Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • worthy to not forget Just to let you know this bunch Kensington have been fined £1.225m by the financial regulator for treating borrowers who were in arrears unfairly. Claim those charges back plus the interest and tell them not to add any more to the account. There are a few news stories here you can get the info for a letter to send to them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8615870.stm  
    • Hi All. I went to visit a family friend in Rochdale on a new housing estate opposite a old row of houses. The location is Royle Road, Postcode OL11 3PE. I was originally parked in parking bays outside the old houses, then moved the car, when I noticed my tyre was flat, so parked on what looked like double yellows to use his air pump to check and inflate the tyres before we left the house.   In the time i went inside to sort the pump and power supply i got a PCN.  The tyre then got changed (has a puncture) and we left. PCN Number:         RE######## Date:             04/05/2024 Time:             20:36 Observation:         20:34 to 20:36 Reported location:     Royle Park Road Reason:        Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Code: 01) I believe this PCN is not correct and has grounds to appeal: 1. My friend who moved into the property around 6 months ago, swears that even though it has old double yellows marked, they are not current or council marked.   He said the property development company had said they had marked them for ease of access during development. 2. The road i was parked on was Royle Road.  The PCN was issued for Royle Park Road, which is about 400 yards up the road. 3. There are no sign posts or marking showing parking  restriction hours in the entire area (there maybe on Royle park Road). I have attached a map of the Location where i parked as a red dot. I have 2 questions: a.  Is there a way to check where double yellow lines are marked on some register to check if they are current? b. Can my grounds of appeal simply be, wrong location, wrong offence? Thanks in advance. Map_20240505.pdf
    • you made it very confusing, though i doubt any of it was ever read by the delivery franchise for DPD. your saving grace might well be you didn't select your own address (though if you are all the same postcode..??) and neither mentioned a safe space other than another neighbour. but with the actual delivery address on the parcel, it appears the driver had a choice of 3 addresses, all under the same post code with differing house numbers. so chose the label one but left it on your doorstep. play it carefully and along with the photo and the retailers requirement you should be ok.   dx  
    • Are Resident car parks subject to Planning permission under Town and Country Planning {control of Advertisements ] Regulations? SCHEDULE 1CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT TO WHICH PARTS 2 AND 3 DO NOT APPLY Class A "1.  The advertisement is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land or from any place to which the public have a right of access." As a private residential site does the public have a right of access? This particular Act has so many caveats that even many Councils do not understand it and that includes me. Though I do understand it better than many council planning departments.
  • 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

Beneficial interest on goods under a HP Agreement.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2768 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

Oh I see.

 

It turns out that these goods can be sold at or at least they have been. But appart from that , as I was told by a well known expert on bailiff matters, " it the ACT says certain goods can be seized, then they can".

 

But the issue of disposal of goods is a good one for discussion

 

You have proved my point. There is no law that says they can take third party property knowingly and look to sell it. If they seize HP owned goods and the finance company does nothing,then they are left with goods they cannot sell. The creditors the EC are working for therefore would not see any money they were due and the EC is incurring costs they might never recover. It is not currently worth a EC regularly taking HP owned goods, as if the debtor does not pay up or the HP company does not play ball, they are most likely going to have to return the goods to the debtor.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see how.

 

Bailiff take property every day that has third party interest contained in it. Proceeds of sale are apportioned after auction section 13fees regs, section fifty something of sched 12.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

)If there is a co-owner of any of the goods, the enforcement agent must—

 

(a)first pay the co-owner a share of the proceeds of those goods proportionate to his interest;

 

(b)then deal with the rest of the proceeds under sub-paragraphs (1) to (5).

 

(7)Regulations may make provision for resolving disputes about what share is due under

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry the above section50(4)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

IAs I said I was looking at the distress for rent rules and HP goods are specifically mentioned as being exempt. Does make you wonder why such a clear statement t was not incorporated in the T CE.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that a certain Solicitor that acts for one EC is trying to be creative and that they are on dodgy ground.

 

Schedule 12 clause 10 says that the goods have to belong to the debtor.

 

HP goods are not co-owned. The HP company owns the goods until the finance agreement has been fully settled.

 

There is no beneficial interest unless the finance agreement is brought to an end and i don't think an EC can take control of a HP companies property with a view to selling, against the will of the finance company. There is no guarantee that a finance company would issue any default because of an EC using TCE and repossession may not happen. The goods remaining in the ownership of the finance company should prevent the EC selling them.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

As said three lower court cases have found that there is a benificial Interst, if so section ten is irrelevant. If there is an Interst there is a co owner.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finance companies do issue DN if goods are not kept by the hirer I have seen this many many times,even if goods are stolen.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that a certain Solicitor that acts for one EC is trying to be creative and that they are on dodgy ground.

