Bill of sale defective so is credit agreement secured on it

[sequenci]

I read the 1825 act numerous times on this, it is a nightmare

 

It sure is

 

and IMHO not designed for this type of transaction

 

I agree 100%

 

I've got some really good articles and legal opinion on them from over the years. I'll try and collate them to fire over if you like. I'm still working on the credit reference stuff too. I'm snowed under with the day job which is slowing things somewhat!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

That would be brilliant Sequenci, when ever you have the time.

 

Thanks

 

 

Brig.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, Sequenci, I forgot to mention that I posting off a load my finding s on the use of

CRA's and DCA's by the DWP this is going to Lord David Freud Under Secretary of State at the DWP,

he has already given me all the details on how the companies are regulated and checked but I

think he might be surprised when he get this load.

I'll keep You posted on the results.

 

Brig.

[rosyb]

Just seen this thread. An interesting one. From my understanding, and what I was trained, is that a defective BOS - or one that wasn't registered in time - simply renders the security void. If the credit agreement aspect is OK then it just becomes an unsecured agreement.

 

As far as the 'credit agreement' query, I always thought that any agreement that gave you 'credit' could be referred to as such. So potentially a loan or credit card could be a credit agreement of sorts?

 

Yes, the confusion i think is due to the fact that an improperly executed agrement can render the security void, unfortunately not the other way around.

 

Rosy

[rosyb]

Just to clarify, even thought he security itself is not properly registered and may of itself make the reposession of the vehicle unlawful, the enforcement of that secutity is itself unlawful under the consumer credit act, if carried out without first teminating the agreement.

 

In effect these BOS are used to circumvent section 90-- of the act but the creditor cannot get arround the fact that a section 87 default notice must be issued before a security can be enforced even a defunct one.

 

If the creditor does collect the security without first issuing a DN the lender is within his rights to seek an injunction or time order and couter claim for damages.

 

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If the BILL OF SALE is DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY IT IS VOID AND THE AGREEMENT MAY BE ALSO

BUT THE UNDERLYING DEBT STILL RESIDES> ,the law is unclear and archaic and confused, to mqake

any absolute statement on the matter would be foolish and can mislead the OP of this thread.

[rosyb]

If the BILL OF SALE is DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY IT IS VOID AND THE AGREEMENT MAY BE ALSO

BUT THE UNDERLYING DEBT STILL RESIDES> ,the law is unclear and archaic and confused, to mqake

any absolute statement on the matter would be foolish and can mislead the OP of this thread.

 

No the agreement is not void quite the opposite not sure what you mean here.

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I suggest that you read the whole of the !825 act as have, Sequnci is trained and familiar

with the legislation.

For your information is the relevant part of the act quoted verbatim,as far as am aware

this has not been updated or superceded in any way.

As DX100 said please stop posting on the backs of others it is unhelpful.

Research before posting helps.

S & I are going to go into this in detail soon.

[rosyb]

If the BILL OF SALE is DEFECTIVE IN ANY WAY IT IS VOID AND THE AGREEMENT MAY BE ALSO

BUT THE UNDERLYING DEBT STILL RESIDES> ,the law is unclear and archaic and confused, to mqake

any absolute statement on the matter would be foolish and can mislead the OP of this thread.

 

Isnt this gibberish?

If a debt is secured and the security is the realised by the creditor why would the debt still exist?

I think you have read the above on Wikipedia, committed it to memory and recite it at any given opportunity in spite of the fact that it is wholly inappropriate.

Kind regards

Rosy

[rosyb]

I suggest that you read the whole of the !825 act as have, Sequnci is trained and familiar

with the legislation.

For your information is the relevant part of the act quoted verbatim,as far as am aware

this has not been updated or superceded in any way.

As DX100 said please stop posting on the backs of others it is unhelpful.

Research before posting helps.

S & I are going to go into this in detail soon.

 

The problem is not with the BOS it is with the agreement. And yes i have read the act you mention some years ago and am fully familiar with it as are many others there is nothing new there.

 

How is agreeing that the OP has a case unhelpful?

 

Not posting on the back of anyhone merely stating the facts in order to assist the op, do you disagree with any of them?

 

Kind regards

Rosy

Edited July 7, 2011 by rosyb
speeling for the major seems to thnk that haveing a sp[ell checker is some sign of superior intelect

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This from a government web site for you information.

I have get to come across any one quite so arrogant and plainly stupidly vindictive,

as other have noted you post are generally childish and miss spelled,and misleading.

I for one will ignore any further intervention by you.

[rosyb]

This from a government web site for you information.

I have get to come across any one quite so arrogant and plainly stupidly vindictive,

as other have noted you post are generally childish and miss spelled,and misleading.

I for one will ignore any further intervention by you.

 

I dojt think my posts are childish, perhaps you dont understand what is being said.

 

I think you forgot the link.

 

Not arrogant just knowledgeable in this particular area of the law.

 

Not to hot in the grammar department yourself i notice.

