Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's the Law Gazette on today's evidence to the inquiry from Gareth Jenkins of Fujitsu. Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry live: Crucial prosecution witness Gareth Jenkins says Post Office 'tried to put words in my mouth' | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Gareth Jenkins, the Fujitsu engineer whose evidence was crucial to at least a dozen sub-postmaster prosecutions, begins four days of oral evidence to...  
    • So @theoldrouge * Are reform suspending farage for his putin apologist propaganda pieces? - Which he has doubled down on * Are you going to condemn antisemitic bigoted racism from your right wing  bigots? In effect, are you two going to look up from your gutter and follow labors lead?     "Farage (a “pub bore” who has no grasp of the complexity of “finding international solutions to problems”) - did not say that both Sweden and Finland, Nato’s latest two members, decided to join only after Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Finnish ex-Prime Minister Alexander Stubb said joining the alliance was a “done deal” for his country only as soon as Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Their membership more than doubled the Russian border with Nato. For Sweden, their decision to join ended more than two centuries of neutrality, such was the threat posed to them by Russia."   Simple fact - Russias invasion of Ukraine forced Finland to join NATO - doubling Russias border with NATO countries.    
    • I have read that thread but it started when received court claim form    im not at that stage yet    I'm asking if I should do anything just now or not contact at all    looks like a standard letter i received giving me 7 days when first letter said they would give 14 days but didn’t and sent 7 days      once again. Dx  thanks for your help and everyone here I get lost in the other posts but have read them 
    • Please check this suggested letter and let us know if there is anything wrong or anything you want to add. Please will you read it carefully and take care this time.  
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3288 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

I have a question regarding some of the entries in the Halsbury's Statutes 4th edition at book 13 page 791 to 796. Parts 1-[723] - 6 at [732] does any of this help at all with the more modern act taking control of goods act 2013?

 

 

Namely the following

 

 

4 Exclusion of certain goods [731]

4a Hire purchase etc. agreements [732]

 

 

Can anyone explain a little bit more on this please?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you actually looking for and in conjunction with what. What would you like explained ?

 

They contain the statutes of the day, but because of the length of time to compile and publish are usually behind amendment made later.

 

All present statutes override anything in Halsburys that has not been brought up to date.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not got the book to which you refer but those numbers and section titles are those contained in the Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908 (the Act.)

 

The Act gave protection to some third parties whose goods were otherwise available to be taken by a bailiff levying common law distress for rent arrears. Although the Act allowed third party owners of goods to serve a declaration on the bailiff or landlord it specifically excluded certain third parties from the protection.

 

Hire purchase companies were not given protection so hire purchase goods could be and were taken and sold to pay the rent even though they were not owned by the tenant who owed the rent. The wording of the act means it only applies when "any superior landlord shall levy, or authorise to be levied, a distress" so this will no longer occur as only CRAR and the Schedule 12 process is available to landlords now.

 

I was going to say it has been repealed because it is included in part 4 of Schedule 23 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 but I see it is still marked as "prospective." I do not know what that means but maybe it means that the repeal has not yet taken place though I cannot think why it has not as all the old distresses for rent should be completed by now.

 

Although it is not applicable and is/will be repealed it does show that government has put in place legislation that deliberately did not stop hire purchase goods being taken to pay the debt owed by the hirer who was not the owner of the goods.

Edited by Andyorch
Paras added
Link to post
Share on other sites

E munch those are exactly the answers I was looking for I do understand the new act repealed the old ones but they do sometimes have a better explanation than the current Act.

 

 

The subject of goods on HP is currently relevant and I was looking to see if any of the old stuff was still useable....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to help.

Although not directly applicable it does show that it could be that the new legislation creates the ability to take control of goods in which the debtor only has a beneficial interest and not legal ownership. As I've said before please can someone give a definitive answer as to what beneficial interest is and if someone hiring an item under a hire purchase agreement has a beneficial interest in the goods. You'd think it would have come up somewhere in the last 50 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very gray area indeed. Hopefully the MOJ will address this when they do their annual review of this Act later this year?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikeymack2002, I don't know if you have access to the LexisNexis database. Some libraries subscribe. It is wonderful for up-to-date law.In London Borough of Camden subscribes.Halsbury's Statutes, even the latest one, is bound to be out of date as things are constantly changing. Ditto legislation.gov.uk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have access to the latest Halsbury's 5th edition its new but not up to date as always, using the .gov site gives the most visual updates but the way the problem is going on this subject I was just looking for more concrete explanation/s regarding this subject.

 

 

Even the Solicitors are still struggling with the changes, so how is a mere mortal going to cope? My daughter has access to the data base and I often have a browse through, sometimes the database is out of date in a matter of days or weeks. Hence the supplements' issues.

 

 

Another reason for this enquiry is to find out if some of the older versions are still current and very usable!!

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I've said before please can someone give a definitive answer as to what beneficial interest is and if someone hiring an item under a hire purchase agreement has a beneficial interest in the goods. You'd think it would have come up somewhere in the last 50 years.

 

In the last couple of weeks John Kruse has written extensively on this subject and I fully support his view that goods subject to hire purchase cannot be taken into control.

 

Unfortunately however his article was written before the recent court hearing that found that a vehicle on hire purchase could be taken on the basis that the debtor may have a 'beneficial interest' in the vehicle. It was an astonishingly stupid case to test in court and unfortunately could have repercussions for many debtors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...