Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

HP Where Do i Stand? Advantage Finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2042 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

Hi there,

 

I have just been advised my car costs more than it is worth to fix.

 

In my agreement with AF it states i can terminate, or do a repossession:

 

I signed a higher purchase agreement with Advantage Finance 2 years ago on a 48 month term. In my agreement it states that i have multiple options:

 

1. Early repayment

 

2. Termination of Rights: "you have the right to end this agreement.

 

To do so you must write to the person you make payments to.

 

They will then be entitled to the return of the Goods and to half the total amount payable under this agreement.

 

That is £XXX (amount here, which i have paid with no exception). If you have paid at least this amount plus any overdue instalments and have taken reasonable care of the Goods, you will not have to pay anymore"

 

I have taken reasonable care of the Goods, but wear and tear has taken its toll :(

 

3. Re Possession - Your Rights: "If you do not keep to your side of the agreement, but you have paid at least one third of the total under this agreement which is £XXXX (which i have without exception) we may not take back the Goods against your wishes unless we get a court order.

 

If we do take your goods without a court order or your agreement , you have the right to get back any money you have paid under this agreement"

 

Can you please assist me as to:

1. If i choose to terminate my rights in option

 

2 how is "taken reasonable care" defined? the car still starts and could be repaired! Is this a viable option 2. Or should i just go with option

 

3 Repossession?

Would i notify the borrower that i was stopping payments as it does not advise how i would do this.

Would this affect my credit score

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you tell us more about the car – who supplied it, how old was it, how much do you pay. I'm not exactly sure of the correct sources but I don't for a moment imagine that when you buy a second-hand car even on hire purchase that you are not entitled to some consumer rights as to quality.

 

What does your hire purchase agreement say about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you tell us more about the car – who supplied it, how old was it, how much do you pay.

 

I'm not exactly sure of the correct sources but I don't for a moment imagine that when you buy a second-hand car even on hire purchase that you are not entitled to some consumer rights as to quality.

 

What is your hire purchase agreement say about this?

 

Hi, i am not sure if i am replying correctly. First time posting to a forum.

 

I bought the car from a car garage, i really am not that clued up on cars, and it was the first Hire Purchase agreement i'd had.

 

My hire purchase agreement is with Advantage Finance, my car was brought from a garage.

I just pay back advantage finance monthly

 

Car was £3500 2 years ago

 

My question really is whether i should just terminate my rights however i am concerned this wouldn't be accepted due to the work needing to be carried out.

 

Or whether i can just do the re possession option.

 

However, to do this i do not know whether i just default on the payment and wait for them to contact me to return the Goods, or whether i should notify them.

 

I have been advised that there is nothing i can do with the garage i bought the car from, that it is not a warranty issue and that the faults are due to general wear and tear of the vehicle. The car is a bmw 1 series and is 10 years old with 130000 on the clock

 

Hope this information helps

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if its broke

Thats their problem not yours!!

 

Goods should be fit for purpose

Not breakdown and be beyond repair 2 yrs later!!so what happened??

 

I also think you mean voluntary termination

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

Hi, It states "Termination: Your rights" for the section i copied in my original message.

 

As far as i am aware it is not the person i took the HP agreements responsibility whether the car works or not. They made the payment on the car from the garage, my agreement to pay back the money is with Advantage finance, who effectively bought the car, and whom i have the agreement with to pay back monies.

 

Hence why i am asking for advise specifically to the points i made in my original request.

 

Is anyone able to answer my position on

 

1. writing to inform of early termination and the position i am in with regards to them accepting the goods under the condition of "responsible care of the Goods" seeing as it is requiring work higher than the value of the car.

(the car was in working order when purchased two years ago when i sought finance, that is all that would matter here and from what i understand this is all that would matter to the lender, they just want their agreement met with regard to paying the money back under their conditions!!)

 

Or, opt for the re possession which i have copied the content in the agreement in my original post also.

 

However my question is, if i can not opt for termination due to the car requiring work how would i go about actioning the re possession option as explained in original post

 

Is anyone that works for Advantage Finance or similar industry able to offer definitive responses to the queries?

 

Also, as stated the car is not broken beyond repair, the car would cost more than the car is worth to fix

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have come here for advice and if you want us to help then I think that you have to answer the questions which we have asked of you.

 

The approach you are taking is that no one has any responsibility on the matter and you are in a position where you got to try and get out of the agreement without too much loss.

 

The true position could be very different. You are entitled to purchase a car which is of satisfactory quality. You are purchasing the car from the finance company and therefore it is they against whom you have to assert your consumer rights.

 

Satisfactory quality means that the car has got to be any reasonable condition when you buy it and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. You have given us very little information but what is clear is that you have purchased a motorcar and used it for two years and it has cost you £1750 per year.

