Brighthouse goods after split

[thered]

I am writing on behalf of the daughter who has recently split with her boyfriend so i will try and keep it as simple as i can

 

They split up a few weeks ago, the goods were in his name but its her house and she paid the payments

 

The goods have been paid LESS than a third

 

He split with a bit of animosity and told them to collect the goods, she went to see them to carry the payments on but they would not let her.

 

They said they would have to collect the suite and she could try to get another new agreement.

 

She is a young girl on her own with young daughter and having the suite confiscated would be very hard for them.

 

After a bit of digging and reading on this forum am i correct in thinking....

 

They cannot enter her home??? UNLESS with a court order

 

Even then they cannot enter her home??

 

If it went to court does judge have power to let her continue paying?

 

IT is NOT a police matter??

 

I am looking at the consumer credit act which states that they cannot recover from ANY property the goods are on

 

Section 92

 

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.

(2)At any time when the debtor is in breach of a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to land, the creditor is entitled to recover possession of the land from the debtor, or any person claiming under him, on an order of the court only.

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

 

 

So any entry is a breach of duty is it not??

 

and according to the secretary (courtesy of this site)

 

“…It is BrightHouse company policy that all of our customers and prospective customers should be consistently treated openly and fairly. Accordingly, BrightHouse operates a transparent and responsible business, and takes great care to ensure that company policies and procedures meet all regulatory and statutory requirements...” - David Harwood, Company Secretary

 

All advice gratefully received Ty

[silverfox1961]

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

As I see it, the goods were in his name and as such have a right to them back as your ex has told them to do so and he was the account holder. (matters not that you were paying)

 

Ideally BH would carry on the agreement with you just paying. I don't think that will happen. What they 'could' do is transfer the agreement into your name but again, I see issues with that too.

 

You are correct in that they cannot enter your home without a court order.

 

We do have a BH rep who may be able to offer advice

[renegadeimp]

Bh cant enter at all. It would be bailiffs with a court order.

[thered]

Thanks for the replies, what they are saying is if she keeps the goods it is theft and a police matter

 

For me its civil and they are talking rubbish, its unfortunate that its happened but she has made attempts to carry on with payments but they will not allow it.

 

Im a little worried that they come back when i am not around as they will probably bully their way in. I understand that they want the goods and that they are their property until the HP is paid but to be fair i would rather they took it to court if thats what they wanted as i would hope we would convince a judge to change their minds.

 

If not im not sure what we will do as she cannot afford another and cannot be without one atm

[renegadeimp]

Its not really theft. The goods are in the other parties name so they should be chasing him for the items and not harassing a third party.

[Jason BrightHouse Web Rela]

Good Afternoon thered

 

We are keen to assist with your daughter's situation and although we cannot discuss specific account information regarding the original account holder's details and agreements, we would still be able to speak with the store in order to identify a suitable resolution.

 

Firstly, at BrightHouse we don’t employ bailiffs. We always try to contact customers in writing and by telephone to discuss and agree the way forward. However, if we are unable to make contact with a customer, one of our employees may arrange a home visit to discuss the customer’s circumstances and agree on a course of action to help get things back on track. A BrightHouse Representative that may visit a customer to discuss their account would not have the right to enter the property.

 

A third party that wishes to take over an account must provide the relevant authorisation to the store and we are unable to transfer an account in to another third party's name until this has been agreed to.

 

If the account holder has requested for the goods to be collected, the Store will always try to arrange this as this would enable the agreement to be terminated without penalty and leaving the account holder with nothing further to pay.

 

In this instance, we appreciate that if the collection was to take place, your daughter would be left without the use of the suite. If the original account holder provides the relevant authorisation, we can look at a possible transfer of the account in to your daughter’s name (subject to status).

 

However if the account holder does not agree to the transfer and insists on a collection of the goods, it sounds like the store have suggested that she might able to take out an agreement in her name for a suite that she would qualify for (subject to status).

 

We kindly request that your daughter contact our Customer Relations Team on 0800 526 069 or she can email us at [email protected] quoting the reference F0692385.

 

This will enable us to investigate this matter further and help us to identify a suitable resolution.

 

As ever please update this thread with any feedback you may have.

 

Many Thanks

 

Jason

Web Relations Team

[sequenci]

Its not really theft. The goods are in the other parties name so they should be chasing him for the items and not harassing a third party.

 

Technically it could be - dishonestly appropriating goods belonging to another et al. But it's a bit of an academic argument for sure.

[yorkshiremark]

If Brighthouse are so concerned why have I in the past had up to 5 calls a day when I was a few days late with a payment for a phone that I purchased from them. All recorded all saying the same thing. FIVE!!! in one day, 2 were in the space of one hour.

On paying the amount owed I informed the store manager their actions were harassment, she stated they were allowed to call me on a daily basis till the account was up to speed, is this true?. However I played the I know what I'm talking about card and told them that if I received one more recorded phone call I would report them for harassment, seems to have done the trick.

I would say to the original post that they cannot contact the police and it would appear that they do not know what they are going on about, it always amazes me how these type of countries like to attempt to strong arm the vulnerable, stand up to them and they back down.

[renegadeimp]

They can call you. Once a day. Even that is open to interpretation as some judges consider more than once a week, harassment.

 

Read the Bh forum. Bh do not care about the rules. They just want money.

