Cause of Action Discussion

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Very kind of you Charharp
The problem as I see it is that you are unable to keep track of what you have said or give any insight to your own reasoning

You said COA and Action are different , I do not think anyone has suggested otherwise so why try to dispute something that no one disputes

You have suggested that in BMW , Mr Hart was only renting the car, not true as explained. In days gone by (when Andy and I were young) I could have rented a TV which i would never have owned. Now I take finance on it and own it at the end of the agreement but not until that point. You also need to remember that just because it says BMW above the door of a garage doen't mean that BMW own it. When that garage sells a car on finance, the finance company pay the garage

You then have said cause is from missed payment yet previously you have agreed that it depends on the contract.

It has been suggested to you by several clued up people both here and there that your OD cause is accrues on demand yet you still seem to fight the consensus without any evidence.

As for this thread, Andy has put forward two ideas, he has only ever said he believes in one (lets call it theory 1). Personally I tend to believe in the other (theory 2) i.e no need for termination and I based that on the fact that the default could be delayed. However if we take the common law principle that a DN must be issued in short order (or promptly) it overcomes many of my worries about theory 1.
I will say that I believe that either theory could be the right one however it will need to be decided at some point in a higher court . If theory 1 is correct I think there could be a lot of challenges against it based on delay in issuing DN's

I also suspect that the debt industry are not over keen to have this tested as at the moment they can pretty much claim what they want and fool a lot of people . Remember the people you see on these forums are only a small proportion of people with debt issues

Oh I see my earlier post was a response to a PM from a member who wanted to know if the hart case was a rental, all becomes clear now. Yes as you say the loan would be from the financial arm of the multinational, perhaps our friend here thought one of the mechanics loaned a bit of money out to punters as a sideline. You would think that someone with a degree in Economics would understand how a HP agreement works, makes you despair about the dropping standards of our educational system

Yes and from reading OTR and between the lines I wold say that Sequency agrees with you on this, it can only be a matter that is decided when and if a regulated agreement goes to court, which I am sure will happen sooner or later.
I am sure BMW will raise its head and the argument will either be accepted as applying to a regulated agreement or there will be some reason why it doesn't, personally I think that it must,(not on my own in this) but you know my opinion, just as valid as anyone else s(almost :tinysmile_twink_t2

[charharp]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Oh I see my earlier post was a response to a PM from a member who wanted to know if the hart case was a rental, all becomes clear now. Yes as you say the loan would be from the financial arm of the multinational, perhaps our friend here thought one of the mechanics loaned a bit of money out to punters as a sideline. You would think that someone with a degree in Economics would understand how a HP agreement works, makes you despair about the dropping standards of our educational system

Yes and from reading OTR and between the lines I wold say that Sequency agrees with you on this, it can only be a matter that is decided when and if a regulated agreement goes to court, which I am sure will happen sooner or later.
I am sure BMW will raise its head and the argument will either be accepted as applying to a regulated agreement or there will be some reason why it doesn't, personally I think that it must,(not on my own in this) but you know my opinion, just as valid as anyone else s(almost :tinysmile_twink_t2

It is a rental. BMW financial services buy the car from BMW and lease it to him, hence HIRE purchase. It's only upon completion of monthly rentals and final balloon payment that the care becomes his.

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

It is a rental. BMW financial services buy the car from BMW and lease it to him, hence HIRE purchase. It's only upon completion of monthly rentals and final balloon payment that the care becomes his.

I thought you had gone and took you off ignore.

Yes this is how a hire purchase agreement works, you really do not know anything do you.

