Handing my car back

cyril82

standupguy wrote: »

cyril82 wrote: »

If it were a conditional sale agreement the agreement would be headed
" conditional sale agreement regulated by the consumer credit act" QUOTE]

Before you start being patronising be sure you have covered all aspects of your argument.

In the quote above you state that " If it were a conditional sale agreement the agreement would be headed conditional sale agreement regulated by the consumer credit act"

and you state in previous posts that "if it were a hp agreement it would be headed Hire purchase agreement"

Yet you’re happy to assume it is an unsecured personal loan, despite the agreement not saying "unsecured personal loan regulated by the consumer credit act"

So let me just highlight the contradiction in your posts by using your own assumption to discredit your point....here goes.

Standupguy, some people say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,
if this was an unsecured personal loan the agreement would be headed "unsecured personal loan regulated by the consumer credit act"

Now, standupguy, sorry to highlight your hypocrisy so publicly, but you can now not respond to this post without contradicting your self, if you agree with me that you made an assumption equal to mine you look silly for the pompous post you just made and contradict your self, if you disagree with this post, in particular the bit in red, you contradict the argument you have been making in the last several posts, and again look silly.

So next time you patronise somebody be sure your intellect matches your pomposity.

cureforsanity

Can o' worms opened at both ends then eh?

Best see what the CAB have to say about it tomorrow when I see them.

At best it's misleading as it in no way states clearly what kind of agreement we have with the funding corporation, they have stated that the car has been ours to sell from day one as it belongs to us, but then again, thats straight from the mouths of telesales people, and having done a bit of that in my time I am aware that what you tell the customer is not always what the letter of the law perceives it to be.

OR

We sell ther car for £2000 and meet the shortfall in payments whilst running 2 cars.

Either way I don't think this agreement is exactly fair as it doesn't tell us one way or another exactly what agreement we have. Plus the fact that we won't have the vehicles running costs, repairs or road tax to worry about.

Several sources have advised us that maybe the 'agreement' won't hold water if it ever got to court and therefore to dispute it.

I shall see what is forthcoming and let you know.

Bear in mind thet the funding corporation has now made around £3000 straight profit from this and is holding out for more.

Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong job!!!

~Brock~

cureforsanity wrote: »

At best it's misleading as it in no way states clearly what kind of agreement we have with the funding corporation, they have stated that the car has been ours to sell from day one as it belongs to us, but then again, thats straight from the mouths of telesales people, and having done a bit of that in my time I am aware that what you tell the customer is not always what the letter of the law perceives it to be.

Oh dear.

Here we go again.

Customer takes out credit agreement to buy car. Said credit agreement is not a Hire Purchase agreement, Lease Purchase Agreement or Conditional Sale Agreement. It is a plain old common or garden credit agreement, evidenced by the wording at the top of said agreement "Credit Agreement Regulated By The Consumer Credit Act 1974".

Even though, by the above admission from the OP, the lender has clearly stated that the vehicle can be sold as it does not belong to the lender, we see 'man in the pub' syndrome kicking in. By that I mean lots of well meaning but in reality poor advice by people who either do not have a clue about what they are talking about or alternatively have such a jaded view about lenders that they cannot bear to admit that the reality may not be something that the OP would like to hear.

OP, your agreement clearly states what it is. It also, by omission, clearly indicates that it is not a HP or conditional sale agreement.

You have, unfortunately, been caught by others using their ingrained negative opinions about lenders in general to give you the impression that you have been 'wronged' in some way. There are too many conspiracy theorists out there who will happily spout their own version of the world as they see it. Sometimes it is handy to take a more balanced view of things.

~Brock~

cureforsanity wrote: »

Can o' worms opened at both ends then eh?

Er....if you say so

cureforsanity wrote: »

Best see what the CAB have to say about it tomorrow when I see them.

