Thread: Advantage Finance - car returned + still been taken to court for full amount. Help!

I would be really grateful if anyone could take the time to read this and has any advice.

My parents had a car on HP on an extortionate rate which they paid just over half off earlier this year. The settlement figure was extortionate (around £3600 on a £4k loan, over £4k of which had already been paid) so they wanted to Voluntary terminate. As they were 3 months in arrears at the time Advantage wouldnt let them, they wanted £500 + the car back. My parents didnt have that, so offered £300 which was every penny they could get, + the car, which had a private plate paid for by them and alloy wheels which cost £1000 (with the receipt) left on.

Advantage refused and simply ignored my parents letters and attempts to return the car. They just kept sending letters with the termination amount and settlement amounts getting ever higher.

They then sent a letter saying the account had been terminated by them and they would apply for a court order to get the car back if they didnt return it. My parents sent a letter saying the car was available for collection and that they had made that clear in every letter.

An agent came to collect the car for Advantage, my parnets have now received a moneyclaim from Advantage for over £3800 - the total amount owed on the agreement. They have said in the POC that my parents have ignored all attempts to settle - utter lies. I also couldnt believe they are trying to rob every penny out of them - they are even claiming contractual interest at 70p a day more than the 8% would have been.

They haven't taken a penny off the amount for my parents returning the car.

If my parents have to pay this it means they will have paid £9200 for a car that cost £5300, and lost the car.

I did a S.A.R - (Subject access request) for them and there is a valuation Advantage did on the car when they sold it my parents for £5300 - it was worth £3900

They also had numerous problems with the car right from the start, including having to pay over £200 within a month of getting the car to have it fixed, returning it to the garage 4 times with faults, (some dangerous) and wanting to return the car as they had so many problems. They have copies of all these letters as they came with the S.A.R - (Subject access request).

In the end they gave up as my father suffers from depression and anxiety and he couldnt deal with all the hassle.

I am absolutely fuming about all this, my parents are being robbed blind by these con merchants. I am going to the CAB with my mother tomorrow, but does anyone have any idea what they can do? Surely Advantage cannot take the car and give them nothing for it, then still claim the entire amount right up until the end of the agreement?

Incidentally we have photographs of the car being taken away with the private number plate and alloy wheels on.

Thanks very much for any help.

Similar Threads:

• Diary of an impatient woman!
• Letting agent not returned full deposit
• Help!Haven't offered me full amount what do I do?!
• Advantage Finance
• Anyone got full amount from Barclays?

Well going to the CAB was a waste of time. The person we saw knew less about HP than me.

If anyone has read this could we dispute part of the claim - seeing as they have had the car back - and also try and get the amount owed reduced to what the arrears would have been when they collected the car? In effect a VT, and my parents would pay off the arrears. It wasn't a repossession as they voluntarily gave the car back.

Would this be worth trying?

Do they have the letter asking about the vt? i'm no expert on this i'm afraid but i would've thought they could claim back everything they've paid since the vt
Certainly dispute it, if you have all the paperwork put in a counterclaim

If you can prove you sent the letter of termination before they terminated the agreement and as long as your parents paid at least half, they would have nothing to pay. If you can not prove it, they have to deduct the amount the car sold for off the amount you owed. I really hope you can prove receipt for your termination letter.

Thanks all

I'm pretty sure we still have the receipt from the VT letter my parents sent at the beginning of june, I insisted they sent special delivery. They had paid over half when they sent the VT letter, the problem is they were 3 months in arrears, and advantage demanded the arrears be cleared before they would allow a VT. The arrears were £500, my parents couldnt afford this but offered £300, plus they were leaving a private number plate and £1000 alloys on the car.

**Edit** - I have just found Advantages reply to my parents VT letter, which proves it was sent and received by Advantage.

From the S.A.R - (Subject access request) we got copies of all the complaint letters we originally sent, could one option be to claim the car was never fit for the purpose it was sold for? My parents spent over £200 on repairs within a month of getting the car, plus it went back to the garage several times. Advantage admit we had 'numerous correspondence' (their grammar not mine!) about the problems with the car. My parents eventually gave up trying to return it due to the stress it was causing my father.

