Beneficial interest on goods under a HP Agreement.

[Peterbard]

What's too silly? You reject the argument that beneficial interest falls under equity law despite everything pointing towards it being the case, though you haven't suggested anything else. The leading case on beneficial interest is Stack v Dowden - also confirmed the starting point is where there is sole legal ownership, there is sole beneficial ownership. If you google beneficial interest, it all points to equity law and Stack v Dowden amongst other things. There's no reference to benficial interest which is outside the realms of equity law.

 

Happy to be corrected on this point but overall there's nothing in the TCE no any other staute on the face of it, in which beneficial interest falls outside of the laws of equity.

 

Equity law is a legal process. Beneficial interest is a description of a particular interest in goods. It is like saying the TCE is the same as a rocking chair.

 

Link to one of you many authorities, let's see what it really says.

[Peterbard]

Stack vs dowden apparently was a divorce case which decided on property rights in a court of equity..

 

This did not make the apportioned goods interests in equity.

 

This is why this argument is so silly.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Perhaps you need to read Stack v Dowden in a bit more detail to understand the relevance but if you want a nice summary of it I would suggest reading this link http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Stack-v-Dowden.php

 

 

However, if you are not satisfied with that answer, here's another authority as proof below that HP agreements are hire only.

 

 

I suppose your willing to disagree with this point also?

[Peterbard]

Sorry no more. The term benificial interest was defined in post ,2.

 

That is all that is relevant to this thread. If you disagree take it up with the agencies and the courts because it is their view too.I had thought you just wanted some guidance with understanding property law, I now see that this was not your intention.

 

I am not going to indulge you anymore. Stick to the topic or I will ignore.

[unclebulgaria67]

Long posts, when i thought it was a simple issue of the HP agreement being looked at and the HP company stating whether the debtor owned any of the interest in the vehicle, if it were sold to pay a debt.

 

If enforcement companies are taking control of HP vehicles, then they are opening themselves up to work, when there might not be enough debtor interest in a vehicle. In most cases, i would think the clamping of a vehicle to deprive usage, would be enough to get the debtor to engage in discussing a payment arrangement. For those that don't, then it would be a case of making enquiries with the HP company to see whether there was any prospect of gaining money from a vehicle.

[JustAnotherPerson]

I'm afraid I don't need guidance on property law, I deal with it on a daily basis. My intention was to explain to you that there can only be a legal interest or a equitable interest - there is no third rule where beneficial interest applies. It can't fall under the legal interest because that is clearly set out in the HP agreement, so the only other interest is an equitable one, a right in personam (against the person, not the world).

 

Beneficial interest in the case of HP agreements relates to a financial entitlement due to the debtor once the agreement is terminated . This is determined by the value of the goods minus any costs and any charges due under the agrement before termination.

Can you confirm what this falls into? Is it Legal interest, equitable interest or are you saying there's now a third option which the courts recognise (albeit not binding) as beneficial interest?

 

 

Long posts, when i thought it was a simple issue of the HP agreement being looked at and the HP company stating whether the debtor owned any of the interest in the vehicle, if it were sold to pay a debt.

 

If enforcement companies are taking control of HP vehicles, then they are opening themselves up to work, when there might not be enough debtor interest in a vehicle. In most cases, i would think the clamping of a vehicle to deprive usage, would be enough to get the debtor to engage in discussing a payment arrangement. For those that don't, then it would be a case of making enquiries with the HP company to see whether there was any prospect of gaining money from a vehicle.

 

Beneficial interest is only one part of the argument, bailiffs seizing goods on HP brings out a number of other issues.

[Peterbard]

Long posts, when i thought it was a simple issue of the HP agreement being looked at and the HP company stating whether the debtor owned any of the interest in the vehicle, if it were sold to pay a debt.

 

If enforcement companies are taking control of HP vehicles, then they are opening themselves up to work, when there might not be enough debtor interest in a vehicle. In most cases, i would think the clamping of a vehicle to deprive usage, would be enough to get the debtor to engage in discussing a payment arrangement. For those that don't, then it would be a case of making enquiries with the HP company to see whether there was any prospect of gaining money from a vehicle.

 

Yes and you are correct,it is that simple.

 

There are a couple of points which should be stressed the most important being that challenging the bailiffs right to exercise their right under statute will be a pointless and possibly expensive mistake.they are entitled to take goods if the debtor has an interest in them. Even if the value of that interest is not immediately available.

