Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Black Horse
34 Answers
I bought a car, when I came to sell it, potential buyers checked me and it showed up a HPI with Black Horse which I never took out with Black Horse, I bought the car with my own money, no idea how Black Horse got my details from - where do I stand with this if I want to complain and who to??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by missey123. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Maybe the previous owner had an HPI with Black Horse that he didn't settle when he sold it to you?
At worst (and I hope it doesn't come to this) the car belongs to Black Horse and the guy who sold it to you stole your money.
If it is YOU and not the car that others are checking you need to contact Black Horse to sort it out. It will be an error of some sort. If it's the CAR they are checking then that spells Trouble. CAB or a solicitor?
Where did you buy the car from? iF it was from a motor dealer then you have no problem - it is down tot the motor dealer.
If you purchased it privatelt, then did you do a HPI check? I assume that you did not. As dzug says, the HPI register contains details about the car and if a finance company has an 'interest' ie financial interet in the vehicle. It is to stop someone from buying a car on credit and tehn selling it on but keeping the agreement on.
That said there are two things that should be noted. If you are an 'innocent purchaser' (and by this I mean you have never purchased a vehcile on HP before, work in the motor or finance trade etc) then you have protection under the law. DO NOT GIVE the vehicle back no matter what Black Horse say without a court order. They can not do anything without either your permission or a court order. They may exaggerate their claim on teh vehicle and get you to give it back to them. Do not do this.
The other point to note is that Black Horse do not do Hire Purchase agreements but Loan agreeements (wihtout boring you to much, HP agreements gives the purchaser extra rights). This means that they are bending the regulations to their advantage.
As dzug says, contact Black Horse and tell them that about your purchaser. (contact details will be on the HPI check). Ask them why it is on there - it could bea simple mistake (in which case they will remove it) or it has finance outstanding. If it has the latter then follow above advice.
If you purchased it privatelt, then did you do a HPI check? I assume that you did not. As dzug says, the HPI register contains details about the car and if a finance company has an 'interest' ie financial interet in the vehicle. It is to stop someone from buying a car on credit and tehn selling it on but keeping the agreement on.
That said there are two things that should be noted. If you are an 'innocent purchaser' (and by this I mean you have never purchased a vehcile on HP before, work in the motor or finance trade etc) then you have protection under the law. DO NOT GIVE the vehicle back no matter what Black Horse say without a court order. They can not do anything without either your permission or a court order. They may exaggerate their claim on teh vehicle and get you to give it back to them. Do not do this.
The other point to note is that Black Horse do not do Hire Purchase agreements but Loan agreeements (wihtout boring you to much, HP agreements gives the purchaser extra rights). This means that they are bending the regulations to their advantage.
As dzug says, contact Black Horse and tell them that about your purchaser. (contact details will be on the HPI check). Ask them why it is on there - it could bea simple mistake (in which case they will remove it) or it has finance outstanding. If it has the latter then follow above advice.
Oneeyedvic. Your assumption that he is protected by law is inaccurate. If he has bought a car that effectively doesn't belong to the person selling it, he has bought a stolen car. Regardless of what, when and how he paid, the car can be removed from his possesion and returned to it's legal owner, be that a bank, an insurance company or an individual.
My assumption is not an assumption but a point of law. I suggest you read through the Hire Purchase Act (incorporated into the Consumer Credit Act (1974) ) you will find reference to Innocent Purchasers.
He/she has not purchased a 'stolen car' but a car on finance. Completely different in the eyes of the law.
These cases are certainly not clear cut, and you will see I have used the term "innocent purchaser". I cannot tell if missey123 is or isn't an innocent purchaser - but I can tell you the law - something which (gammaray) obviously cannot.
He/she has not purchased a 'stolen car' but a car on finance. Completely different in the eyes of the law.
These cases are certainly not clear cut, and you will see I have used the term "innocent purchaser". I cannot tell if missey123 is or isn't an innocent purchaser - but I can tell you the law - something which (gammaray) obviously cannot.
gammaray - you obviously have no clue about consumer credit law - and I really can't be bothered to argue withsomeone who obviously doesn't understand the law but would like to voice an opinion.
If you would like some further reading, then I suggest you type into google "hire purchase" and "innocent purchaser" together and follow the many links including several trading standards websites.