[yorkshiremark]

I am not a fan of Brighthouse and will not be using their services again, another cancerous company preying on the most vulnerable in society.

[yorkshiremark]

Why have others complained that "heavies" have been used and when complaints have been made they have not been upheld? surely that is not the best business plan in place is it? and why in the past have I had up to 5 phone calls a day when I have been a day late with a payment. In short I will not be using your services again.

[silverfox1961]

Yorkshiremark, it seems you have issues with BH. Why don't you start your own thread(s) and we can assist.

[thered]

Technically it could be - dishonestly appropriating goods belonging to another et al. But it's a bit of an academic argument for sure.

 

consumer credit act says they need a court order to remove goods on HP from "ANY" premises so theft i would say highly unlikely

 

in reply to brighthouse she called in and tried to sort it out but he said he wanted it removed and they were not interested, my instinct tells me if they do not wish to help then they should take her to court

[renegadeimp]

If it goes to court, chances are she will be told to return it. And have to pay costs. Have a look on your local freecycle and see if theres a good sofa there.

[silverfox1961]

consumer credit act says they need a court order to remove goods on HP from "ANY" premises so theft i would say highly unlikely

 

in reply to brighthouse she called in and tried to sort it out but he said he wanted it removed and they were not interested, my instinct tells me if they do not wish to help then they should take her to court

 

What happens in the shops is not necessarily what will happen if you use the email. If no resolution is sought then it is likely they will have no choice but to use the courts.

[sequenci]

consumer credit act says they need a court order to remove goods on HP from "ANY" premises so theft i would say highly unlikely

 

in reply to brighthouse she called in and tried to sort it out but he said he wanted it removed and they were not interested, my instinct tells me if they do not wish to help then they should take her to court

 

They'll probably use the civil litigation route - they're more interest in getting their money. I wouldt imagine a potential theft prosecution would not meet the public interest test in this case - let alone anything else.

 

Oh, and breach of that part of the CCA would result in a tiny amount of damages to the account holder, probably a quid IMO. That said, since the items are indoors they wouldn't be able to use force anyway.

[thered]

They'll probably use the civil litigation route - they're more interest in getting their money. I wouldt imagine a potential theft prosecution would not meet the public interest test in this case - let alone anything else.

 

Oh, and breach of that part of the CCA would result in a tiny amount of damages to the account holder, probably a quid IMO. That said, since the items are indoors they wouldn't be able to use force anyway.

 

Thats the way i see it and to be fair she is happy to continue with payments, so i am hoping that if by holding the suite to ransom they either agree a payment plan or write it off as they have no way of getting it

[silverfox1961]

Thats the way i see it and to be fair she is happy to continue with payments, so i am hoping that if by holding the suite to ransom they either agree a payment plan or write it off as they have no way of getting it

 

Holding the suite to ransom is (IMO) not a good plan.

 

Ideally what BH should do is take out another contract in your daughters name for the cost of the suite minus payments already made and at the terms of the original contract.

[renegadeimp]

But what BH will probably do given their track record is create a new contract with their new updated unfair terms and conditions and get her to pay it in full as if it was new.

[silverfox1961]

But what BH will probably do given their track record is create a new contract with their new updated unfair terms and conditions and get her to pay it in full as if it was new.

 

That is my fear too. In the past, at least the optional charges could be recovered. this has now been stopped by lumping it all into a VERY unfair contract.

[thered]

Just to add we told Brighthouse when they came to collect twice that they would have to go to court if they did not wish to receive payments as they would not be allowed entry. They phoned Police who initially were keen for them to take it after their allegations of theft but after chatting and showing a few printed documents regarding HP and CCA they decided it was nothing to do with them and closed the case. Nothing has been heard from BH since.

 

In essence they should of let her taken on the payments in the end she has a free suite

[nicolee2931]

Hmmm its a difficult one and I very much doubt if this is last you have heard from BrightHouse, just because the police backed away doesn't mean the courts will see things from your point of view.

 

What is interesting, is BH still holding the third party (account holder) to the terms of his contract because of your refusal to deal with this matter? I can understand why your daughter doesn't want to give up the goods, but this has put her ex partner in a difficult situation with a very unsavoury company.

 

I understand your daughter may be vulnerable at the moment, but you both along with her ex partner should deal with this in a courteous manner directly with BH before this becomes a legal matter for which your daughter will be wholly responsible for, and i'm afraid what the outcome of a court case in the small claims court would be for your daughter, bailiff visit almost certainly, court costs most definitely, likelihood of getting further credit from BH unlikely. It doesn't look good.

 

I'm not a fan of BrightHouse, as its a company I detest the most after seeing what they did to a family member a few years back who was in a bad place at the time, but I know from family experience they won't stop until they get what they are after.

 

As I said deal with it now, to stop it getting ugly later.

[Anus Horribilis]

good advice from nicolee. There's no way to force BH to transfer this account to her. It's going to be a mess - eg what happens when the goods are paid for and the ex turns up to demand his property? Better to close it down and make an affordable arrangement with a less despicable retailer.

[thered]

Its been abut 5 months tbh and i dont know what a civil court could do as its not even in her name so who would BH take to court???

 

Dear person we are taking you to court because we believe you may have a suite in your home that was signed for ages ago by somebody else who didnt pay for it. yeah sounds very unplausible

 

Posts sound BH linked tbh advising people to give up or face the consequences or they will be sorry :behindsofa::behindsofa: