Goods on HP - a Judge says they can be sold

[Ori]

The agreement was signed in 2014. The car is a 2011

[brassnecked]

The agreement was signed in 2014. The car is a 2011

 

That is of no consequence the agreement not the car is moot, UB i think as you do BMW Finance will be making loud noises to reclaim their property, however they would be wise to instruct their lawyers to look at that judgment to see if the judge has acted ultra vires in his opinions by diminishing BMW's right over their property, and potentially put them in breach with OP.

[Ori]

Guess my contact the BMWFS is crucial.

[brassnecked]

Guess my contact the BMWFS is crucial.

 

It is it is up to them as the owners to challenge, using the correct route under TCGA including interpleader if the EA and creditor are bolshie, so that a judge can look at the whole situation including their claim to ownership, and the other judges opinion that the vehicle is available to take and sell as your beneficial interest and use trumps their rights as owner.

 

I feel the £7K balloon is a clincher, you would have no equity at the end of the agreement unless you paid the balloon, so the vehicle would revert to BMW Finance in that case, if it was sold, they would not end up with £7K, probably £2k would be max price if bailiff sold it at auction.

Edited May 4, 2015 by brassnecked
correct typos

[mikeymack2002]

I realised my error lol

[mikeymack2002]

TBH I think using BMW to pursue this will save you the money in the end, see what they say tomorrow and if possible please update the thread

[brassnecked]

TBH I think using BMW to pursue this will save you the money in the end, see what they say tomorrow and if possible please update the thread

agree MM

[Ori]

FYI. I Have spoken to BMWFS and they have made it clear that should a bailiff seize the goods, they will ask for them back straight way and would not allow EA to sell the vehicle.

 

I am waiting to hear from them what they want to do further, but in the meantime I am making arrangements to pay the PCNs and remove this current problem.

[brassnecked]

FYI. I Have spoken to BMWFS and they have made it clear that should a bailiff seize the goods, they will ask for them back straight way and would not allow EA to sell the vehicle.

 

I am waiting to hear from them what they want to do further, but in the meantime I am making arrangements to pay the PCNs and remove this current problem.

 

Asking for it back won't do they will have to make a Third Party Claim, using the methods laid down in TCGA or the bailiff will in all probability sell it effectively legally stealing it

[Ori]

I think they know how to claim it back of the bailiff. Their exact words were, that they would "make instant contact to have their goods returned."

 

I presume they have their methods in place to do so.

[brassnecked]

I think they know how to claim it back of the bailiff. Their exact words were, that they would "make instant contact to have their goods returned."

 

I presume they have their methods in place to do so.

 

They should do but they should also instruct their lawyers to examine that damned judgement that says the bailiff can have their car due to your interest in it.

[DragonFly1967]

Asking for it back won't do they will have to make a Third Party Claim, using the methods laid down in TCGA or the bailiff will in all probability sell it effectively legally stealing it

 

Didn't another bailiff try that once with a VW camper van?... That didn't end too well for the bailiff company as I recall

[brassnecked]

Didn't another bailiff try that once with a VW camper van?... That didn't end too well for the bailiff company as I recall

That was Jacobs, they took a VW camper from a debtor's house in Wrexham where the owner had left it with the debtor for restoration work, Bailiff seized it, debtor failed to inform them it was not his, it was taken and siold, owner went to Jacobs who tries to say tough we sold it. They eventually had to pay out to get it back, and apologise.

 

The whole saga was on Volkszone here

 

http://www.volkszone.com/VZi/archive/index.php?t-646595.html

 

However the situation is different under the new Regs, and BMW Finance will have to look at this new judgment with their lawyers to see it it trumps contract law, and indeed allows third party property to be sold out of hand due to a mere interest in the goods. Incidentally due to the Balloon payment to secure ownership.

 

It would be highly unethical and dangerous to take and sell the car, as at auction it would be unlikely to fetch enough to satisfy a third or half the balloon let alone fees and a portion of the debt. This could rebound on the creditor and EA if they decided to sell, let alone the EA causing breach of BMWs contract with the debtor (rendering them liable to refund all payments to the debtor*) that might allow BMW finance to sue the EA for losses if they followed the correct procedure under TCGA but the EA relied on the judgment, the car fetched peanuts and there was a £5K or so shortfall at auction compared to the balloon.

 

*The fact the EA and creditor sold the car without BMW Finances permission opens a can of worms, they could avoid refunding the debtor in all likelihood as the breach was caused by the EA, they would then have the option to report the vehicle stolen, police would likely cry sorry CIVIL, They could have the judgment allowing the debtor's interest to trump their ownership, looked at if the vehicle is sold, and another judge finds in their favour then the EA and Creditor would be on very shaky ground, as far as BMW finance is concerned if not the debtor.

 

Either way we are on very dangerous ground with implications affecting all HP agreements on cars furniture and anything else bough by payment on the drip.

 

I would like to know what John Kruse would make of this conundrum.

[Ori]

I really wish I had the funds to appeal the ruling.

 

The hire purchase agreement is clearly hiring the goods with an optional final payment if you with to purchase the goods. Else you return them.

[brassnecked]

I really wish I had the funds to appeal the ruling.

 

The hire purchase agreement is clearly hiring the goods with an optional final payment if you with to purchase the goods. Else you return them.

 

The judge was clearly wrong headed,and was making it up as he went along ignoring all the other laws and precedents of Contract Law, and Consumer Law he was overriding, but it is up to BMW finance to challenge irrespective of you being able to afford to challenge, after all the car is their property, and it is they who must make any third party claims to the EA; they will have to look very closely at the law of contract as any sale by the EA potentially breaches their contract with you, and they won't want that scenario to happen.

 

You took advice wich rebounded but all is not lost, it is up to the cars owners to challenge now. Just ensure you make BMW Finance aware that you went out on a limb to protect their goods, albeit with bad advice.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

 

I would like to know what John Kruse would make of this conundrum.

 

I have emailed JK as there is the case of Ori and now unfortunately another hire purchase case with Black Horse Finance.

[brassnecked]

I have emailed JK as there is the case of Ori and now unfortunately another hire purchase case with Black Horse Finance.

 

Thanks for the heads up BA, I feel this loose cannon of a judge is going to mess up more than TCGA, they are going to screw up Contract Law, in their attempt to usurp the rights of the lawful owners. If the EA takes and sells the car they will not fetch enough to pay anything but the auction fees and part of ther balloon in ori's case. This can of worms needs closing ASAP, as there is potential for breach not of the finance companies making, but which would possibly render the payments made by the debtor repayable by the FC due to a breach caused by the EA taking and selling a third party car relying on these judgememnts allowing a mere interest and use to override the rights of the lawful owner.

 

I am very concerned for the other implications regarding Brighthouse and Logbook loans that could spring from this. I have applied my own interpretation and possible legal reasoning in this and previous posts based on some research into Contract caselaw and implications.hope John Kruse looks at this as a matter of urgency.

[Ori]

I think the situation is actually worse than people realise.

This sets us right back to bailiffs acting with complete impunity.

 

Goods that you are paying to use and don't own will be held as randsom or worse sold leaving the debtor even more in debt. The complicated legal process afterwards will make it impossible for regular people to do anything about it.

[brassnecked]

I think the situation is actually worse than people realise.

This sets us right back to bailiffs acting with complete impunity.

 

Goods that you are paying to use and don't own will be held as randsom or worse sold leaving the debtor even more in debt. The complicated legal process afterwards will make it impossible for regular people to do anything about it.

 

Actually if they take and sell third party goods which are obviously not the property of the debtor it amounts to legalised theft, your judge is a prize muppet as they have ignored other aspects of law to make their judgment that puts third party goods in harms way; so it is as bad as you assume ori. Who advised you to go the injunction route, was it another advice forum?

 

Don't worry this will be sorted BA has asked John Kruse the undisputed expert in bailiff law for an opinion, so let us wait and see what JK says before any further conjecture. As to your situation it is up to the Finance Company to challenge the EA now.

[Ori]

I don't quite see what Mr Kruze can do.

 

Situation is a mess.

[brassnecked]

I don't quite see what Mr Kruze can do.

 

Situation is a mess.

John Kruse is the UK premier authority on bailiff law, so his opinion is most persuasive, whatever the muppet judge decided in your case.

[Ori]

It will be interesting to hear his opinion and advice on what to do next.

[brassnecked]

It will be interesting to hear his opinion and advice on what to do next.

 

From your point of view, BMW Finance have to claim their property and challenge the muppet judge.

 

I'm sure John Kruse will give a definitive opinion once he has looked at the facts..

[mikeymack2002]

A note to all especially Ori...

 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if you had the same support as this story

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chip-shop-owner-raises-6000-in-24-hours-to-take-parking-fine-appeal-to-supreme-court-10221661.html

 

 

I think that because the case involves everyone that ends up like this, losing goods on HP and so on, If the public was to donate as they did for the main story that would show the EA's that Joe public can and does have the ability to take you on in Court. Even if it sets a precedent as well, what a show of solidarity this would be...

 

 

JUST A THOUGHT HERE

[SabreSheep]

Crowd funding may be doable.

 

BUT

 

You need your case as far in the public eye as possible b4 launching the appeal.

 

Highlight your case and also highlight how the ruling *may* impact thousand of others in different areas.

Lay out the stall on why this must be challenged.

 

Is there a time limit an appeal can be brought by? watch out for deadlines on the procedures!!!