Yes, that would be interesting, although bear in mind that many of the CAB's 'advisors' are unpaid volunteers who have a shockingly poor knowledge of the UK laws upon which they give advice (trust me on this:eek:)

cureforsanity wrote: »

At best it's misleading as it in no way states clearly what kind of agreement we have with the funding corporation, they have stated that the car has been ours to sell from day one as it belongs to us, but then again, thats straight from the mouths of telesales people, and having done a bit of that in my time I am aware that what you tell the customer is not always what the letter of the law perceives it to be.

See my post above - the lender appears to have told you the truth. They cannot juristict for you not believing them.

cureforsanity wrote: »

OR

We sell ther car for £2000 and meet the shortfall in payments whilst running 2 cars.

That is an option

cureforsanity wrote: »

Either way I don't think this agreement is exactly fair as it doesn't tell us one way or another exactly what agreement we have.

Yes it does. You have a credit agreement. If you had a Hire Purchase or Conditional Sale agreement it would state this.

cureforsanity wrote: »

Plus the fact that we won't have the vehicles running costs, repairs or road tax to worry about.

Not sure where this figures - is that the lenders fault?

cureforsanity wrote: »

Several sources have advised us that maybe the 'agreement' won't hold water if it ever got to court and therefore to dispute it.

Are these sources prepared to stand up in court next to you and bear the costs if you lose?

cureforsanity wrote: »

I shall see what is forthcoming and let you know.

Please do.

cureforsanity wrote: »

Bear in mind thet the funding corporation has now made around £3000 straight profit from this and is holding out for more.

None of us are sure what the original indended profit was from this credit transaction, but assuming it was for more than £3000 then the above statement seems rather irrelevant.

cureforsanity wrote: »

Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong job!!!

Assuming you are actually in a job then I would consider yourself lucky. Many people are not.

samizdat

~Brock~, You have been very patient and helpful in this thread! Forums can be a real struggle some times. I don't know about this field, so I could be wrong, but your words have the ring of truth to them.

cureforsanity

I don't see how having a snipe at my personal thoughts will solve anything, my employment status and what I do running any vehicle and buying or selling it are none of your business frankly.

I was merely adding a few personal observations after trying to get to the bottom of this.

The aim of my original post was to see if anyone else had any similar experiences which may point me in the right direction.

I didn't expect an attempted character assassination from an obviously highly qualified legal expert, which would appear to be at least unhelpful and at most unprofessional.

Thanks anyway to the people who have posted reasonable arguments for and against, it's only when you start to dig deeper when you realise just how much confusion can potentially arise from such agreements and how different people perceive them in different ways.

Here's to freedom of speech!

cyril82

**note to op - i posted this info to help you not just in response to brock's patronising snipe at me. it contains info from the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING that supports my view that agreements must be descriptive and may show that your agreement was not drawn up right**

Brock, you’re very patronising to the op and anyone who dare disagree with you, HOWEVER, you are wrong that "credit agreement" by omission of any other description means unsecured personal loan.

As i said before, the term "credit agreement" is non descriptive. And to be drawn up properly an agreement must state the nature of the agreement.

Now, i know if i leave it there, you'll post some arrogant and patronising rubbish about how i'm a well meaning but poorly informed idiot, so here is some supporting text taken directly from the O.F.T guidance notes on their website about "credit agreements", so by all means, disagree and patronise away, but you will now be arguing against the word of the O.F.T and not just me, and i think that will show people who the real idiot is.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 lays down rules about how consumer credit agreements and consumer hire agreements must be documented. There are also rules about how and when copies must be given to the borrower or hirer.
The detailed rules on the documentation of agreements are set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, as amended in 2004 (the Regulations).
The 2004 regulations and further amendments can be found on the Office of Public Sector Information website.
In addition, there are rules about the information to be given to borrowers before entering into a regulated agreement - see pre-contract information - and during the lifetime of the agreement - see post-contract information.
The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations
The Regulations apply to all regulated consumer credit agreements and consumer hire agreements, including modifying agreements.
In particular, the agreement must contain certain financial and other information. This must be set out in a specified order, with sub-headings, and shown together as a whole. The information must be of equal prominence, and easily legible.