[Bailiff Advice]

Can I be brutally honest here. In April 2014, a significant amendment was made to the regulations where the previous word 'interest' was replaced with the words 'beneficial interest'. The Treasury Solicitor had his reasons for imposing this change. Additionally, the government made significant changes to items that are considered 'exempt'. If it was the case that Parliament considered that goods on 'hire purchase' should be exempt then they would have imposed such a clause in the regulations. They did not do so.

 

There have now been at least three court failures on the subject of beneficial interest and what is important is that in each case the debtors were using a flawed argument as an excuse not to pay the debt (and bailiff fees).

 

If anyone is temped to issue proceedings using the 'beneficial interest' argument then what they should do is to pay the debt (and bailiff fees) and then issue a simple small claims writ in the county court. In that way, the debtor will retain the use of their car and storage fees will not accrue.

 

What can be simpler.

 

Reading the excellent debate between Dodgeball and JustAnotherPerson is proof again that what I suggested in my above post in entirely accurate.

 

Anyone considering taking a case to court using the 'beneficial interest' route should ensure that they settle the debt to the bailiff company beforehand. If they cannot afford to do so......then they cannot afford solicitors costs either !!!

 

They also need to ensure that they have a very healthy bank balance.......they will need it.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Even if the value of that interest is not immediately available.

 

That seems to contradict this position under the TCE below, as yo say you have an understanding of property law you ought to know that.

 

(b)references to goods of the debtor do not include references to trust property in which either the debtor or a co-owner has an interest not vested in possession.

[Peterbard]

That seems to contradict this position under the TCE below, as yo say you have an understanding of property law you ought to know that.

 

We are not talking about trust property.

[Peterbard]

I don't know if any one else was confused. But by not immediately available I meant still tied up in the contract.

[JustAnotherPerson]

We are not talking about trust property.

 

Equity and trusts go hand in hand - the creditor as legal owner (and perhaps a beneficial owner) would hold the car on trust for the hirer until end of the agreement which is then vested in him so it would be relevant but again that's another argument on top of this discussion

[Peterbard]

Equity and trusts go hand in hand - the creditor as legal owner (and perhaps a beneficial owner) would hold the car on trust for the hirer until end of the agreement which is then vested in him so it would be relevant but again that's another argument on top of this discussion

 

The vehicle is not held in trust it is under a HP agreement.jesus. the section you refer to is about money or land which is being protected in a trust. It says that until it has not been released it is not siezable.

[JustAnotherPerson]

Where does it say in that section it only applies to money or land? Do you know how a trust is created?

 

A = Legal Owner, B = Beneficial interest

 

There is a trust, A holds the property/goods/whatever on trust for B hence the creation of a trust.

 

Creditor holds the legal title, hirer as you say has a beneficial interest and therefore the car would be held on trust for the hirer until all payments have been made. It's a contingent interest at a later dat and I've already explained before what vested in possession means. So HP agreements would be excluded under this provision *if* a beneficial interest did exist.

 

If I am wrong please explain

Edited August 23, 2016 by JustAnotherPerson

[unclebulgaria67]

Where does it say in that section it only applies to money or land? Do you know how a trust is created?

 

A = Legal Owner, B = Beneficial interest

 

There is a trust, A holds the property/goods/whatever on trust for B hence the creation of a trust.

 

Creditor holds the legal title, hirer as you say has a beneficial interest and therefore the car would be held on trust for the hirer until all payments have been made. It's a contingent interest at a later dat and I've already explained before what vested in possession means. So HP agreements would be excluded under this provision *if* a beneficial interest did exist.

 

If I am wrong please explain

 

If you are saying the HP company creates a trust arrangement, i think you need to find a copy of an agreement to copy/paste or link to, so you can evidence this.

 

I am not convinced that a trust arrangement is part of these agreements. The HP company owns the vehicle and only transfers full ownership/interest on completion of the agreement.

[Peterbard]

Where does it say in that section it only applies to money or land? Do you know how a trust is created?

 

A = Legal Owner, B = Beneficial interest

 

There is a trust, A holds the property/goods/whatever on trust for B hence the creation of a trust.

 

Creditor holds the legal title, hirer as you say has a beneficial interest and therefore the car would be held on trust for the hirer until all payments have been made. It's a contingent interest at a later dat and I've already explained before what vested in possession means. So HP agreements would be excluded under this provision *if* a beneficial interest did exist.