They are basically claiming a repossession and have filed a moneyclaim for the whole amount left on the contract. The car was freely available to them at any point after we sent the VT letter, it was declared SORN and not taxed or insured, so we can prove the car wasn't used at all after my parents VT'd. We didn't make Advantage obtain a court order to get the car back, we gave it them freely when they eventually asked for it back. Surely the car was returned by mutual agreement and not repossessed?

My mother phoned Advantage yesterday and asked what happened to the car, they said the car hadn't been sold yet, and when it was they would deduct the amount from the claim - sounds like a load of crap to me and that they are trying to scare my parents into paying the lot by filing a court claim against them.

The one thing that is clear from the letters is that Advantage didnt want the car back, they wanted either their ridiculous settlement figure paying, or the installments continuing to the end of the loan period.

After reading a few other threads (thanks Karnevil) I am thinking of filing a defence for my parents, acknowledging the arrears are owed up to the date my parents VT'd, which is about £500, but disputing anything is owed apart from this. the original agreement does state that if VT rights are exercised any arrears need to be paid.

Anyone have any opinions on this? (i'm waiting to have a peek at chopperclare's defence as it seems a very similar case to this one!)

Thanks for the replies, i'll post all the information up here but it will be a long post, sorry and thanks again for anyone taking the time to read this and help them.

My parents were never happy with the condition of the car, proved by numerous complaint letters and acknowledged by Advantage. They had to pay over £200 within a month of getting the car to fix a dangerous fault that caused the car to cut out when the accelerator was released - including doing it several times at high speeds.

Advantage didnt want to know until my parents sent a letter stating they wanted to return the car as it was not satisfactory. They then arranged for the dealer it came from to have a look at it and some of the faults were rectified, though the car continued to have electronic faults the whole time my parents owned it.

When they did the S.A.R - (Subject access request) a valuation for the car was included in there - when my parents bought it for £5300 it was valued by Glass's guide at £3908 retail, £2500 trade. I don't know if that can be mentioned now but as far as my parents were concerned at the time they expected the dealer to sell a car for what it's worth. It also explains why Advantage would only lend my parents £4000 - thats all the car was worth!

After they had paid over half my parents asked for a settlement figure. They had just remortgaged and had £2500 left to settle the car, (bearing in mind they had already paid over £4000 on a £4000 loan) the settlement figure was over £3500 when the total amount left on the contract was only £3900, so they couldnt afford to pay it off and had to buy another car.

My parents then sent the VT letter, this was refused and Advantage demanded £527.64 to terminate the agreement, refusing my parents offer of £300. I've just found the letter dated the 8th June and the actual arrears were only £422.64, the other £105 was 'outstanding collection charges' - £35 per letter they sent when my parents missed a payment!

On the bottom of this is the optional insurance settlement - though it gives no figures at all. (my parents had gap insurance)

One week later ( 15th June) a letter arrived which stated the amount required to terminate the agreement was £918.72. I assume this is including the gap insurance, however the letter makes NO mention of this, nor any mention that the insurance doesn't have to be settled in order to VT.

On the 5th July another letter arrived, this time the amount required to terminate was £728.52, £588.52 arrears and £140 'collection charges'

On the 31st July a letter arrived stating that if Advantage recover the car under a VT my parents would have to pay both the arrears and the outstanding insurances - total amount £1107.81.

You can see why my parents didn't have a clue how much they owed half the time. Also the insurances don't have to be paid to VT yet we have it in black and white that Advantage say they do. yet in another letter they say any insurances will remain payable. So which is it? lol

After several more letters in which my parents alledged that the car was never satisfactory, and Advantage simply replying with more settlement figures, they received a default notice around the end of august. This stated that the car was no longer my parents property (no court order was obtained) and the car must be made available for collection. My parents replied saying the car had been available since the day they sent the VT letter and they had made it clear many times.

They then recieved a collection notice from an agent acting for Advantage, my mother rung them and arranged to have the car picked up. The agents then came and took the car.

Advantage have now filed a court claim for the full amount of just over £3800 + contractual interest at 16%. When my mother rung to ask what had happened to the car and why they had filed a claim, she was told the car had not yet been sold and when it was the claim would be amended to reduce it by the amount the car was sold for. I find this hard to believe as they have had the car weeks now, and I doubt they have any intention of selling it and amending the claim, instead hoping to scare my parents into paying the full amount.