In the case of credit agreements, the required information is:

• nature of the agreement
• parties to the agreement
• key financial information (including the amount of credit or the credit limit, the duration of the agreement, the APR, the total amount payable, and the amounts and timing of repayments)
• other financial information (including a description and cash price of goods or services, any advance payments, the total charge for credit, the rate of interest, how and when interest charges are calculated and applied, the order of allocation of payments, and variable rates and charges)
• key Information (including default or other charges, any security provided by the borrower, and prescribed statements of the protection and remedies available to the borrower), and
• a signature box, and other form of consent where applicable.

Both the borrower and the lender must sign the agreement. A copy of the executed agreement must be given to the borrower, either when he signs it or within seven days. A further copy of the unexecuted agreement may also need to be provided. If the agreement is cancellable (because it was signed off trade premises), notice of cancellation rights must be included in the copy agreement, and must also generally be sent by post or email to the borrower within seven days.

Pay particular attention to the red bits: i.e
"nature of agreement" - the O.F.T are quite clear that the type or nature of agreement needs to be stated in order for the credit agreement to be drawn up properly.

"any security provided by the borrower" - well, well brock, ...."Any security provided by the borrower".... so a credit agreement can include security and therefore the term "credit agreement" does not, by omission, mean unsecured personal loan at all.

It appears the O.F.T are printing guidance that supports my view that agreements must be descriptive and that "credit agreement" is non descriptive, care to provide any supporting text for your rather arrogant point of view??

Or do i need to copy the O.F.T guidance into here that states the term "credit agreement" includes, loans, mortgages, hire and lease agreements, then you would look really silly.

As i said to your wingman (standupguy) when he patronised me, before you patronise me, be sure, extra sure, that you're right and that your intellect matches your pomposity. I'm not argumentative but i wont be patronised by someone who is talking rubbish.

cyril82

cureforsanity wrote: »

I didn't expect an attempted character assassination from an obviously highly qualified legal expert,
!

ROFL....:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

highly qualified my backside.....see the O.F.T guidence i copied above which blows his whole arrogant ramblings about the term "credit agreement" right out of the water.

cyril82

And also it is right that on the face of it, it sounds as though your agreement was not drawn up properly, for the mere fact it doesn't even say what kind of agreement it is, again, that is supported by the O.F.T guidance i have copied above.

Seems like brock was wrong to patronise you on that point too op :rolleyes:

~Brock~

cureforsanity wrote: »

I don't see how having a snipe at my personal thoughts will solve anything, my employment status and what I do running any vehicle and buying or selling it are none of your business frankly.

I was merely adding a few personal observations after trying to get to the bottom of this.

The aim of my original post was to see if anyone else had any similar experiences which may point me in the right direction.

I didn't expect an attempted character assassination from an obviously highly qualified legal expert, which would appear to be at least unhelpful and at most unprofessional.

Thanks anyway to the people who have posted reasonable arguments for and against, it's only when you start to dig deeper when you realise just how much confusion can potentially arise from such agreements and how different people perceive them in different ways.

Here's to freedom of speech!

Er, excuse me?

I took the time to carefully reply to each point you raised. Quite why this is viewed as a snipe or some other form of 'character assassination' is totally beyond me. Could you point to exactly where I have criticised your employment status, for example?

By your own admission, you came here looking for people with similar experiences. That is exactly what you got. It is rather sad, although typical nowdays, that by receiving information that may not fit with what you were hoping to hear you turn on the person giving you the advice.

To be accused of being unhelpful and/or unprofessional is, frankly, disgusting.

I wish you all the best in whatever you are trying to acheive, and will leave you to hopefully just hear nice things that you will like.

I'm out.