Where is the room for discussion here? It's not even arguable that a deed has to be executed by the person in whose favour it is granted. A mortgage deed is the instrument which provides the security for the lending, it isn't the loan agreement. It is therefore a unilateral document which only has to be executed by the person granting the security.

Yes pay what you can before the hearing. Make an offer on the admission form that came with the claim form of instalment payments (for the whole balance). In all likelihood the finance co will accept your offer and the court will make a suspended return of goods order (i.e. you can keep the car as long as you make the payments). If they don't, then you will have no difficulty persuading the court to make a suspended order anyway if the arrears at the date of the hearing are only minimal.

It is not unreasonable for them to refuse a third party credit card payment. It's a well known tactic of fraudsters to use stolen credit cards to pay off someone else's finance in exchange for a vehicle, then sell the vehicle on. Turns a stolen credit card into cash. So that won't be a defence for you. Can you pay the balance by instalments?

They've pretty much nailed it. Exactly what are your losses, given that you have no contract with them? Zero. The repossession from private property gives you no cause of action, you suffered no loss by them doing that. The default notice point is also irrelevant. All they have to do is post it to the address they hold on record, whether it is actually received or not does not matter. You could be leaving yourself open to a costs liability if you start proceedings.

You won't find it in the CCA. The ability to charge interest post termination is contractual.

The 50% calculation is irrelevant. The agreement has been terminated so the VT option has gone. To answer the OP's question, yes it is obvious they have abandoned the car as they don't think it is worth their while repossessing it and selling it. So you might as well use it. You still need to deal with paying the balance off though.

Once the agreement is terminated, it can't be brought "up to date". The arrears are the entire balance, which was accelerated when the agreement was terminated. So legally they are entitled to continue to seek recovery of the vehicle, and it is arguable whether they need a court order or not in Scotland, so don't be surprised if it disappears if you leave it somewhere it can be found. Seems daft that they are not allowing you to pay the balance by instalments, but if they don't give up your best bet is to apply for a Time Order (there'll be threads on Time Orders somewhere here).

FWIW, the MOJ agrees with me. In its impact assessment on the proposal to put a lower limit on OFS proceedings it recommended a low limit (1K) because of the likelihood of creditors switching from charging orders to bankruptcy as a means to accessing equity in debtors' properties.

You've completely missed the point. Currently charging orders are preferable for many creditors because a) they're cheaper than bankruptcies b) they confer priority on that creditor and c) there is queasiness amongst some creditors to take the nuclear option. Tell a creditor that they cannot get a charging order for a debt of less than, say, 10K and all of a sudden bankrupcty for those with equity in their properties becomes much more attractive. They'll easily be able to find a solicitor prepared to fund the disbursements because the costs will be the first thing paid out of the bankruptcy - this is a model which has been in existence for some years. And statistically speaking, something like 60% will never get to bankruptcy order stage because the debtor will pay up rather than be made bankrupt, so there will be no shortage of solicitors and insolvency practitioners willing to risk share. And as for your distaste for charging orders on unsecured lending, what do you think would happen if they were prohibited? Answer: unsecured lending would be harder to get and more expensive. The availability and pricing of unsecured lending is a factor of the access to charging orders in default cases.

Yes. The liability order is an order from the Magistrates, not the County Court and is therefore not registered as a CCJ and won't show up on your credit file. Your wife will be fine.

A number of creditors are switching their strategy from charging orders to bankruptcy. Where the equity position is comfortable, they are more than willing to take the risk of not getting priority on the debt. After all, the first debt to be paid out in a bankruptcy is the petition costs so it is effectively a zero cost option for them. It's ideal for the smaller debts as getting an order for sale will be next to impossible, but a bankruptcy order - followed by a sale of the property by the trustee - is a slam dunk. That's basically why a modest limit on charging orders has been implemented - to stop an explosion in bankruptcies.

You don't have to have paid a half before you can VT, you can VT any time you like. Unless the creditor has terminated, which it has here, so now you have lost the right to VT. If the car is only worth a couple of hundred quid then that is the reason they are suing you for the balance - obviously the value of the car is less than the costs of removal and sale, so there is no point them repossessing it.

You can certainly discount any prospect of you having to sell your home. There is not a court anywhere who would grant an order for sale given a) the modest size of the debt b) the limited, if any, equity and c) your personal circumstances. I can't imagine TBI would waste their time bothering, but for certainty you could ask the court, once it has made the charging order final (which it almost certainly will) to immediately make an instalment order in line with the Payplan offer. Then, provided your wife maintains the payments, TBI will be prevented from making an application for an order for sale. I suspect if you contacted TBI they would agree to this anyway.

