Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Gaston Grimsdyke

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    722

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Gaston Grimsdyke

  1. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Oh dear. As both the District Judge and Circuit Judge were so obviously wrong, not to say extremely biased, presumably you'll be appealing again?
  2. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Part 18 doesn't apply to small claims either. But unless and until it is allocated to a track there is no reason for a Defendant not to employ Part 18 or Part 31.14, even if the claim is less than 5K.
  3. Gaston Grimsdyke
    If it's their car they are perfectly entitled to take it. Bailiffs are only required to take goods belonging to the debtor in order to sell them.
  4. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Yeah I read it. The point is the only thing that triggers repayment of all monies paid is if it was third pais. Which it wasn't. If there was a problem with the default notice, or the vehicle being repossessed from private land, the only remedy is damages for breach of statutory duty which will be a comparatively small sum. And the fact this was patently an accommodation deal means that Honda's actual customer hasn't suiffered any loss because he never had the car!
  5. Gaston Grimsdyke
    No, you are not entitled to all your money back. That rule only applies if you had paid more than a third and they had no court order. You had not paid more than a third. Whether the default notice was actually received or not is irrelevant, all they have to do is post it. And there is nothing in the CCA that says they can't repo from private property, it just prevents them repossessing from "premises", which is not defined but might mean buildings. If they are in breach, however, your remedy would be damages for trespass, which would probably be about a tenner.
  6. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Yes clause 5.3 is the one. I am sure you did not intentionally attempt to deceive Close and that this was all driven by the dealer, but the net result is the same i.e. the deal presented to them was not the actual deal. I don't agree with Trading Standards about section 56. That section makes the dealer the agent of the finance company for certain purposes, but one of those purposes cannot be to deceive the finance company. if Close have avoided the agreement there is no contract for the Consumer Credit Act to apply to in the first place. Close will probably force the dealer to take the car back and refund the advance, so it might be that you and your friend will hear no more.
  7. Gaston Grimsdyke
    How much can you raise? BCT have stopped lending and are running down their book so I suspect you could get rid of this debt for a lot less than 6K.
  8. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Er the dealer is not Close, doesn't work for Close, and doesn't go round finding business for Close. The dealer acts on his own behalf and finds business for himself. As I said before, the three of them collectively deceived Close by presenting the transaction as something it wasn't. Close would never have dealt with the OP who would presumably have failed a credit check. Whilst their terms and conditions might not say anything about whose name is on the V5, I bet you'll find there's a requirement for the hirer to keep the vehicle in his possession. No doubt the dealer is the main culprit here and I doubt Close will ever deal with him again, but the contract is still tainted with the misrepresentation. Put yourself in Close's shoes. If you lent your valuable vehicle to a trusted friend and then discovered that, without telling you, he had himself immediately lent it to his mate about whom you know nothing, other than that he has money problems and who you would not dream of lending your car yourself, what would you do?
  9. Gaston Grimsdyke
    They don't have to prove fraud, just misrepresentation by their customer. The OP can tell his own story but no doubt this is an accommodation deal where one party can't get credit so someone else does it in their name. Close will have entered the deal on the basis that their customer would be using the vehicle, not someone else with a completely different credit profile. I know that accommodation deals are very common, and most finance companies would live with it if the agreement is up to date, but if Close choose to avoid the agreement for misrep that's their right. It is irrelevant whether they have suffered a loss or not.
  10. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Yes they can. The OP, his friend, and the dealer have colluded together to defraud Close by pretending the vehicle was for the friend when it was not. No doubt the OP couldn't get credit in his own name. In these circumstances, Close are entitled to avoid the agreement which they have done by repossessing the vehicle.
  11. Gaston Grimsdyke
    They will find out pretty soon you have sold it, when they check with the DVLA who the keeper is. Whether they can repossess it now from the new keeper depends on the circumstances of the sale, i.e. was it bought in good faith by a private purchaser with no knowledge of the HP.