 

Schedule 12 clause 10 says that the goods have to belong to the debtor.

 

HP goods are not co-owned. The HP company owns the goods until the finance agreement has been fully settled.

 

There is no beneficial interest unless the finance agreement is brought to an end and i don't think an EC can take control of a HP companies property with a view to selling, against the will of the finance company. There is no guarantee that a finance company would issue any default because of an EC using TCE and repossession may not happen. The goods remaining in the ownership of the finance company should prevent the EC selling them.

 

I agree. They would need the permission of the finance company . The EA does have leverage, and as long as they recover the sums owed they may very well give it.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

As said three lower court cases have found that there is a benificial Interst, if so section ten is irrelevant. If there is an Interst there is a co owner.

 

Think we need transcripts from those cases to see what was actually discussed and the particular circumstances. Otherwise it just guessing and relying on what has been said by one party who is representing his clients interests.

 

I can't see that TCE was drafted to include HP goods, as there would have been more of an explanation added.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we need transcripts from those cases to see what was actually discussed and the particular circumstances. Otherwise it just guessing and relying on what has been said by one party who is representing his clients interests.

 

I can't see that TCE was drafted to include HP goods, as there would have been more of an explanation added.

 

As I said there or so posts back you could also say that if Hp goods are exempt the act would say so. It does with other exempttions.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we need transcripts from those cases to see what was actually discussed and the particular circumstances. Otherwise it just guessing and relying on what has been said by one party who is representing his clients interests.

 

I can't see that TCE was drafted to include HP goods, as there would have been more of an explanation added.

 

I don't think there is any disagreement regarding what was said.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with your definition of beneficial interest Dodgeball is that it is flawed and only works in certain circumstances. Compare the following two scenarios:

 

SCENARIO A

Debtor enters into HP agreement for £10,000, debtor owes TP sums and uses bailiffs to recover the sums. Bailiff seizes car which has a positive equity of £500 and a win for the bailiff.

 

SCENARIO B

A & B agree to buy a car to use together. B gives A £4,000 towards the purchase price which is £10,000 and A then purchases the car. B gets into debt related issues which results in the bailiff seizing the car and the car then sells for £12,000. Applying your definition the equity value of the car is £2,000 (being the difference between the initial value and its current value) and despite B initially advancing £4,000 he is down by £2,000 and can only claim the equity value.

 

The above definition does not work because it can only be applied in certain circumstances for it to work but in others it will not. However, the correct approach (which the courts have devised) to quantification would be that the debtor's beneficial interest is a % of the value of the goods based on his direct contributions:

 

SCENARIO A

Car is worth £10,000 and debtor has already paid £5,000 of the total price which is 50%. Car is now worth £10,500 so the debtors interest would then be £5,250 e.g. 50% of the total current value.

 

SCENARIO B

In this scenario, B has contributed 40% of the purchase price. B's interest overall would therefore be £4,800 based on the car being worth £12,000.

 

You will see that the correct approach doesn't benefit bailiffs because the debtor's interest is is much lower and will likely leave a debt owing to the finance company, so I understand why bailiffs are arguing that the BI is the equity value but it just doesn't work across the board. It would mean the courts would have to come up with several definitions of BI for the purposes of the TCE and I doubt very much that is what parliament intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any disagreement regarding what was said.

 

As the person who has reported the information has only emailed someone who posts to CAG and does not wish to be indentified, then you are taking their word for it, that everything they report is 100% accurate and the full picture.

 

I somehow don't think we will get the full details, which might suggest that perhaps the real position is not what has been reported. If an EC has had a very useful county court decision in their favour, you would think that a transcript would have been obtained by now and details would have started to appear.

 

I can see that a Judge might have commented about someone with a HP financed vehicle having interest, particularly if they paid a deposit, but what i am not sure about is the whole legal process e.g legal position of the finance company, terminating finance contract due to losing possession when contract was paid to date, other legal arguments over storage costs etc. There is much more to these cases than beneficial interest.

 

Given the unsure legal position regarding HP financed goods, i cannot see EC's regularly taking these goods, because they would want to avoid the hassle and risk that comes with them.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jap the equity value of the car at termination value of the car as you put it, is equal to the minus whatever is left to pay on the HP agreement.(nothing to do with the cars initial value).

 

Also you have the value of the car increasing in time, cars on hp dont do that JAP.

 

Car worth £10, 2K deposit, finance 8k. Car value initially 10k owed on agreement 12k(8K plus charges inters etc.).

Car depreciates over the next months/years, money paid off depreciates ammount owed on agreement.

If depreciation on car is less thatn the reduction in repayment value of the car /contract ratio will favor the value of the car, a point will be reached where the car is worth more than what is remaining on the agreement.