 

I don't imagine anybody would expect to pay £1750 a year on their vehicle so on the face it is not of satisfactory quality – although we need to know much more.

 

Although it had 130,000 miles on the clock, how many miles have you done on it? What is wrong with it? Have you got a list of defects? When did the defects first occur.

 

You really need to answer the questions that we are putting to you and then we can give you the best advice – and that best advice will be much better than you appear to be hoping for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have come here for advice and if you want us to help then I think that you have to answer the questions which we have asked of you.

 

The approach you are taking is that no one has any responsibility on the matter and you are in a position where you got to try and get out of the agreement without too much loss.

 

The true position could be very different. You are entitled to purchase a car which is of satisfactory quality. You are purchasing the car from the finance company and therefore it is they are going to you have to assert your consumer rights.

 

Satisfactory quality means that the car has got to be any reasonable condition when you buy it and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. You have given us very little information but what is clear is that you have purchased a motorcar and used it for two years and it has cost you £1750 per year.

 

I don't imagine anybody would expect to pay £1750 a year on their vehicle so on the face it is not of satisfactory quality – although we need to know much more.

 

Although it had 130,000 miles on the clock, how many miles have you done on it? What is wrong with it? Have you got a list of defects? When did the defects first occur.

 

You really need to answer the questions that we are putting to you and then we can give you the best advice – and that best advice will be much better than you appear to be hoping for.

 

Hi, I do appreciate your feedback but i am not looking to dispute the contract with the Hire Purchase.

 

May be I should be but i do not think i can. The way i read the signed contract is that i would leave the contract via one of the two options i stated in my original mail without incurring additional costs.

 

I didn't purchase the car from the finance company.

 

I sought finance (Advantage Finance) who agreed to loan me an amount to purchase a car. I then went to a car dealer, saw a car and Advantage Finance paid the dealer the amount.

 

A diagnostic was carried out on it last week and it showed 14 errors that ran into thousands. He said the sensors alone would cost a couple of grand to repair, and that he stopped the test after 14 faults as his recommendation was to get rid of the car.

 

I have done roughly 25000 miles since having it, but missed it's last Service.

 

I thought my simplest option was just to either terminate the contract and allow them to collect the car, and as i had paid over the requested amount under the agreement for termination not have anything further to pay to them. Or, go for the repossession option, stop paying and let them take the goods as i have also paid the required amount stated in the agreement. My thinking for both of these options is that i will then be left without a debt to the finance company and car off my back.

 

I don't know if this answers your questions.

 

Bought the car from a dealer for 3500 2 years ago. The finance company paid them directly and i may monthly installments to the finance company

 

Problems started after about 3 months where the engine light kept coming on and sensor lights. Phoned the dealer and they said it wasn't faults that fell under the warranty and that they were just wear and tare on the car (phone call). they said had there been issues within 14 days they would have looked into them. As far as i am aware the dealer is no longer there

 

About a year ago i had an issue where the front side of the car dropped and the coil had broken. I paid for this to be fixed and a few other issues which removed most of the display lights. Sensor lights did not disappear but the garage said they had serviced the car, and would complete when i came back to have the rear breaks and sensors replaced a week later: needed to get them fixed by a remote mechanic the next day due to grinding so the garage never completed or took the Service Due alert off the dash

 

I am fully aware i should have been more responsible with the servicing and taking it back to the garage where i had the coil fixed, but it was not a local garage due to it being fixed from toe from roadside recovery off the motorway.

 

Timing/ or misfire started to happen on the car around 6 months ago and the engine light came on and would not stop flashing. Was going to scrap the thing but then bmw did a recall on my car which described the issues i was having and resolved the engine light temporarily, it would occasionally come on, flash and then go off again. BMW said the car was fine and ok to drive but to have it looked at for the other lights ie sensors when i had chance. I was working away, the car started to hiccup/stutter again and i just left it up north where a friend took it to a garage to be serviced and fixed. Hence the diagnostic test, and him recommending cutting my losses as the car is not worth the amount it will cost to fix it.

 

Please let me know if i need to be more specific. But if i'm honest i just wanted the quickest option to get rid and be able to stop paying the finance, to save to just buy another car. And when i saw the repossession or termination option layed out as in my message i thought great, i can stop paying and not owe any money for a car that is just sitting there that i'm not going to have repaired

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are 2 types of repossession

 

VT whereby you only have to pay upto the 50% mark

 

VS whereby you have to pay everything back

 

what is wrong with the car that it is a write off and how did this happen..

 

you need to resit your approach to resolving this

you are over looking important consumer rights here.

 

and the finance company ARE responsible as well as the SELLER.

for selling you a product not fit for purpose

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...