Actually Mr hart signed an agreement with the finance company

2. The essential facts of the case are that under a contract signed by both parties on 1 March
1999Mr Hart took a Land Rover Discovery motor vehicle on hire purchase from the appellant, for a total sum of just over £35,000 less a deposit paid of £500, with instalments to
be paid as provided in the contract. The balance of the amount payable, including interest
charges and other fees, came to £39,967.25. The contract provided for 36 monthly rentals,
each of £690.40, followed by a final balloon rental payment of just over £15,000.
3. Clause 2(b) of the contract referred to the rental instalments and the final balloon rental,
and ended by stating:

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Back on ignore

[charharp]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

That's what I said EDIT, you're quote actually says ''36 monthly RENTALS''.

You are not capable of understanding the level of information needed that's a given at that point. But now I'm questioning your ability to read.

[jon1965]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Charharp
Please do not derail this thread by resorting to your insults again.
As Andy explained and I agree with the word rental in the agreement is just that..a word.

I believe that any one with any common sense would agree that this was a finance agreement although you might want to argue it was secured on the car.

[MissFM]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

That's what I said EDIT, you're quote actually says ''36 monthly RENTALS''.

You are not capable of understanding the level of information needed that's a given at that point. But now I'm questioning your ability to read.

If you would only listen, rather than throw insults, Charharp, you could be learning at the feet of the Masters.

[charharp]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

If you would only listen, rather than throw insults, Charharp, you could be learning at the feet of the Masters.

I sincerely doubt that MissFM.

[charharp]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

"If the hiring is terminated, or the Owner has accepted the Customer's repudiation, the Customer shall, at the Customer's own risk and expense immediately return the Goods to the Owner ... For the purpose of retaking possession of the Goods, the Owner shall have the right to enter any premises in the occupation of, or under control of, the Customer ..."

extract from BMW contract. Note how BMW financial services refer to themselves as the OWNER. EDIT

[jon1965]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Oh so you have found a contract now i see. You are still misinterpreting the meanin because it doesn't fit your argument. You seem to have a habit of that.

Pray do tell, is it the actual bmw contract from the case or one from the same time?

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

I am not sure what is going on here, but I cannot believe that we are arguing about a HP agreement.

Perhaps a new thread should be started where we can explain what one of these is and how it works, if someone would direct the chap to it we could get on with discussing something more challenging.

[charharp]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

It's the BMW contract from the hart case. Go on then Andy Von Brainstorm tell me where I'm going wrong in your world.

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Copied these here for reference

The Facts
BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited ("BMWFS") entered into a hire purchase agreement (the "Agreement") with Mr Hart. It does not appear that the Agreement was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the "CCA"). In July and August 1999, Mr Hart failed to pay two monthly instalments. By a letter dated 26 August 1999, BMWFS accepted Mr Hart’s repudiation of the Agreement and terminated it. BMWFS demanded payment of the unpaid balance.

http://www.wragge.com/published_articles_9406.asp

t took the Court of Appeal to determine when the clock started to run. Under the HP agreement entered into between the parties,

http://www.forwarn.com/news/db.asp?P...ance_Companies

Mr Hart entered into a hire purchase agreement in March 1999

http://www.lexology.com/library/deta...7-21b6701a273e

BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited ("BMWFS") entered into a hire purchase agreement (the "Agreement")

http://uk.practicallaw.com/5-522-012...elatedcontent#

[jon1965]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

Well I don't think I have ever seen an HP agreement , I wonder if you could post it or a link to it. Never let it be said I will not look at all evidence

[Guest]

Re: Cause of Action Discussion

"If the hiring is terminated, or the Owner has accepted the Customer's repudiation, the Customer shall, at the Customer's own risk and expense immediately return the Goods to the Owner ... For the purpose of retaking possession of the Goods, the Owner shall have the right to enter any premises in the occupation of, or under control of, the Customer ..."

extract from BMW contract. Note how BMW financial services refer to themselves as the OWNER. you really are not worthy of my time.

BMW finance are the owner and the creditor they will remain the owner until the last payment and the transfer fee is paid it is how hire purchase has worked since before the HP act 1964.

The goods are on hire until they are purchased hence "hire purchase"(I cannot believe I am having to explain this).