  12. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Absolutely agree, stat demands should not be used as a debt collecting tool. If a stat demand is served, the creditor ought to be prepared to go all the way through with bankruptcy proceedings. If a creditor really wants to spend 2K making someone bankrupt then that's their prerogative, it's an entirely legitimate route to take. It's those who serve stat demands with no intention of ever issuing a bankruptcy petition that ought to be outlawed. The government won't change the law on bankruptcies, it's a nice revenue stream for them. Even better when debtor's petitions become a purely administrative process with no requirement to go to court.
  13. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Gosh really? So do tell me why creditors bankrupt people.
  14. Gaston Grimsdyke
    If the dealer had insurance it would have had to be fully comp, but if that was the case might you be able to claim under that? Either way, if they decide to terminate either for no insurance or total loss, then yes the court could definitely order you to pay by instalments. And as you are already doing that I can't see the point of Advantage going that route.
  15. Gaston Grimsdyke
    There is no reason why a CCJ cannot be sold. If the buyer wants to take any action on the CCJ they would have to apply to be substituted as the Claimant, but other than that Black Horse were perfectly entitled to sell the CCJ on to DLC. Why do you want the C/O removed?
  16. Gaston Grimsdyke
    In short, yes they can take you to court for the remaining balance due under the agreement (though as you are up to date it's questionable what they think they will achieve by doing that). If the vehicle was uninsured - and on the timeline you have described above, it was uninsured the first 2 weeks you had it - you are in breach and they can terminate. However, even if you were not in breach, it is almost certain there is a term in the agreement allowing them to terminate if the vehicle is a total loss, whether insured or not. This is a non-breach termination (death of the hirer is the other typical non-breach termination event). They would have to serve the correct notices if they want to do that (under sections 76 and 98 of the Consumer Credit Act). Provided you can prove you were insured, I would think it highly likely they would allow you to continue paying your normal monthly instalments and they would not invoke their right to terminate.
  17. Gaston Grimsdyke
    And what is wrong with that? What is the bankruptcy process for if it's not for recovering debt?
  18. Gaston Grimsdyke
    It doesn't matter whether you received the termination notice or not, as long as they sent one that's sufficient. What is the date they say they terminated and what date did you write to VT?
  19. Gaston Grimsdyke
    No, that is incorrect. If FGA have terminated, which they must have, the OP cannot VT. And even if he could, he would still have to pay the arrears whether he's paid 50% or not. OP's best bet is to apply for a time order, or wait to be taken to court and then ask for a suspended order for delivery.
  20. Gaston Grimsdyke
    That is correct - if they have terminated you cannot VT. You can't terminate an agreement that is already terminated. Your best bet is to argue that by accepting payment of the arrears and continuing monthly instalments, there was a mutual agreement to reinstate the contract - a kind of "untermination" - which then reinstated your right to VT. It's not a great argument but it's worth a go.
  21. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Oh dear, you have done the worst thing possible by withdrawing. All you have done is cancel the finance agreement, not the obligation to purchase the vehicle. You are now obliged to pay the finance company the full price of the vehicle. There is no sane reason why anyone would ever exercise their right to withdraw, all it does is turn a finance purchase into a cash purchase, which is the last thing you want. You now have a sale contract with the dealer, so you should maintain that you have rejected the vehicle and ask them to pay back the price to the finance company so that you don't have to.
  22. Gaston Grimsdyke
    They cannot insist on you paying the costs in order to avoid a bankruptcy order being made. The only relevant amount when it comes to deciding whether a bankruptcy order should be made or not is the petition debt, i.e. £850. I can't believe they would refuse to take a payment of £550 with a promise of the remaining £300 being paid within a month; if they do, just make sure you turn up at the hearing and explain that to the judge, they will get absolutely slaughtered.
  23. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Absolutely no problem then. You should even be able to get Lowell to agree to, say, a 2 month adjournment on payment of the £550. Even if you don't, you will have no trouble persuading the judge to do just that. Good luck!
  24. Gaston Grimsdyke
    If you pay the £550 you will certainly get an adjournment to to give you time to raise the remainder of the petition debt. How long would you need to raise the other £300? You only have to be concerned about the £850 petition debt at the moment, not the costs. You cannot be bankrupted if you have paid the petition debt off in full; it is likely a costs order would also be made against you but that would not form part of the petition debt.
  25. Gaston Grimsdyke
    Getting the debt below £750 won't necessarily stop a bankruptcy order being made. The £750 limit applies at the date the petition was issued, not the date it is heard. It is perfectly possible to be bankrupted for less than £750, so I wouldn't go with that as a plan.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...