I really dont know where to start with regards to a defence!

Thanks a lot, I'll start drafting up a defence today. My parents have already acknowledged the claim online and stated they intend to defend part of the claim. (a rather large part!)

Will asking for the car back make things worse? As surely then it looks like they want to keep it, wouldn't it be better for them to have voluntarily given it back? I'm unsure on this one!

Ok i've run this rough draft together fairly quickly. I'm not sure if i've missed anything out or have waffled too much anywhere, if anyone has any improvements/amendments i'd be happy to listen!

The defendants wish to defend the claim issued by the claimant for the following reasons:


1) The defendants alledge that the car (Peugeot 406, R901 KWY, later changed to R8 BDM) was in an unsatisfactory condition when sold, having copies of many complaint letters sent to the claimant. The defendants also had to pay £214.57 for repairs to the car within 1 month of purchasing it. The car had a dangerous fault which caused the engine to cut out and therefore also causing the car to lose power steering and proper use of the brakes. the claimant and the garage the car was bought from refused to fix the car under warranty.

2) the Defendants sent a letter on the 04/03/2004 which stated they wanted to return the car due to the unsatisfactory condition it was in and the number of faults it had, including faulty lights, faulty exhaust, peeling laquer and unusual noises coming from the car. The claimant then agreed the garage the car was obtained from would examine the car. Some of the faults on the car were then fixed but the car continued to have electronic faults for the whole of the defendants ownership. Due to one of the defendants (Mr Mitchell) being disabled and also suffering from anxiety and depression the defendants gave up complaining to the claimant about the car as it was causing Mr Mitchell undue stress.

3) On the 11th April 2006 the defendants wrote to the claimant asking for a settlement figure on the account. The settlement figure was significantly higher than the defendants were expecting, having just remortgaged their house the defendants onlly had £2500 to settle the account. The claimants requested a figure of £3524.81, which the defendants could not afford. The defendants were unaware that any settlement figure would be calculated using the rule of 78, had they been they would not have entered into the contract in the first place.


4) The defendants dispute that the claimant had the right to terminate the agreement, due to the fact the defendants had already paid over half the total amount owed on the agreement and had already exercised their right to voluntary terminate under the terms of the agreement.

5) It is not disputed that the defendants were in arrears at the time they issued the Voluntary Termination letter. However the defendants do dispute the amount the claimant said was needed to exercise this right. In a letter dated 8th June 2006 the amount the claimant stated that needed to be paid in order to terminate the agreement was £527.64. However only £422.64 of this amount was made up of arrears. The remaining £105 constituted three £35 penalties for issuing a letter each time a payment was missed on the account. The defendant disputes these £35 charges as they do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore are an unenforceable penalty under the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The same letter also stated that the balance of any insurances would remain payable after the contract was terminated.


6) The defendants made an offer of £300 to settle the account which was refused by the claimant.

7) On the 8th June 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £918.72.

8) On the 5th July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £728.52.

9) On the 31st July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant containing the following statement: "If we recover the car under a voluntary termination, you will have to pay both the arrears on the vehicle and the balance of any outstanding insurances currently these stand at £1107.81"

10) In an earlier letter of the 8th June (the same letter referred to in para. 2 above) the claimant wrote "Other insurances taken out at the same time will remain payable. To settle these insurances and claim any rebate which you are entitled you may also choose to pay the amount set out below". It is no wonder the defendants were confused as to what amounts they owed or had to pay to terminate the agreement when the claimant didn't seem to know either and the amounts rose and fell with each letter.

11) On the 14th August 2006 the defendants received a notice of default.

12) On the 06 September 2006 the defendants received notice that the claimant was terminating the contract. This letter also stated that the goods were no longer in the defendants possession with the claimants consent and they must be made available for collection or the claimant would apply to the court for their return. The defendants replied to this notice, stating that the car had been available for collection since the claimant received the Voluntary Termination notice around the beginning of June 2006. The defendants had made this fact clear in several letters to the claimant.

13) The defendants made arrangements for an agent acting on behalf of the claimant to collect the car, which the agent duly did. The defendants left upgraded alloy wheels worth £980 on the car for which they have the receipt, and also a personal number plate that cost a further £250, again the receipt is available. Photographic evidence that these items were on the car when the agent collected it is available.

