Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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 
        • 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

Bill Of Sales and repossession of goods - NOTE: much of this is now out of date - dx 2016


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3739 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

OFT COMMENTARY ON BILLS OF SALE*

In researching the area of car finance two authorities gave us details of cars being sold under a Bill

of Sale. We have looked at the Bills of Sale Acts (BSA) and their interaction with consumer credit

legislation and the Office's view is set out below. We have also researched how to check if a Bill of

Sale has been registered.

Royal Courts of Justice

The Bill of Sale must be witnessed and registered at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the time and

manner set out in the BSA, otherwise it will be void and cannot be treated as a licence to take

possession. You can check if this has been carried out by making a written request to the Court

and paying £5 or visiting there in person and searching the register for free. To search you need to

know the name of the borrower, their address and the year of registration.The entries in the

register are made alphabetically in the name of the borrower.

The address is:

Room E17, East Block Ground Floor, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL**

Bills of Sale Acts

As we understand the position –

a. Buying a car under a bill of sale will be a regulated consumer credit agreement

b. The goods will not become ‘protected’ in the same way as for hire-purchase agreements

(for which section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that if the consumer has

paid one-third or more of the total price of the goods, the creditor cannot recover

possession except by judicial proceedings or consent).

c. However, the creditor will not be able to enforce the security unless he has first served a

default notice under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and this has expired (after

not less than 14 days) without remedy or the debtor applying to the court for relief.

d. If the creditor repossesses without a valid default notice, the consumer may apply for an

injunction or a time order, or seek damages for breach of contract.

On this basis, whilst the consumer will have less protection under a bill of sale than under a hirepurchase

agreement, he will not be completely unprotected, and the creditor will be at risk of

licensing action if he acts unfairly.

In addition –

e. The bill of sale is given as security, and where this is provided in relation to a regulated

consumer credit agreement it must comply with section 105 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

f. The credit agreement must embody any security, by virtue of regulation 2(8) of the

Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. A document embodies a provision if the

provision is set out in it or in another document referred to in it (a bill of sale will usually be

incorporated by reference).

g. The debtor must be provided with a copy of the bill of sale, pursuant to sections 62 and 63

Consumer Credit Act 1974, since this is a document referred to in the credit agreement.

h. If the bill of sale does not comply with section 105 of the Act it will be unenforceable by

virtue of section 106. Furthermore, if the credit agreement does not comply with the

Consumer Credit Act 1974 so that it is unenforceable, this will preclude the exercise of any

remedies under the bill of sale (except pursuant to a court order where relevant).

i. The bill of sale must also comply with the statutory provisions in the Bills of Sale Acts. In

particular, it must be in the form given in the schedule to the Bills of Sale Act (1878)

Amendment Act 1882, otherwise it will be void and cannot be treated as a licence to take

possession.

j. The bill of sale must also be witnessed and registered (at the relevant department of the

Supreme Court) in the time and manner set out in the Bills of Sale Acts, otherwise it will be

void in respect of the chattels comprised in it.

1

k. In practice, the majority of such bills of sale may well be unenforceable because the

provisions of the Bills of Sale Acts are unlikely to have been followed, and even if they

have, the relevant requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 must also be satisfied.

l. The bill of sale and related credit agreement may also be susceptible to action under the

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 or under the extortionate credit

bargain provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

m.Whether title can pass to a third party where there is a valid bill of sale will depend upon

whether the bill transfers legal or equitable title to the grantee, and each case would need

to be looked at on its facts.

The Bills of Sale Acts are unduly complex and outdated, and should be reviewed – as

recommended by the Crowther Committee in 1971. We suspect however that BERR will be

unwilling to include this in the current Consumer Credit Act 1974 Review unless there is clear

evidence of consumer detriment. You may wish to bring your concerns to the BERR’s attention by

writing to –

Consumer Affairs Directorate, Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 1

Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Its covered in the BOS Act she would have an equitable ownership on the car. Lets face it no matter what they are governed by they just simply ignore it all. They will only listen eventusally to a court order asking to return the car.

I would suggest to go straight to the courts ask advice and then make an application to the judge to put an order on the car to stop them selling it.

An injunction, the court staff are =very helpful and will point you in the right dirrection.

It will allow you time to get legal help, you could even get the car returned if you have enough proof of ownership.

Just walk in to the courts and ask for help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Agree But I Need To See The Relevent Section In Bos Act Before I Advise A Return Of Goods Order

 

I Do Not Like Ending Up With Egg On My Face

 

I Just Need A Link Or A Cut And Paste Of The Legislation On Bos And Third Party Repo

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you have your car and you do not have a fight with lbl ???

Yes I have my own fight as we speak, action is happeniong now. I cant say untill I have heard back. If sucessful will be a major break through for all.

Will post when I here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i am not off topic. the bill of sale in the post i have just proved to be void in court. and that type can not be used.

