section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

[dave27]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

you mentioned that a "bailiff" removed the vehicle

a bailiff can indeed enter private land not belonging to the hirer of the car to recover it

any dispute as to whether he tresspassed in order to do so- would be an argument between the land owner and the bailiff and not between the hirer and the creditor (IMO)

(IMO) Vs (FACT)

92.—(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

Not a dig just a fact

[postggj]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

Thanks People, Keep It Comming

THIS IS A FICTIONAL EVENT THIS SINARIO

What I Am Trying To Do Is Do A Draft Template Of A Pertic Of Claim For Breach Of S.92

What Has Not Been Mentioned So Far Is The Recourse Set In S.140 Of The Cca For Good Measure

[diddydicky]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

(IMO) Vs (FACT)

92.—(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

Not a dig just a fact

that is quite correct, however if a bailiff is involved then a court order has been obtained already

as i said a bailiff (not the creditor or owner) can act as i described

[postggj]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

correct

the key is court order
s.92 (1)

[napoleon-dynamite]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

92.—(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.



Has the agreement in question been terminated? If it has, there is a strong argument that the goods will NO LONGER be subject to a Hire Purchase agreement (which has of course been terminated) and s.92 will no longer apply, particularly given that the debtor in question has lost the option to be entitled to take ownership of the goods.

[Nana kwame]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

92.—(1) Except under an order of the court, the creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enter any premises to take possession of goods subject to a regulated hire-purchase agreement, regulated conditional sale agreement or regulated consumer hire agreement.

(3) An entry in contravention of subsection (1) or (2) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.



Has the agreement in question been terminated? If it has, there is a strong argument that the goods will NO LONGER be subject to a Hire Purchase agreement (which has of course been terminated) and s.92 will no longer apply, particularly given that the debtor in question has lost the option to be entitled to take ownership of the goods.

As to Section 92, paragraph 3. Even if the Creditor has a Court order, the creditor can not breach any laws or rules by way of entry. I believe Section 92 is still a grey area that can be argued based on circumstances.

[Nana kwame]

Re: section 92 of the cca 1974/repossession

it was terminated due to the vehicle not being of satisfactory quality

- - - Updated - - -

The Creditor was aware the vehicle is not stored on my property, there were also vulnerable people at the property. The entered to make threats, by virtue of section 92

- - - Updated - - -

it was not a baliff but rather the creditor who entered my property