14) No court order was obtained by the claimant and the car was returned with the full consent of the defendants. Therefore the defendants claim that this was a Voluntary Termination and not a repossession.

15) The claimants have entered a court claim for the full amount remaining under the agreement, yet they have also received the car back. The defendants would like to request details of what exactly has happened to the car.

16) The car had been unused, untaxed, uninsured and a SORN off road declaration made since the defendants sent the notice of Voluntary Termination at the beginning of June 2006.


17) The defendants requested information about their account via a Subject access request. With the information that came with this request was a valuation the claimant obtained when the car was bought by the defendants. This valuation was £3908. The defendants paid £5310 for the car, believing that a car dealer would sell a car for a price it was worth. One of the defendants (Mr Mitchell) is also disabled and needs dependable transport, and the defendants traded both their old cars in when purchasing this car believing they were buying a more reliable car.


18) The defendants were baffled by the constantly changing amounts that the claimant alledged needed to be paid in order to terminate the contract. The amount rose one month then fell the next, then rose again. Then according to the claimants letters the gap insurances had to be paid in order to terminate the contract, then they didn't, then they did again. How were the defendants ever to know exactly how the claimants were calculating their settlement figures?

19) The defendants therefore claim that they Voluntary Terminated the account under the terms of their contract. The defendants admit that they owe £422.64 in arrears up until the date of the Voluntary Termination and dispute the remaining amount of the claim.

Any good?

Thanks, I thought maybe I was waffling on a bit and it needed to be cut down. Any improvements will be gladly taken on board

WORK IN PROGRESS Its a start - I'm just taking out the personal bits it more clinical.

Originally Posted by norvernrob

1) Vehicle purchased from XXXXXXXXXXX on XX/XX/XXXX

1) The vehicle in question is a Peugeot 406 registration R901 KWY, and was re~regsitered on XX XX XX to R8 BDM.

2) A warranty of XX years was included within the purchase price quoted £XXXX.XX

3) The defendants allege that the vehicle in question, detailed in paragraph 1, was in an unsatisfactory condition when sold.

4) Letters of complaints were sent to the Claimant on XX/XX/XX, XX/XX/XX and XX/XX/XX. These letters will be disclosed to the court.

5) The defendants paid £214.57 for repairs to the car within 1 month of purchase. The receipt dated XX/XX/XX for this work will be disclosed to the court.

5) The Claimants refused to repair the vehicle under the warranty given at the time of purchase.


6) On the 04/03/2004 the Defendants swrote to the Claimant stating they wished to return the car due to the unsatisfactory condition, and faults it had, including faulty lights, faulty exhaust, peeling laquer and unusual noises coming from the car.

7) The Claimants agreed the garage the car was obtained from would examine the car. Some of the faults on the car were then fixed but the car continued to have electronic faults for the whole of the defendants ownership.

8 ) Due to one of the defendants, Mr Mitchell, being disabled and suffering from anxiety and depression ( CAN YOU QUANTIFY THIS DOCTORS REPORTS ETC - IF NOT LEAVE IT OUT) the defendants gave up complaining to the claimant about the car as it was causing Mr Mitchell undue stress.

9) On the 11th April 2006 the defendants wrote to the Claimant asking for a settlement figure on the account (UNDER WHICH TERM OF THE CONTRACT ?)

10) The claimants requested a figure of £3524.81, which the defendants could not afford. The defendants were unaware that any settlement figure would be calculated using the rule of 78, ( It was abolished on loans taken out from 31 May 2005 WHEN was loan taken out ?) had they been they would not have entered into the contract in the first place.


11) The defendants dispute that the claimant had the right to terminate the agreement.

12) The defendants paid over half the total amount owed on the agreement and had already exercised their right to voluntary terminate under the terms of the agreement (WHICH TERMS QUOTE AND STATE PARA's)

13) It is not disputed that the defendants were in arrears of £XXX.XX at the time they issued the Voluntary Termination letter.