 

 

I TOTALLY AGREE BUT ITS MY QUESTION ABOVE THAT IS RELEVANT IN THIS CASE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have my own fight as we speak, action is happeniong now. I cant say untill I have heard back. If sucessful will be a major break through for all.

Will post when I here

 

 

fair enough i will leave the topic alone. but i will leave with this. only 8 people have ever won with a bill of sale. me being one of them. that bill of sale listed in void in every way as a bill of sale. i have oft come to my house after court for statement. a total of 200 miles.

 

but at the end of the day you are fighting a bill of sale and NOT a credit aggrement.

i have posted on this forum for people to pm me so as i can let them know what makes it void. do you know how many people pm me .......NONE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Agree

 

Ive Spent The Last Two Hours Looking At The Legislation Ref Bos

 

Remember

 

Bos Are Secured On The Car, Not On The Owner, Whoever And When Ever That May Be

 

Thats Why I Need To Quote The Correct Legislation In My Post 197

 

Thats All Ime Asking

Link to post
Share on other sites

fair enough i will leave the topic alone. but i will leave with this. only 8 people have ever won with a bill of sale. me being one of them. that bill of sale listed in void in every way as a bill of sale. i have oft come to my house after court for statement. a total of 200 miles.

 

but at the end of the day you are fighting a bill of sale and NOT a credit aggrement.

i have posted on this forum for people to pm me so as i can let them know what makes it void. do you know how many people pm me .......NONE

 

 

CCTV ENGINEER

 

AS YOU PROB GUESSED CAR FINANCE IS MY AREA

 

WHAT YOU HAVE SAID TO ME TODAY IS DYNAMITE REF COURT ORDER IF I CAN ONLY GET IT CONFIRMED

 

PLEASE DO PM ME ON WHAT MAKES A BOS VOID INCASE IVE MISSED ANYTHING

 

ITS A LEARNING GAME FOR EVERY ONE

 

EVEN ME:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case is diff the BOS is the security for the credit agreement that is the security on the car. I didnt have a lone with the company so that is a breech of sec 5 the BOS act.

You cant just put a CA abnd a BOS on anyone elses car but your own.

If the car doesnt belong to the borrower then the BOS is not actionable is it. But tyhe CA is still inforce. Its the only sec of the Act that voids the BOS and leaves the CA in tact. Read sec 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats correct it is secured on the car.

A BOS is the document used in conjunction with a CA and that then makes it a securedn loan. If there is no BOS there is no secured loan.

If the CA is not that of the owner of the car then the BOS is not actionable then it just becomes a normal unsecured loan.

Can you see what Im saying.

Most of the points that void a BOS will also challenge the CA.

Sec 5 just will remove the BOS.

Like wise if the CA is not enforcable the BOS becomes Void to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thats correct it is secured on the car.

A BOS is the document used in conjunction with a CA and that then makes it a securedn loan. If there is no BOS there is no secured loan.

If the CA is not that of the owner of the car then the BOS is not actionable then it just becomes a normal unsecured loan.

Can you see what Im saying.

Most of the points that void a BOS will also challenge the CA.

Sec 5 just will remove the BOS.

Like wise if the CA is not enforcable the BOS becomes Void to.

 

 

BANG ON AS THE TWO ARE LINKED

 

ONE TAINTS THE OTHER

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case is diff the BOS is the security for the credit agreement that is the security on the car. I didnt have a lone with the company so that is a breech of sec 5 the BOS act.

You cant just put a CA abnd a BOS on anyone elses car but your own.

If the car doesnt belong to the borrower then the BOS is not actionable is it. But tyhe CA is still inforce. Its the only sec of the Act that voids the BOS and leaves the CA in tact. Read sec 5

 

 

HI nicky. i was in the same posion as you. you are NOT covered by a credit agreement. a credit agreement does not overtake a bill of sale.

 

now even that your details were stolen for your car. money still changed hands under a bill of sale. this even if it is hard to understand gives the lender right to your car. and you have to go after the guy who used your details. Nicky i am going to pm you my number so as i can tell you the problem with your bos. if i post it lbl will find out and change it (closing the door for others)

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/migrated-consultations/a%20better%20deal%20for%20consumers%20consultation%20on%20proposals%20to%20ban%20the%20use%20of%20bills%20of%20sale%20for%20consumer%20lending.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes thats correct.

So because the person who has just had car taken not knowing there was a loan on it has to challenge the BOS then the CA still falls back onto the person who's name its in.

LBL will do what ever they want they are governed by rules and regulations just like all financial institutes but they ignore all.

For every 100 they take only a few will fight it, and thats why they do it.

British people dont fight they believe what they are told and thats the prob

Fo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative On That

 

I Have That Confirmed From The Oft

 

At The End Of The Day A Credit Agreement Was Signed Be It Secured By A Bos Or Not But If The Credit Agreement Is Crap, So Is The Bos

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3739 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...