Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • where does anything say its a penalty charge please? sit on your hands , stop begging to everyone await if/when you ever get a letter of claim. thread title updated     
    • Hi all, new member, being advised by someone on another forum but looking for the opinion of others to help me decide what to do.  Bit of a long one but I am looking for some quite specific advice or signposting to somewhere that may hold the correct information. Long story short, I bought an Audi on finance years ago and traded my old car in under the diesel scrappage scheme, brilliant. This allowed me to reduce the value of my brand new car by £7,000 Fast forward a few years later and I fell into hardship. Unfortunately I could no longer afford the car and despite my best efforts at trying to negotiate some kind of support from VWFS (Audi financial Services), the car was subsequently marked stolen and I was pulled over at the side of the road using Tactical Pursuit and Contain. My car was then recovered back to the finance company. I struggled for a while, bought an older car to get myself by and eventually got my finances back on track. Then in September of last year I became aware of a CCJ against me filed by VWFS, for the shortfall of the agreement minus the value of the car which was sold at auction. This caused me to do some research into my agreement, legislation and also consult some legal advice. Using another forum and speaking to retired vehicle finance lawyers, it turned out I may have some grounds to apply to set aside the CCJ at a Court hearing, so I drafted some documents and a witness statement and I was successful in setting aside the CCJ, on the grounds that VWFS had no evidence that I had traded in my old car as a part exchange. Now this is where things get complicated. My whole defence on winning the case against VWFS and disregarding liability for the shortfall rested on the fact that, with my old car as a part exchange, I had paid in more than a third of the agreement and VWFS could not repossess my car without a court order or they would be in breach of Section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I would be entitled to all sums paid under the agreement. I took this all the way, noting that the CCA 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 2010 state that a deposit is defined as any exchange of goods or by any other means a reduction in value of a purchase by means of a transfer. I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge that I had no case, and that my car traded in under the scrappage incentive was not to be classed as a deposit, despite it literally being written in legislation, amongst other reasons why I found the HP agreement to not be properly executed. I am now appealing this decision as I strongly believe the Judge has misinterpreted the law, What I really need for this to be successful is someone who is knowledgeable in the field of Vehicle Finance to help me understand if I have a possibility of overturning this case, as I have no doubt at all that my car should be classed as a part exchange and a deposit and it is blatantly written in the legislation that the finance companies are bound by. I would massively appreciate if someone can help me decipher this legislation and its application in the sense of my HP agreement, I simply do not understand how I can trade in my car and it not be classed as a part exchange, or a deposit. Similarly, if someone is able to find the exact wording of the terms and conditions of how the Diesel Scrappage Scheme was managed in 2018 that would be an absolute life saver! Thanks so much in advance, this is not a straight forward nor a well documented case but I believe I am onto something and I believe there will be other people in my position who have lost their cars without knowing this clause and could well be entitled to reclaim all sums under the agreement
    • we know them well. you TOTALLY ignore them. NO DCA is a BAILIFF  
  • 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 2270 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

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Should be from when the money was lent up until judgment or payment

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the defendant have to explain any reasons why a final charging order should not be given..

 

Wont be given the opportunity...charging orders are now automatic if the claimant requests it.

 

Section 94 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was brought into force on 17 May 2012. The Act incorporates a new section 3A into the Charging Orders Act 1979 and has given the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations providing that:

 

charging orders may not be imposed to secure an amount below a certain threshold; and

charging orders may not be enforced by orders for sale if the amount in question is below £1,000. This will only apply to debts regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. Indications at the current time are that this change will be introduced in December 2012.

 

The Second Change

Section 93 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 will come into force on 1 October 2012. The amendments allow an application for a charging order to be made in cases where the debtor has not defaulted on payment of an instalment judgment.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wont be given the opportunity...charging orders are now automatic if the claimant requests it.

 

Section 94 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was brought into force on 17 May 2012. The Act incorporates a new section 3A into the Charging Orders Act 1979 and has given the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations providing that:

 

charging orders may not be imposed to secure an amount below a certain threshold; and

charging orders may not be enforced by orders for sale if the amount in question is below £1,000. This will only apply to debts regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. Indications at the current time are that this change will be introduced in December 2012.

 

The Second Change

Section 93 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 will come into force on 1 October 2012. The amendments allow an application for a charging order to be made in cases where the debtor has not defaulted on payment of an instalment judgment.

 

Thats interesting reading, does that information though only apply to an application for an interim charging order which I have already got or does that equally apply to the final charging order part ? Many thanks..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It applies to charging orders...interim's are only phase one of the two part process.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It applies to charging orders...interim's are only phase one of the two part process.

 

I have read else where that a defendant is able to explain why he feels that a final charging order should not be given, and that would be the purpose of a hearing so now I am confused..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read else where that a defendant is able to explain why he feels that a final charging order should not be given, and that would be the purpose of a hearing so now I am confused..

 

The Defendant can have his say and object at the FCO hearing, not that it will make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What I am understanding is if the defendant has a defence to prevent a final charging order, then I as the claimant need to know what that would be at least seven days in advance, otherwise a final charging order will be given. Does that sound about right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No...because you cant defend a FCO...its a fait a compli

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...whether he attends is optional...most dont.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends what the judgment said, but most likely not.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As do we all CD. :)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I feel confident about next Friday, and given that the defendant has not sent me anything in the way of a defence, I do not take nothing for granted and with that, is their likely to be any hidden surprises that I should be aware of that could happen on the day ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...