14) The defendants do dispute the amount (SPECIFY) the claimant said was needed to exercise this right. (WHY DO THEY DISPUTE IT - CLAUSES IN CONTRACT ? PAYMENTS TO DATE ETC)

15 ) The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on 8th June 2006 stating the amount of £527.64 was required in order to terminate the agreement.

a) £422.64 of this amount was made up of arrears.

b) £105 constituted three £35 penalty charges for issuing late payment reminders. The defendant disputes these charges as they do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore are an unenforceable penalty under the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

c) The same letter also stated that the balance of any insurances would remain payable after the contract was terminated. (IS THIS A PROBLEM? WHY ?)

========================= ========================= ============

6) The defendants made an offer of £300 to settle the account which was refused by the claimant.

7) On the 8th June 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £918.72.

8) On the 5th July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £728.52.

9) On the 31st July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant containing the following statement: "If we recover the car under a voluntary termination, you will have to pay both the arrears on the vehicle and the balance of any outstanding insurances currently these stand at £1107.81"

10) In an earlier letter of the 8th June (the same letter referred to in para. 2 above) the claimant wrote "Other insurances taken out at the same time will remain payable. To settle these insurances and claim any rebate which you are entitled you may also choose to pay the amount set out below". It is no wonder the defendants were confused as to what amounts they owed or had to pay to terminate the agreement when the claimant didn't seem to know either and the amounts rose and fell with each letter.

11) On the 14th August 2006 the defendants received a notice of default.

12) On the 06 September 2006 the defendants received notice that the claimant was terminating the contract. This letter also stated that the goods were no longer in the defendants possession with the claimants consent and they must be made available for collection or the claimant would apply to the court for their return. The defendants replied to this notice, stating that the car had been available for collection since the claimant received the Voluntary Termination notice around the beginning of June 2006. The defendants had made this fact clear in several letters to the claimant.

13) The defendants made arrangements for an agent acting on behalf of the claimant to collect the car, which the agent duly did. The defendants left upgraded alloy wheels worth £980 on the car for which they have the receipt, and also a personal number plate that cost a further £250, again the receipt is available. Photographic evidence that these items were on the car when the agent collected it is available.

14) No court order was obtained by the claimant and the car was returned with the full consent of the defendants. Therefore the defendants claim that this was a Voluntary Termination and not a repossession.

15) The claimants have entered a court claim for the full amount remaining under the agreement, yet they have also received the car back. The defendants would like to request details of what exactly has happened to the car.

16) The car had been unused, untaxed, uninsured and a SORN off road declaration made since the defendants sent the notice of Voluntary Termination at the beginning of June 2006.


17) The defendants requested information about their account via a Subject access request. With the information that came with this request was a valuation the claimant obtained when the car was bought by the defendants. This valuation was £3908. The defendants paid £5310 for the car, believing that a car dealer would sell a car for a price it was worth. One of the defendants (Mr Mitchell) is also disabled and needs dependable transport, and the defendants traded both their old cars in when purchasing this car believing they were buying a more reliable car.


18) The defendants were baffled by the constantly changing amounts that the claimant alledged needed to be paid in order to terminate the contract. The amount rose one month then fell the next, then rose again. Then according to the claimants letters the gap insurances had to be paid in order to terminate the contract, then they didn't, then they did again. How were the defendants ever to know exactly how the claimants were calculating their settlement figures?

19) The defendants therefore claim that they Voluntary Terminated the account under the terms of their contract. The defendants admit that they owe £422.64 in arrears up until the date of the Voluntary Termination and dispute the remaining amount of the claim.

Thanks Karnevil, i'm working on adding in all the dates and details. One thing I have noticed, on the original credit agreement my parents signatures are dated the 16/12/03, (so unfortunately rule of 78 is applicable I believe). It is signed and dated on Advantages behalf on the 24/12/03.

Also the warranty wasn't included in the purchase price, it cost an extra £210 and still didnt cover the sensor fault the car had. apparently there were different levels of cover, which my parents were never told about.

No problem Sharon, I appreciate what you have done so far. As I said my parents only received the court papers a few days ago and have already acknowledged with intent to defend part of the claim, so there's a while yet before the defence has to go in.

Here's another attempt! My father has a medical background of clinical depression and anxiety so proving this to a court is not a problem.

1) Vehicle purchased from Economy Car Centre on 16th December 2003

a)) The vehicle in question is a Peugeot 406 registration R901 KWY, and was re~registered to R8 BDM.