The Consumer Credit Act says nothing about the creditor not being allowed to trespass to repossess. What it actually prohibits (without a court order) is entering "premises" to recover possession, and "premises" is not defined. It's never been tested in the courts, but it's highly arguable that "premises" means a building, in which case taking from a private drive without a court order is fine. And anyway, despite what one poster says, a breach of that section does NOT mean the debtor gets all his payments back. All he is entitled to is damages for trespass/breach of statutory duty to reflect his actual loss. And the OP's actual loss from repossessing from his landlord's drive is...nothing. It's also the debtor's duty to make payments, not the creditor's to ask him for them. If for any reason the DD wasn't collected, it was down to the OP to perform his contractual obligation to make payments by other means.

There is no acknowledgement of service form because it's not a money claim, it's a claim for delivery. They can't get default judgment.

They do not need to instruct a bailiff to seize the car, though they can if they want. Now that they have an order for delivery, they can simply take the car themselves, just like they could if you had paid less than a third and didn't need a court order. The vast majority of finance companies do not bother getting a warrant of delivery, they just recover the vehicle themselves. What you need to do is to make an application to the court to vary the terms of suspension; if successful then they would be prevented from taking the vehicle for as long as you meet the new terms of suspension.

The tick box is just a belt and braces thing for them, to stop you doing what you are now contemplating doing i.e. alleging that you didn't receive the terms and conditions. It makes no difference if you read them or not, from your last post it appears the terms were part of the actual document you signed so you are stuck with them. The verbal variation won't work either, because as a general principle of law if there is a conflict between a verbal term and a written term the written term wins. I think you'll lose in the long run on this but it might be worth seeing if you can do a deal with the Claimant to get a discount on the claim, as they will be keen to avoid the hassle of you applying to set aside the judgment.

Garbage. Read Part 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

You can't get the judgment set aside merely because you didn't receive the claim form. You also have to prove that you have a defence which has a real prospect of success. If the terms are that you have to pay for a minimum of 12 months and you signed the agreement, you're pretty stuck. Doesn't really matter whether you ticked the box to say you had received the terms or not.

You're liable. Read paragraph 4 of the guarantee. At the end of the AST the tenancy can roll over without the requirement to execute a further agreement, and you have guaranteed the rent for any holding over. All paragraph 5 does is restrict your liability to the original monthly rent if the rent is increased after the expiry of the original term.

Can't see there is anywhere you can go with this. The value of the vehicle is what someone is prepared to pay for it, not what it says in a guide. If they had put a reserve on it of Glass's Guide plus 5% it would never have sold, because it's true value was what it was sold for at auction.

Well if it has to go to a hearing you might as well object to an OFS being made; it's a discretionary remedy so the judge might see it as disproportionate and could be persuaded to adjourn the application generally provided certain payments are made. As for the sale price, a driveby will be the open market valuation for a property sold by the vendor; it's a fact that repossessed properties sell for less, so a forced sale price against a driveby valuation of 150K is not crazy. As for who has conduct of the sale, it is completely normal for the creditor's solicitors to have that conduct, providing it is the council selling it as mortgagee in possession. If it's you selling then you can use who you like. You will undoubtedly have to pay the legal costs of the proceedings. As a rule of thumb, if they were assessed by the court they would be about 65% of what is asked for. So on no account agree to what is being asked for, they will definitely settle for 65-70% of it. Ultimately it's up to the judge how much is awarded anyway. Don't get hung up on the relative value of the costs and the debt, though. Costs are driven by how much work is done, not the value of the underlying debt. The debt could be 1K or 100K and the costs would be the same. The one point you definitely have got is on the interest. There is no provision whatsoever for interest to be charged on council tax debt. It is not a CCJ. Why don't you ask the solicitor exactly what provision entitles the council to debit interest - she will not be able to quote one.

You have VTed so the agreement is at an end. However, you do not have to pay any excess mileage charges. Tell the lender that your liability is defined by the Consumer Credit Act, not by their terms and conditions. The Act says when you VT, you pay anything owing at the date of the termination (i.e. arrears) plus any such further sum as is required to bring the total amount paid up to one half of the total purchase price. So if there are no arrears and you have already paid one half, then you have nothing further to pay. The problem for Motonovo is that the excess mileage is not payable at the date of the VT - it can't be, because they don't know until they get the vehicle back what the mileage is. So, as there are no excess mileage charges AT THE DATE YOU VT, then the Act says you do not owe it. Point this out to them and tell them to come and get the vehicle and that your liability is at an end.

There's no cooling off period full stop, wherever it was signed. Cancellation rights were all but abolished in 2009 and instead a right of withdrawal implemented, which requires the debtor to keep the vehicle and pay the finance off so only a nutter would exercise that right. If it's a hire purchase agreement then, yes, there will be a right to terminate it early but as Sean says, it will cost. Was it a new car?

There is nothing in these facts to alter the basic limitation provision, i.e. that they have 6 years to sue you from the date of the cause of action, in the absence of a payment or written acknowledgement of the debt. Physical possession of the vehicle does not count as acknowledgement. If Black Horse haven't contacted you by now I think you can safely assume the debt has been written off.