Motor home rip off

This is not a nice situation
If two burly gents from an authorized debt collection company turn up to wherever the vehicle is stored with a flat bed and a high court writ to repossess it, I assume it will be legally removed and I doubt after that point that the op will ever see it again.

Ditto if in use it will just be tailed and repossessed once parked?
 
Last edited:
TrevandJenny said:
There is a good possibility that the debt was maybe sold to a debt recovery company, I would guess this although it is a financial issue ( Bank overdraft, re-financing, non-legal charge, is not a HP problem ( different laws) unless a HPI check reveals outstanding finance. This could be the age old frightening tactics. Lets try to claw back as much as we can tactics, Do you recall the parking enforcement scam, It would cost them to take you to court, If you fought them, they backed down..
.
I would do a HPI search, then if no revealing information comes to light invite proof of by the letter writer. If found to be true Red Dwarf has by far the best plan
.
Good luck
Click to expand...
The OP did an HPI check but because all these vans (see much earlier in thread!) were security on loans and had properly registered Chattel Mortgages on them the investors for whom they were security are seeking to recover them.
No frightening tactics needed really - just a High Court order for straight repossession.
At least the charge holders seem to be giving current keepers the change to reach a settlement.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am inclined to agree, if a third party has and can prove legal title to the vehicle, because technically the op is theoretically in possession of stolen goods surely?
 
Bought in good faith from the legal owner as far as we can see.
BUT it would seem that he omitted to mention that he'd not satisfied the legal charge on and so wasn't in a position to sell it.
Also got to have considerable sympathy for the investors who lent £35k or so on the security of a motorhome that was probably worth a lot less than that when they were sold or when the firm went bust after several years of hard use on hire.
Even those investors who got the vans instead of their full investment back will be feeling out of pocket.
Mind you the investors had some good interest over the years on their initial stake.
 
Just replying to the OP as not read the full thread yet, but as this was a dealer purchase, are they not responsible as they sold as a trader, and are the last responsible legal owners.
 
Pudsey Bear said:
Just replying to the OP as not read the full thread yet, but as this was a dealer purchase, are they not responsible as they sold as a trader, and are the last responsible legal owners.
Click to expand...

If the purchase was from a dealer still in business then I think it would be a lot easier for the OP but the fact that it wasn't was clarified fairly early in the thread along with links to selling firm's details at companies house.

The seller was the only owner from new and no doubt knew that he had agreed a charge on this van along with more than a hundred more that he sold.
Yes he was responsible and if the firm was still trading the purchaser could try getting his money back.
But the firm went bust 6 months after the sale without enough funds to clear the charges which were c£35k on 3 year old motorhomes.
The other avenue is the director of the firm but he almost certainly doesn't have the £11M owed to the investors either.
.
 
You can also join a Chausson Facebook group with your charge number as a 'key' for more info.
Search Unbeatablehire Option C
 
There was something about this on radio four last week, they were asking all in same position to get in touch....sorry, did not connect it! May have been You and Yours but might be worth a search?
 
I suspect that the investors have a stronger case than scammed purchasers as the vans weren't on Hire Purchase which would have given 'good faith' protection.
It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
 
Markd said:
The OP did an HPI check but because all these vans (see much earlier in thread!) were security on loans and had properly registered Chattel Mortgages on them the investors for whom they were security are seeking to recover them.
No frightening tactics needed really - just a High Court order for straight repossession.
At least the charge holders seem to be giving current keepers the change to reach a settlement.
Click to expand...
No they are not this has now turned into a nightmare with threatening letters. There is more to this than I can put down on here but believe me it is a lot bigger than just me,there are at least forty others
 
Hundreds I expect and the charge holders are bound to want something back from their investment.
They probably will lose more than the duped purchasers even when they realise the van value.
Sorry to hear that it seems threatening - no doubt some high court orders either pending or being enforced.
 
Markd said:
Hundreds I expect and the charge holders are bound to want something back from their investment.
They probably will lose more than the duped purchasers even when they realise the van value.
Sorry to hear that it seems threatening - no doubt some high court orders either pending or being enforced.
Click to expand...
Well as I said I can’t say what the position is now but I’m looking for holiday venues in the near future. Thanks for your input sir
 
Me359 said:
Well as I said I can’t say what the position is now but I’m looking for holiday venues in the near future. Thanks for your input sir
Click to expand...
I’m going to fight this to the bitter end I don’t give in easily someone said possession is nine tenths of the law
 
I guess that the end if the transition period may well make a difference to the reach of UK civil courts - European Enforcement Order dies?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top