Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Vehicles on HP can be sold by bailiffs if there is a beneficial interest. Debtor ordered to pay costs of £3,400


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2536 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

In May 2015, I started a thread on this forum regarding a debtor (Mr OR) who had followed advice from the internet and had issued an injunction against a local authority after his vehicle had been clamped by a bailiff.

 

The debtor considered that his vehicle should have been exempt as it was subject to finance. Unfortunately, his injunction failed as the Judge ruled that there could be a ‘beneficial’ interest in the vehicle. Mr OR was ordered to pay the local authorities costs of £3,200. This was in addition to his own costs (the fee for the injunction alone was £395).

 

 

A link to this popular thread is below. So far, it has received almost 13,000 views.

 

)-nbsp

 

 

In Sept 2015, I started a similar thread on here to warn members of the public that if they have a vehicle that is subject to finance, they need to ensure that they provide evidence that there is no ‘beneficial interest' in the vehicle. Even that thread has received almost 6,500 views !!

 

 

 

Unfortunately, a couple of months ago, another debtor (Mr MH) also issued an injunction to prevent an enforcement company selling his vehicle (a mini cab). This vehicle was also subject to ‘hire purchase’.

 

The difference with this case, was that the ‘value’ of the vehicle was approx £14,500, and the amount required to settle the obligation under the hire purchase contract was just £6,300 (leaving an ‘equitable interest’ of approx £8,200).

 

The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal.

 

 

Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake.

 

PS: I will not be giving the name of the debtor, the local authority or the enforcement company. The facts of the case are all that is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The floodgates will open and bailiffs will go on a siezing frenzy? This whole Beneficial Interest needs sorting out as it will seriously affect the Finance Companies in a possible adverse manner especially if the vehicle when sold goes for peanuts that doesn't even discharge the Finance Companies outstanding balance.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The brief background to this case is as follows:

 

The debtor (Mr HM) was self employed and ran a mini cab business. The vehicle that he used for his business was a Volkswagen which he had acquired from new in late 2013. The purchase price was approx £24,000 and finance was by way of a Hire Purchase agreement.

 

In May this year, a bailiff enforced a warrant in relation to a single penalty charge notice against the debtor. The debt at the time of the bailiff’s attendance would have been approx £500.

 

The enforcement agent located the debtors vehicle on a public highway and applied a wheel clamp to the vehicle.

 

The regulations specify that a vehicle must not be removed unless a period of at least two hours has elapsed.

 

The enforcement agent returned after the two hour period, to find that the vehicle was missing. It is assumed that the wheel clamp had been removed from the vehicle.

 

As it is a criminal offence to remove a wheel clamp, the enforcement agent reported the matter to the police. The police located the vehicle and removed it to their own pound where it was then recovered by the enforcement company.

 

Mr HM was given the opportunity to pay the enforcement agent. By this time, the debt had increased to approx £620 as a ‘sale stage’ fee of £110 had also been applied. He did not pay.

 

Following the removal, the enforcement company received notification from a ‘relative’ to claim that he, and not Mr HM was the owner of the vehicle.

 

With no evidence of ownership being provided by the 'new keeper', the enforcement company made preparations for the sale of the vehicle. An Experian valuation revealed a value of approx £14,700. Enquiries from the finance company revealed that the amount remaining under the Hire purchase agreement was approx £6,300.

 

As a relative had indicated that he was the owner of the vehicle, the correct course of action would have been for him to issue a simple ‘Part 85’ Claim to the creditor (via the enforcement company). He failed to do so. Instead, an injunction was issued to prevent the enforcement company from selling the car. By this time, the vehicle had been in the enforcement companies pound for a few weeks and daily storage charges were accruing.

 

As is always the case with injunctions, the hearing only dealt with the forthcoming sale of the vehicle. The judge agreed to halt the sale of the vehicle and directed that the case itself should be heard in a London court.

 

Because of his failure to pay the debt of just £500, Mr HM had been without the use of minicab for a long time and his business was suffering.

 

At the eventual hearing on 15th August, the Judge had to decide the nature of the interest if any that the debtor had in the vehicle. He was satisfied that the debtor had acquired a significant beneficial interest in the vehicle and accordingly, the vehicle could be taken into control.

 

The Application for an injunction failed and Mr HM was refused leave to appeal. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so the police siezed the goods, not the bailiff ?

 

Sorry just reading through this, you say the permission to appeal was denied ? Doesnt that mean that he will have to make an application for a hearing just to be allowed to make the appeal application ?

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

Oh so the police siezed the goods, not the bailiff ?

 

It would appear so, and the bailiff took the vehicle from the police. I wonder what the Finance Co made of this as there is no mention of their reaction to the events anywhere.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so the police siezed the goods, not the bailiff ?