 

If I am wrong please explain

 

Why would the creditor hold the car in trust,its on hire remember.E equity exists only after termination. Unlike a trust where assets are introduced within its term.

 

This again is irrelevant to this thread.

[JustAnotherPerson]

If you are saying the HP company creates a trust arrangement, i think you need to find a copy of an agreement to copy/paste or link to, so you can evidence this.

 

I am not convinced that a trust arrangement is part of these agreements. The HP company owns the vehicle and only transfers full ownership/interest on completion of the agreement.

 

Hello uncle, I am not saying anything as such, it is dodgeball that is saying there is a beneficial interest in the goods under HP. If that were the case then it is a creation of trust, a contingent trust to be more specific, that is to say that until all payments are made, ownership does not transfer.

 

My position is that there is no beneficial interest and I agree with you, ownership of the car remains with the creditor at all times and that includes beneficial interest. Despite dodgeball also disagreeing with Stack v Dowden which confirms this position (and that equity law never arises which is somewhat strange) then I can only conclude that he seems to think the HP agreement is the creation of a trust. Agreements do not have to specifically have the word "trust" in them to create a trust. It can come about from statute, operation of law, or by intention/express.

 

The fact is that a beneficial interest is an equitable interest which falls under equity law and no one so far has proven me wrong on this point and I am happy to be corrected.

[Peterbard]

And that is not how a trust is created.

[Peterbard]

What exactly do you mean by fails under equity law?

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Hello uncle, I am not saying anything as such, it is dodgeball that is saying there is a beneficial interest in the goods under HP.

 

If I can just correct you. It is not only Dodgeball who is saying that there could be a beneficial interest in goods under HP. At least three separate Judges have come to the same conclusion.

[JustAnotherPerson]

If I can just correct you. It is not only Dodgeball who is saying that there could be a beneficial interest in goods under HP. At least three separate Judges have come to the same conclusion.

 

County Court judges I presume with no binding authority or if there is already a superior court decision could you link me to it?

 

It all comes down to the fact that these decisions were more likely based on something in which the claimant was out of their depth and lack of understanding. But if the right arguments are put forward on previous superior court decisions then I have no doubt that the courts would be bound to follow it. Dodgeball's definition of beneficial interest is one that is not actually recognised in law apart from the 3 separate judgments you mention, and I will presume they agreed by applying the rules of equity. There is 400 years worth of case law on what beneficial interest means, there is no definition in the TCE on beneficial interest, so if the courts are not going to apply the meaning of beneficial interest under equity law then they will need to come up with a separate definition - Something I highly doubt.

 

And that is not how a trust is created.

That's quite vague statement - trusts are a legal relationship where assets or goods are placed under the control of the trustee for the benefit of another. The key thing to note is that trusts separate the legal ownership from beneficial ownership - again happy to be corrected on this.

 

What exactly do you mean by fails under equity law?

What re you referring to?

[Peterbard]

Sorry falls under equity law ?

 

I think that you will find it has nothing to do with equity law,it seems that you listen to nothing said to you

[Peterbard]

County Court judges I presume with no binding authority or if there is already a superior court decision could you link me to it?

 

It all comes down to the fact that these decisions were more likely based on something in which the claimant was out of their depth and lack of understanding. But if the right arguments are put forward on previous superior court decisions then I have no doubt that the courts would be bound to follow it. Dodgeball's definition of beneficial interest is one that is not actually recognised in law apart from the 3 separate judgments you mention, and I will presume they agreed by applying the rules of equity. There is 400 years worth of case law on what beneficial interest means, there is no definition in the TCE on beneficial interest, so if the courts are not going to apply the meaning of beneficial interest under equity law then they will need to come up with a separate definition - Something I highly doubt.

 

 

That's quite vague statement - trusts are a legal relationship where assets or goods are placed under the control of the trustee for the benefit of another. The key thing to note is that trusts separate the legal ownership from beneficial ownership - again happy to be corrected on this.

 

 

What re you referring to?

 

Re trustee, yes that is closer, perhaps you should Google before you speak not after

[Peterbard]

Are you saying you know better than three DJs and the MOJt ? I can assure you, you may certainly do not

 

Also my definition is of course recognised in law,it is just not understood by you. Not that it matters.

 

Again you refer to under equity law,what are you talking about ?

[Peterbard]

To explain again these matters come under the laws of property. Equity law is a system of justice applied in all cases, nothing to do with equity in goods. You would think a professional like yourself would know this.