Michael Burton v Ministry of Justice
[2024] EWCA Civ 681
Santander Consumer (UK) PLC v Meher-Un-Nisa Chaudhry
31 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 170 (KB)
High Court
A company repossessed a car from the police after it was seized for being driven uninsured. The owner argued this broke the law, as she'd paid part of the car's price. The court said the repossession was legal because it wasn't directly from her, but from the police. The police seizure temporarily took away her right to the car.
Key Facts
- •Santander Consumer (UK) PLC (Respondent/Claimant) leased a Mercedes-Benz to Miss Meher-un-Nisa Chaudhry (Appellant/Defendant) under a Conditional Sale Agreement.
- •The vehicle was seized by the police due to uninsured driving by the Appellant's brother.
- •Santander repossessed the vehicle from the police's bailee, The Mansfield Group.
- •The Appellant requested the vehicle's return but Santander refused.
- •The Appellant argued that Santander's repossession breached Section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) because she had paid more than one-third of the price and the repossession was without a court order.
- •The Recorder found that Santander did not repossess the vehicle from the Appellant, but from the Police, and therefore Section 90 did not apply.
Legal Principles
Section 90 of the CCA prevents creditors from repossessing goods from a debtor who has paid more than one-third of the price, except by court order.
Consumer Credit Act 1974
Lawful police seizure of goods suspends the debtor's right to possession.
Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 381
Repossession from a police bailee, not the debtor, does not constitute a breach of Section 90.
Kassam v Chartered Trust PLC [1998] RTR 220
A default notice under Section 87 of the CCA is a prerequisite to certain actions by the creditor, but its absence does not automatically breach Section 90 if possession is not recovered from the debtor.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 87; Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 12
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found that Santander's repossession of the vehicle from the police's bailee did not constitute repossession 'from the debtor' within the meaning of Section 90 of the CCA. The police seizure suspended the Appellant's right to possession. Other arguments regarding default notices, unfair terms and relationships were also rejected.