 

The vehicle had already been taken into control by the enforcement agent. It would then appear that the immobilisation device has been removed and with it, the vehicle.

 

The police then recovered the vehicle and took it to their own pound for collection by the enforcement agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just reading through this, you say the permission to appeal was denied ? Doesnt that mean that he will have to make an application for a hearing just to be allowed to make the appeal application ?

 

Quite right and with the complexity of the subject matter, the debtor would have something of an uphill struggle.

 

As mentioned earlier, I have been given permission by the enforcement company to provide details of this case but it was necessary to first give the debtor (Mr HM) the opportunity to appeal. He has not done so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh see I thought that being a taxi there may have been a matter of taking control of goods in use,but I see they were taken under control earlier.

 

I am a bit confused regarding the third party claim you mention, did the action fail because if this or the benificial Interst matter and if not, what happened to that ?

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

And the HP will need settling too

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BI came about because of the way the debtor tried to reclaim the vehicle, as in going for injunction, saying not his vehicle etc rather than the simple in comparison procedure laid down in TCG imho.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the HP will need settling too

Surly EA MUST pay the Finance Co their wedge?

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope down to the person that took it out.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it, after action the finance company get first call and the Ballance of the agreement is paid, then the creditor under the enforcement, the Ballance if any will go back to the debtor. It is a similar procedure to that applied to co-owners of goods.

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 BI came about because of the way the debtor tried to reclaim the vehicle, as in going for injunction, saying not his vehicle etc rather than the simple in comparison procedure laid down in TCG imho.

 

The procedure that you refer to is a simple Part 85 claim. Furthermore, it is free.

 

Part 85 claims are almost the same as the old Interpleader claims that I used to frequently draft years back under the old High Court regs. As long as they are presented correctly, they are usually accepted.

 

There are far too many 'myths' about these applications and common amongst them, is the 'myth' that a claimant would be required to pay an amount into court equal to the value of the goods seized. But firstly, such an sum would only apply in cases where the Part 85 claim were rejected and the decision is referred to the court. The most obvious step would surely be to issue the Part 85 claim. After all, it may well be accepted.

 

This theory is like saying that there is no point in submitting an Out of Time witness statement because, if it is rejected, there would be a court fee of up to £255 to have the decision reviewed !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes absolutely, and let's also not forget that there are a number of kinds of claims under cpr 85. An exempt goods claim comes under 85' for instance, there is no fee for this at any stage.

 

As said the purpose of the proceedure is to keep out of court, it s useful because the creditor is held to account for the goods being seized, it is very rare indeed that cases progress beyond the initial stages. T.o repeat these are free. :)

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

Absolutely DB and BA, but unfortunately there is bad advice out there that ignores this to the detriment of 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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As said, the purpose of the proceedure is to keep out of court, its useful because the creditor is held to account for the goods being seized, it is very rare indeed that cases progress beyond the initial stages. To repeat these are free. :)

 

And of course, they are speedy. The local creditor has a very short period of time to consider the 'claim' and they are free. No cost involved. And as I said earlier, they are very rarely rejected. As with most remedies (Out of Time witness statements being a good example), as long as they are prepared correctly, they will be accepted.

 

I've had just one Part 85 claim rejected since their introduction and in the past year, less that a handful of Out of Time witness statements rejected.

 

Back to the particular case of the minicab owner. I struggle to understand WHY he refused to pay this road traffic debt and the lengths that he went to in order to evade payment. It wasn't as if he he had a dozen parking tickets.

 

The debtor (Mr HM) has only himself to blame for the position that he now finds himself in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA have to agree absolutely, the debtor was the architect of his own downfall, but then human nature, and bad advice causes bad problems.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that the enforcement regulations were overhauled in 2014, but nonetheless, it is worth noting the following comments taken from a judgement from 2013. The Judge is a highly experienced QC

 

 

"On the drive of the property, it is common ground, was a Saab saloon vehicle, registration number xxxx. This vehicle belonged to Mr S subject to the interest of the finance company — the vehicle having been secured on hire purchase ("HP"). The vehicle against which Mr H was threatening to levy distraint, was therefore the subject of an HP agreement. In fact, Mr H did not have the véhicle recovered — instead, he clamped the Saab vehicle and placed a notice on the window to confirm he had levied on the vehicle.

 

However, I cannot accept as a matter of law that the fact of an HP agreement per se prohibits a bailiff levying on the vehicle. It will often be the case that the finance company's interest is easily purchased leaving real value to the hirer, who then takes ownership on the discharge of the finance. This is a common matter in relation to excavation equipment, taken out under lease purchase arrangements, where there are agents specialising in arranging finance on such equipment, after the initial finance agreement is bought out. I have tried a number of these cases in the last 12 months in this context.

 

In principle, I can see no reason to distinguish that type of situation from this.