You may also want to look for Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964. "Where the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is to a private purchaser and he is a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith without notice of the hire purchase agreement that disposition shall have effect as if the creditor's title to the vehicle has been vested in the debtor immeadiately before that disposition"
If you want more information, then I suggest you become a member of the CCTA - Consumer Credit Trade assocaition, where they will give you all sorts of advice for a very reasonable �550 +VAT per year (depending on size of company).
As I have constantly said, this is very general advice and there are a lot of what ifs - as an example, if the original Hire Purchase agreement was taken out fraudulently, then as per Shogun Finance vs Hudson, the subsequant purchaser will not be deemed to be an innocent purchaser.
I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have, but will be tempted to charge you ;-)
If you would like some further reading, then I suggest you type into google "hire purchase" and "innocent purchaser" together and follow the many links including several trading standards websites.
You may also want to look for Section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964. "Where the disposition referred to in subsection (1) above is to a private purchaser and he is a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith without notice of the hire purchase agreement that disposition shall have effect as if the creditor's title to the vehicle has been vested in the debtor immeadiately before that disposition"
If you want more information, then I suggest you become a member of the CCTA - Consumer Credit Trade assocaition, where they will give you all sorts of advice for a very reasonable �550 +VAT per year (depending on size of company).
As I have constantly said, this is very general advice and there are a lot of what ifs - as an example, if the original Hire Purchase agreement was taken out fraudulently, then as per Shogun Finance vs Hudson, the subsequant purchaser will not be deemed to be an innocent purchaser.
I will be happy to answer any further questions you may have, but will be tempted to charge you ;-)
But I thought oneeyedvic said it wasnt a HP agreement if from Black Horse so therefore, this is only confusing the issue? Just a point of order thats all.
I would suggest missey123 contacts BH finance and establishes the facts first. It may be a simple administration error, missey needs to know whose name the finance is in.
Yes Oneeyed' The "I can't be bothered to argue" song of the truely desperate! I don't need to know anything about consumer credit because buying stolen vehicles isn't mentioned. Even you, with your one good eye, must agree that taking and selling something that doesn't belong to you is theft ergo buying that something is receiving stolen goods. The fact that you didn't realise the goods were stolen is of little value. The goods you pruchased didn't belong to the seller so you don't own them and they will ultimately be repatriated with the rightful owner. Irrespective of the consumer credit act, the law of averages, sheimpflug principle of intersecting planes or anything else you care to mention!
"taking something that doesn't belong to you" is not actuallt the point.
Whilst I do agree with "Nemo Dat quod non habet" - no one gives who pssesses not. - a Hire Purchase agreemnt does not come under this as there is an intention to buy.
As I siad (have you actually bothered) type in "innocent purchaser" and hire purchase into google. If you really can't be bothered, then here is your link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls= org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22inno cent+purchaser%22+%22hire+purchase%22&meta=&btnG =Google+Search (all you need to do is cut and paste this link if you can manage that).
You will notice that the first link which agrees with me is Warwickshire council. The next is Caerphilly Trading Standards. Maybe you could try contacting these people and also explaining that with your superior knowledge of the law that they take down this infomration from their websites and misleading the public.
Or you can try listening to people who work in the industry and even bother quoting you the relevant legislation.
Or, I suppose, you could maintain that I must be really desperate and have friends who take care of the websites of the aforementioned councils and.......
Whilst I do agree with "Nemo Dat quod non habet" - no one gives who pssesses not. - a Hire Purchase agreemnt does not come under this as there is an intention to buy.
As I siad (have you actually bothered) type in "innocent purchaser" and hire purchase into google. If you really can't be bothered, then here is your link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls= org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22inno cent+purchaser%22+%22hire+purchase%22&meta=&btnG =Google+Search (all you need to do is cut and paste this link if you can manage that).
You will notice that the first link which agrees with me is Warwickshire council. The next is Caerphilly Trading Standards. Maybe you could try contacting these people and also explaining that with your superior knowledge of the law that they take down this infomration from their websites and misleading the public.
Or you can try listening to people who work in the industry and even bother quoting you the relevant legislation.
Or, I suppose, you could maintain that I must be really desperate and have friends who take care of the websites of the aforementioned councils and.......
It's amazing how "not being bothered to argue" can take 11 paragraphs to execute!
If I stole a telly and sold it to you on an HP agreement, you beleive you would be the legal owner of that telly right? ......Wrong! Remember those reality TV shows which followed a police car crime squad around. Remember also the tale of the guy whos car was stolen. When it was recovered the police had some bad news for him. The car he had bought was infact stolen. He'd bought it from a dealer on HP. The car was TAKEN
I'm not sure how many times I can say this, or how many times you won't listen:
A car that is on HPI with a finance interest is not stolen.