Agreement terminated, car sold, balance settled, remainder beneficial inters.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the person who has reported the information has only emailed someone who posts to CAG and does not wish to be indentified, then you are taking their word for it, that everything they report is 100% accurate and the full picture.

 

I somehow don't think we will get the full details, which might suggest that perhaps the real position is not what has been reported. If an EC has had a very useful county court decision in their favour, you would think that a transcript would have been obtained by now and details would have started to appear.

 

I can see that a Judge might have commented about someone with a HP financed vehicle having interest, particularly if they paid a deposit, but what i am not sure about is the whole legal process e.g legal position of the finance company, terminating finance contract due to losing possession when contract was paid to date, other legal arguments over storage costs etc. There is much more to these cases than beneficial interest.

 

Given the unsure legal position regarding HP financed goods, i cannot see EC's regularly taking these goods, because they would want to avoid the hassle and risk that comes with them.

 

You are completely wrong on all assertions here, sorry.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course cars don't appreciate unless they are rare collectors items, they almost always depreciate. Because of the interest charges added to HP agreements the car is almost never worth more than what is owed and the car will depreciate faster than the amounts being paid off.

 

I have never seen a car depreciate slower than the amount owed, simply because the car would be required to be kept in top condition and that doesn't happen generally. You also have to take into account those who have poor credit and therefore the total price is much higher than what its actually worth. For those reasons, the car would have to have a positive equity value to stand any chance of it being able to pay off the agreement with some money left over.

 

The only instance I guess that the car might depreciate slower than the payments is 0% interest is added subject to the make and model of the car.

 

But anyway, your definition of BI would have to apply to not just HP agreements but all other cases when bailiffs seize goods where a debtor has a BI and that's the issue because you have tailored the definition of BI to apply to HP agreements only but not taken into account circumstances where there is no HP agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jap in your point B. The other owner of the car would be a co owner, they would have to be paid out of proceeds if they were not liable for the enforcment, that payment would be factored into the calculation regarding seizing the car(if the action raised enough to pay the creditor(bailiffs/ creditor) if after this it proves unworkable the car would not be taken'

 

It is only the same as any other situation where goods are not taken because after sale there would be insufficient proceeds.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jap in your point B. The other owner of the car would be a co owner, they would have to be paid out of proceeds if they were not liable for the enforcment, that payment would be factored into the calculation regarding seizing the car(if the action raised enough to pay the creditor(bailiffs/ creditor) if after this it proves unworkable the car would not be taken'

 

It is only the same as any other situation where goods are not taken because after sale there would be insufficient proceeds.

 

Scenario B is a contract of sale and you claim that HP is a contract of sale so surely the debtor in a HP agreement is a co-owner too because hes contributed to the purchase price has he not? If so, why is the BI different specifically for HP but not in other instances of contracts of sale?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course cars don't appreciate unless they are rare collectors items, they almost always depreciate. Because of the interest charges added to HP agreements the car is almost never worth more than what is owed and the car will depreciate faster than the amounts being paid off.

 

I have never seen a car depreciate slower than the amount owed, simply because the car would be required to be kept in top condition and that doesn't happen generally. You also have to take into account those who have poor credit and therefore the total price is much higher than what its actually worth. For those reasons, the car would have to have a positive equity value to stand any chance of it being able to pay off the agreement with some money left over.

 

But anyway, your definition of BI would have to apply to not just HP agreements but all other cases when bailiffs seize goods where a debtor has a BI and that's the issue because you have tailored the definition of BI to apply to HP agreements only but not taken into account circumstances where there is no HP agreement.

 

No you are wrong, firstly appreciating value items would not be bought on HP.

 

secondly cars values do not depreciate faster than the amounts due on a contract, if this were true the car would never be paid off, the aim is to make both decrease at the same rate so at the end of the agrement the car has little value.

 

However this is without taking the deposit into account, if a car is worth 20K and only 10k is financed there is equity right from day one, and 10k on credit will reduce far more quickly than the value of the car, so the ammount of equity will increase as the agreement goes on.

 

Not sure what you mean in your next paragraph, we are talking about the conditions under the TCE and HP agreements. I have not tailored anything the courts have pointed out things within the agreement which they believe to represent a beneficial interest. This is not just my opinion ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HP is not a contract of sale, and where did you say that B was about a contract of sale, have i missed it.

 

I may have said HP agreements contain a contract of sale, this is true.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really the mathematics involved are rudimentary, there is an ammount owed on the contract(the agreement) which is being paid off by the installments, then there is the value of the car, when the value of the car exceeds the sum remaining to be paid on the agreement there is a beneficial inters , the difference between the two. Very simple indeed.

 

The interesting part is the method in which the vehicle is sold, and the actions which must be taken during the enforcment process and after seizure.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

A box contains a penny.

 

So you are asking, if the box contains a penny what is the rest of the box, this is gibberish.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...