 

Kind regards

Rosy

[postggj]

thanks for looking in people

 

i accept all views, be it incorrect or not

 

that is why people research and learn

 

the bill of sale question has been abused by lenders for to long now and with this thread we will get precise answers to throw back at them

 

lets concentrate on the question

 

is a credit agreement secured by a bill of sale enforceable if the security (bill of sale is flawed)

[sequenci]

Not arrogant just knowledgeable in this particular area of the law.

 

The way I understand it is that a creditor's failure to comply with the very defined form and content of the bill of sale as outlined in the 1882 amendment to the 1878 act simpyl renders the security void. The key issue is that bills of sale are often used to secure a seperate CCA regulated agreement, the fact that the creditor cannot recover the security doesn't in anyway affect their ability to rely on the covenant to repay the sums owing under the loan agreement. The only time when I think it may become a big issue is if the bill / CCA agreement are combined in some way and thus do not adhere to the form & content of the CCA regs (perhaps by missing or messing up a prescribed term) or is missing the requirements laid out at s9 of the 1882 act.

 

I think since bills of sale in their current form have been around for 129 years most creditors have got the form factor totally nailed. The main issues we see are either a) human error messing it all up b) registration issues.

[rosyb]

Yes this is true but the BOS would entitle the creditor to reclaim the goods without the restricions of section 90 of the act. This is one of the reasons that this is used in many cases particularily with car loans.

It does not however remove the rights of the debtor under the agreement in regards to the repossetion of securities.

 

THe fact that that the BOS is not correctly executed is not relavant to it function wthin the agreement, it is still the security on the loan whtever its condition.

It cannot effect the CCAs enforceability.

 

 

And yes i am knowledgeable i this area sorry if it upsets anyone.

 

KInd regards

[raydetinu]

As I said in post 9, does not section 105 and 106 CCA cover it!

or does anybody have any other interpretation!

[rosyb]

thanks for looking in people

 

i accept all views, be it incorrect or not

 

that is why people research and learn

 

the bill of sale question has been abused by lenders for to long now and with this thread we will get precise answers to throw back at them

 

lets concentrate on the question

 

is a credit agreement secured by a bill of sale enforceable if the security (bill of sale is flawed)

 

Sorry the answer is yes most deffinately

 

 

 

However if that security has been seized without the creditor issuing a default notice and terminating the agreement then he has breached the agreement no matter.

The apparent complexity of the BOS is not relevant here it does not matter. If the grantee( in this case the creditor ) is not entitled to ownership of the car under the BOS then it stays with the debtor, so it is still a legitimate security under the agreement, as such the cr3editor has no right to seize it without following the default procedure.

Regards

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Agreed Sequnci, to have the information you mentioned earlier today would be very useful indeed.

[sequenci]

Agreed Sequnci, to have the information you mentioned earlier today would be very useful indeed.

 

Just getting some stuff together as we speak (taking a VERY late lunch today!)

[rosyb]

As I said in post 9, does not section 105 and 106 CCA cover it!

or does anybody have any other interpretation!

 

No Section 105 and 106 ensure that if an agreement is improperly executed say under section 60 then any security is void.

 

This is what happend in Wilson when they had to give the car back. It was found that the agreements prescribed terms where incorrect so section 105 triggered section 106 which said that the securities and any funds paid on them would have to be refunded to the lender

 

Regards

Rosy

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Your a star Sequnci thanks!!

[raydetinu]

rosyb,

I dont think it says that at all? needs explaining in english?

Its the creditor that has to return the security ( BOS ) and refund any monies received.

It does not mention lender at all!

oh dear, got a headache!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Fortunately I have some information coming from a very reliable and trusted source in a short while,

perhaps it will put this to bed for the OP.

[rosyb]

rosyb,

I dont think it says that at all? needs explaining in english?

Its the creditor that has to return the security ( BOS ) and refund any monies received.

It does not mention lender at all!

oh dear, got a headache!

 

 

106 Ineffective securities

Where, under any provision of this Act, this section is applied to any security provided in

relation to a regulated agreement, then, subject to section 177 (saving for registered

charges),—

107 Duty to give information to surety under fixed-sum credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit in relation to which

security is provided, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that

effect from the surety and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give to the surety (if a different

person from the debtor)—

(a) the security, so far as it is so provided, shall be treated as never having

effect;

(b) any property lodged with the creditor or owner solely for the purposes of

the security as so provided shall be returned by him forthwith;

© the creditor or owner shall take any necessary action to remove or cancel

an entry in any register, so far as the entry relates to the security as so

provided; and

(d) any amount received by the creditor or owner on realisation of the

security shall, so far as it is referable to the agreement, be repaid to the

surety

Look up surety

Rosy

[rosyb]

Fortunately I have some information coming from a very reliable and trusted source in a short while,

perhaps it will put this to bed for the OP.

 

 

Childish isnt it

 

If your talking about Sequency, i dont think we dissagree on anything i have said on here, if we did i am sure he would be able to argue the issue.

 

Rosy