Black horse denying abroad trip

[Guest]

Hello! I have a car bought via a Hire Purchase contract with Black horse (quite an expensive one). The contract states that I can go abroad for up to 28 days without letting them now. However as my son (who is 28) and fully insured on the car wanted to take the car for a trip to France for 14 days I thought I should let them know. They came back declining my request and saying he cannot do that. What can I do in this situation? I have to mention I am in the posesion of the V5 certficiate.*

[pt2537]

Hi there

A car on hire purchase is not yours, its hired to you on the terms of the contract you agreed with Blackhorse.

It becomes your car when the final payment is made. Until then they have some say in the vehicle.

[Dr1A]

Thanks pt2537 for your reply! I do understand that I don't own the car yet. However I guess they should also abide by the terms on the contract. The contract stipulates that I don't need to inform them of taking the car abroad if less than 28 days are involved. There is also no mention about third parties not being allowed to drive it. That is the reason why I don't understand the rationale of their decision or if this is legally bounding or if I can ignore it.

[pt2537]

Thanks pt2537 for your reply! I do understand that I don't own the car yet. However I guess they should also abide by the terms on the contract. The contract stipulates that I don't need to inform them of taking the car abroad if less than 28 days are involved. There is also no mention about third parties not being allowed to drive it. That is the reason why I don't understand the rationale of their decision or if this is legally bounding or if I can ignore it.

That is strange, the Blackhorse agreements i have seen have a clause that prohibits third parties driving the car. Do you have the complete agreement in your possession?

Id ask Blackhorse to substantiate their position and confirm what term of the contract they rely upon

[Dr1A]

I indeed have the full agrement in my posesion. I've emailed them and asked them to detail further this decision. Is there any way I can challenge it if they would not change their mind?

[R0b]

I think what PT is getting at is there is a difference between giving you, the hirer having a contractual right to take the car abroad for up to 28 days and your son, who is not the hirer or named on the contract (unless he is named). Therefore, your son will be treated as a third party user.

Most HP agreements, (but not all), have some kind of wording that you need to keep the car in your possession and control. Take for example the below wording from a Mini HP agreement:

keep the Vehicle in your possession and under your control and not sell, rent or dispose of it or attempt to do so or allow someone other than you to become registered at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as the Vehicle's registered keeper*

In short, you are entitled to take the car abroad but no one else and I think on a reasonable interpretation, allowing your son to take the car abroad on his own is likely to contravene the duty to keep the car in your control.

Of course, if there is nothing in the terms and conditions that mention having to keep the car under your control and in possession, then you may be able to argue that the contract did not prevent another person to use the car or there is at least some ambiguity in the terms that didn't make it explicitly clear. Unless the car has some kind of tracker on it which can be viewed by Black Horse, it's unlikely that they will know your son has taken the car but do you want to take that risk if something goes wrong?

[pt2537]

I think what PT is getting at is there is a difference between giving you, the hirer having a contractual right to take the car abroad for up to 28 days and your son, who is not the hirer or named on the contract (unless he is named). Therefore, your son will be treated as a third party user.

Most HP agreements, (but not all), have some kind of wording that you need to keep the car in your possession and control. Take for example the below wording from a Mini HP agreement:



In short, you are entitled to take the car abroad but no one else and I think on a reasonable interpretation, allowing your son to take the car abroad on his own is likely to contravene the duty to keep the car in your control.

Of course, if there is nothing in the terms and conditions that mention having to keep the car under your control and in possession, then you may be able to argue that the contract did not prevent another person to use the car or there is at least some ambiguity in the terms that didn't make it explicitly clear. Unless the car has some kind of tracker on it which can be viewed by Black Horse, it's unlikely that they will know your son has taken the car but do you want to take that risk if something goes wrong?

yep thats the point i was badly making haha.