Ttry reading the council link again "The Hire Purchase Act (now incorporated into the Consumer Credit Act) states that the first �innocent purchaser� of the vehicle gets �goods title� or ownership. By innocent purchaser, the law means someone who did not know, and who could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the outstanding HP agreement. The HP company would not be able to repossess the car from you, therefore, and should pursue your friend for breach of the Hire Purchase agreement. This applies even if you had bought the car from a trader, as you would still have been an �innocent purchaser."
Can it be any more clearer?
Yes I am arguing with you as you are giving false information with your dubious legal knowledge being attained from TV reality shows.
As i have constatntly said, if the vehicle was stolen you would be correct, but just being on finance does not make it stolen.
Note to everyone else: I am very sorry for 'hijacking' this thread and arguing the point. I do feel, however, that information provided on AB should be accurate. I will carry on arguing (and providing independent government links) if anyone insists that their TV knowledege is somehow more correct and insists on giving misleading and incorrect information.
For further information about 'innocent purchaser' please go to the following governement website: http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/faqdb.nsf/By+De partment/DC9AB9B464DF37DF80256DE2005F50CD
As always, any advice given is very general advice, and each case is different.
A car that is on HPI with a finance interest is not stolen.
Ttry reading the council link again "The Hire Purchase Act (now incorporated into the Consumer Credit Act) states that the first �innocent purchaser� of the vehicle gets �goods title� or ownership. By innocent purchaser, the law means someone who did not know, and who could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the outstanding HP agreement. The HP company would not be able to repossess the car from you, therefore, and should pursue your friend for breach of the Hire Purchase agreement. This applies even if you had bought the car from a trader, as you would still have been an �innocent purchaser."
Can it be any more clearer?
Yes I am arguing with you as you are giving false information with your dubious legal knowledge being attained from TV reality shows.
As i have constatntly said, if the vehicle was stolen you would be correct, but just being on finance does not make it stolen.
Note to everyone else: I am very sorry for 'hijacking' this thread and arguing the point. I do feel, however, that information provided on AB should be accurate. I will carry on arguing (and providing independent government links) if anyone insists that their TV knowledege is somehow more correct and insists on giving misleading and incorrect information.
For further information about 'innocent purchaser' please go to the following governement website: http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/corporate/faqdb.nsf/By+De partment/DC9AB9B464DF37DF80256DE2005F50CD
As always, any advice given is very general advice, and each case is different.
A further point Vic. It's clear that you don't accept that other people have an informed opinion. I used the "TV" example because I realise that I need to dumb down the argument in order for you to understand it. It's no skin of my nose that you keep banging on about it and posting links to web sites. I don't have any need to prove myself in the same way that you do.
People on the site will either take what I've said and use it to examine the issues further or they won't. The idea of the site is to promote healthy debate. I'm adding to the debate Vic because I have a view point. Just because it challenges your web site fuled version of events doesn't make it wrong.
I'm not buying it
"Well that's handy, 'cause I ain't ****ing selling it" Quote from Snatch ;-)
You will note that on a Hire Purchase agreement, the person taking out the agreement is deemed to have 'possesion' and 'control' over the vehicle. You cannot steal from yourself.
Selling the vehicle is breaking the conditions of the agreement and not a criminal offense but a civil offense.
Please note that I am not a solicitor or have any legal training. What I do have is knowledge of the law as it pertains to my own industry (the finance industry).
Trust me when I say that this happens all the time. The finance company can only pursue the person who took out the agreeement. Surely you must believe (if not me) then the trading standards and other websites. Don't you think that these websites would say different otherwise?
"Well that's handy, 'cause I ain't ****ing selling it" Quote from Snatch ;-)
You will note that on a Hire Purchase agreement, the person taking out the agreement is deemed to have 'possesion' and 'control' over the vehicle. You cannot steal from yourself.
Selling the vehicle is breaking the conditions of the agreement and not a criminal offense but a civil offense.
Please note that I am not a solicitor or have any legal training. What I do have is knowledge of the law as it pertains to my own industry (the finance industry).
Trust me when I say that this happens all the time. The finance company can only pursue the person who took out the agreeement. Surely you must believe (if not me) then the trading standards and other websites. Don't you think that these websites would say different otherwise?
