaving the vehicle out of the equation, as it's losses in value make it useless as a security.

[paulwlton]

I've just had a thought, why would i apply for a set-aside just yet when the payments i'm making are earning interest at 25.8%, i may even increase the amount.

Any thoughts.

[buzby]

Trouble is no court would agree - 8% is the standard rate and in no way 25% would be called a 'commercial rate' - I wish you well, but I think you'll ultimately be disappointed...!

[paulwlton]

The court allowed the finance company to apply interest at a rate equivalant to the APR of 25.8% of unpaid rentals from the day when it should have been paid until it was paid, this is stated in the particulars of claim, the APR being the contractual interest.

This being the case i'm not sure the court would bar one party from claiming contractual interest whilst allowing the other party the right to claim it.

[buzby]

Things don't always work out that way - the customer may have agreed to the former arrangement, but there's nothing to say that the letter would agree to it for any failure of theirs, especially after a dispute. Clearly, it'll need a judge or Sheriff to review the issue and decide accordingly.

[paulwlton]

I agree, at the end of the day a judge will decide but the fact i am still making payments every month which are gaining at least 8% in interest with a further 7 years before the debt is cleared, i think i am in a good position regards bargaining.

I will seek further advise on Thursday from a local solicitor on the way forward.

[buzby]

Crumbs - with that level of commitment still to go, a renegotiation would be a sensible way forward, hopefully it'll work out but I've stopped being amazed at the unfairness of the system....

[paulwlton]

In the particulars of claim and within the contract the word repudiate is used, this implies that if a payment is not made or is late then your basically refusing to accept the agreement and your liable for the total ammount payable.

 

The payments under the agreement were £123.00 per month, the month i was said to have repudiated was june 1998.

 

After checking through bank statements £270.00 was taken from my account by way of referral fees and bumped direct debits in the said month, i would contend that the reason i became liable for the total ammount wasn't through repudiation but by unlawful actions of a third party.