 

It is entirely possible, if Mr S had had the lease finance or HP agreement over a period of time, that he would have some real value in the vehicle — there is no reason why the vehicle could have not been levied against, recovered and potentially sold, subject always to the owner, the finance company, having tirst call on any proceeds.

 

As I say the likelihood is that the owner would have had its interest bought out before any sale was effected.

 

(e) As a precaution, and a wise one. Mr H did make a check before he had the Saab removed — having been alerted to the finance issues, he decided not to remove it. However, had he done so, I cannot see any reason in law why it could not lawfully have been done. I cannot find that any ground of complaint can be made out against the actions of Mr H in initially clamping this vehicle. once he had decided to levy against it"
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for this thread to be useful to anyone, there needs to be more info about the Part 85 claim process.

 

Also i have questions regarding a few things.

 

1) legal rights of an Enforcement Agent to obtain third party data from finance companies.

 

2) legal rights of an Enforcement Agent to effectively trigger termination of a finance agreement, by taking ownership of property that belongs to a finance company.

 

Surely there needs to be a court process ? I can see that they can take control by clamping, but beyond that should be a court process, where the enforcement company applies for consent to obtain full details from the finance company and to issue notice to the finance company that they intend to seek the sale of a vehicle to release any interest due to the debtor to the creditors owed money.

 

I am not convinced that activity in taking HP vehicles has a firm legal footing supported by legislation.

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

I think for this thread to be useful to anyone, there needs to be more info about the Part 85 claim process.

 

'Part 85' claims are for another thread and posting more about them on this particular thread will merely divert attention away from the subject matter.

 

It is easy to see what the debtor did wrong:

 

Before getting to the very late stage of a bailiff visit, he would have been served with three notices from the local authority (a Notice to Owner, a Charge Certificate and lastly, an Order for Recovery). The last notice from the council (the OfR), would have warned the debtor that non payment of the penalty charge notice would lead to the debt being registered at court and a warrant of control being issued. Most motorists pay on receipt of the NtO as they will then benefit from a 50% discount. If not, they pay at the OfR stage fearing that registering the debt will result in a county court judgment and their credit rating being affected (which is does not).

 

Once a warrant is issued, the enforcement company will then write to the debtor seeking payment. A compliance fee of £75 will be added to the debt. The letter also invites the debtor to make a payment proposal. Clearly, the debtor failed to pay on receipt of any of the three statutory notices (either from the local authority or enforcement company).

 

It would appear that a clamp was removed from his vehicle and from reading comments elsewhere, the debtor knew that the police located his vehicle and removed it to the pound (where it was collected by the enforcement company).

 

At that particular stage, the amount owing to settle the debt would have been just the amount of the local authorities debt (approx £200), the compliance fee, an enforcement fee of £235 and a 'sale stage fee' of £110. At this particular stage, the vehicle clearly had not been in the enforcement companies pound and accordingly, storage fees would not have been an issue. The debtor should have made immediate payment on line or to the enforcement company to settle the debt. That would have brought the matter to a close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be aware of what is happening and what they could have done differently.

 

But it does not answer the legal questions raised.

 

When people get annoyed and frustrated they don't always seek the easiest solutions.

 

Still not convinced that enforcement companies taking HP vehicles with a view to selling them are doing so entirely legally. Parliament never intended for this type of financial interest to be pursued. Had they considered it, there would have been relevant legislation covering all issues.

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 I have said before, the Treasury Solicitor had his reasons for amending legislation to state the words 'beneficial interest' and whether we like it or not, we have to live with it. I would hope that the Three Year Review will either clarify the position or possibly amend legislation.

 

We also must not lose sight of the fact that it is not just motor vehicles that may be affected by 'beneficial interest' clause but other far more valuable goods.

 

On the earlier page on this thread I referred to a Judge's comments from a 2013 case. The Judge referred to excavation equipment. By the same token, a light aircraft or a small boat could also be subject to hire purchase and the beneficial interest point would be of vital importance. It is for this reason, that enforcement companies would welcome a ruling (one way or another) from a higher court.

 

Any suggestion that a case such as this is costing enforcement companies thousands of pounds is simply barmy. Enforcement companies RELY upon statutory regulations and case law for their day to day enforcement and legal costs, are just an everyday overhead.

 

I have no doubt that at some stage a ruling will be made by the appeal courts and until that time, anyone believing that a vehicle subject to hire purchase cannot be seized would be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be aware of what is happening and what they could have done differently.

 

Being brutally honest, if a person has a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement then he should ensure that he familiarises himself with his finance agreement and avoids breaching the agreement by failing to pay any fines or parking penalties or allowing his vehicle to be seized under a court order.

 

Failure to pay the penalty charge notice will cause the termination of the agreement.

 

All hire purchase agreements will have the same clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2536 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...