Rebel, thank you for the welcome. Gaston, thank you for your reply. My question revolves more around the Warrant of Delivery than the bailiffs. Also, my question is not so much about what makes sense logically - under Common Law the whole Protected Goods concept wouldn't necessarily be valid (the draconian s.91 consequence would certainly not be valid) and the statute, in the form of the CCA, is not necessarily logical - but rather whether anyone has any knowledge based on other cases or an interpretation of the CCA. Campari, thank you for that. I believe that the HP agreement itself is sound although I shall have another look. Good luck with your case! Is there anyone else who can offer some insight into this? Thank you!

Hi, I bought a car under HP and, due to adverse financial conditions, fell behind with the payments. I have paid well over 1/3 of the total cost. A ROG order was requested and granted. The finance company did not collect the vehicle and after 6 months - only then becoming aware of such an option - I applied for a Time Order and a hearing date was scheduled. At this point the car was repossessed from the street. From browsing previous threads it appears that the car was taken unlawfully as no Warrant of Delivery was applied for, nor a court bailiff. I had to apply for an adjournment so I used that application to vary the original application and asked the Court to order all all sums paid by me to be returned as per s.91 of CCA. The hearing is in a couple of weeks. My question is whether anyone has actually succeeded in such a claim? I understand that it appears from the Civil Procedure Rules that a Warrant should be applied for, however does that mean that not following those rules would contravene s.90 (which rather generically calls for "a court order") which would then allow s.91 to be invoked? Thank you for your help!