2) A warranty of 1 year was purchased at the time of sale at an extra cost of £210

3) The defendants allege that the vehicle in question, detailed in paragraph 1, was in an unsatisfactory condition when sold.

4) Letters of complaints were sent to the Claimant on 24th january 2004 and 4th March 2004. These letters will be disclosed to the court.

5) telephone calls of complaint were made on the 24th january 2004, 26th january 2004, 20th february 2004 and 01st march 2004. Proof of these calls will be disclosed to the court.

6) in a letter dated 20th July 2006 the claimants admitted there had been 'numerous conversations and correspondents between us and yourself' with regards to problems with the vehicle.

7) The defendants paid £214.57 for repairs to the car within 1 month of purchase. The receipt dated 27/01/2004 for this work will be disclosed to the court.

8) The Claimants refused to repair the vehicle under the warranty sold at the time of purchase. The defendants were not made aware at the time of purchase that there were alternative warranties available that would provide more comprehensive cover.

a) The defendants also claim that this repair should have been covered under the sale of goods act as it became clear with the amount of faults the car developed that the car must have had inherent faults at the time of purchase.


9) On the 4th March 2004 the Defendants wrote to the Claimant stating they wished to return the car due to the unsatisfactory condition, and faults it had, including faulty lights, faulty exhaust, peeling laquer on the front bumper (it later became apparent that the front bumper had been repaired due to possible accident damage, as cracks developed in some sort of filler that had been used to repair the bumper) *** NOT SURE IF I SHOULD TAKE OUT THE BIT IN BRACKETS *** and unusual noises coming from the car.

10) The Claimants agreed the garage the car was obtained from would examine the car. Some of the faults on the car were then fixed but the car continued to have electronic faults and for the whole of the defendants ownership.

11 ) Due to one of the defendants, Mr Mitchell, being disabled and suffering from anxiety and clinical depression, the defendants gave up trying to return the car as it was causing Mr Mitchell undue stress.

12) On the 11th April 2006 the defendants wrote to the Claimant asking for a settlement figure on the account under section 5.2 of the terms and conditions of the agreement.

13) The claimants requested a figure of £3524.81, which the defendants could not afford. The defendants were unaware that any settlement figure would be calculated using the rule of 78, had they been they would not have entered into the contract in the first place.


14) The defendants dispute that the claimant had the right to terminate the agreement.

15) The defendants paid over half the total amount owed on the agreement and had already exercised their right to voluntary terminate under section 5.1 of the terms of the agreement.

16) It is not disputed that the defendants were in arrears of £422.64 when they issued the Voluntary Termination fax on 8th june 2006.

17) The defendants do dispute the amount of £527.64 the claimant said was needed to exercise this right in a letter dated 8th June 2006.

a) £422.64 of this amount was made up of arrears.

b) £105 constituted three £35 penalty charges for issuing late payment reminders. The defendant disputes these charges as they do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore are an unenforceable penalty under the Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.


18) The defendants made an offer of £300 to settle the account in reply the the claimants letter dated 8th june 2006. this offer was refused by the claimant.

19) On the 15th June 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £918.72. The defendants were confused as to why the amount had risen almost £400 in 7 days as the monthly payments were only £165.88.

20) On the 5th July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant stating the amount required to terminate the agreement was £728.52.

21) On the 31st July 2006 the defendants received another letter from the claimant containing the following statement: "If we recover the car under a voluntary termination, you will have to pay both the arrears on the vehicle and the balance of any outstanding insurances currently these stand at £1107.81"

22) In an earlier letter of the 8th June (the same letter referred to in para. 17 above) the claimant wrote that paying the balance of any outstanding insurances upon voluntary termination was optional.

23) On the 14th August 2006 the defendants received a notice of default.

24) On the 06 September 2006 the defendants received notice that the claimant was terminating the contract. This letter also stated that the goods were no longer in the defendants possession with the claimants consent and they must be made available for collection or the claimant would apply to the court for their return. The defendants replied to this notice, stating that the car had been available for collection since the claimant received the Voluntary Termination notice around the beginning of June 2006. The defendants had made this fact clear in several letters to the claimant.

25) The defendants made arrangements for an agent acting on behalf of the claimant to collect the car, which the agent duly did. The defendants left upgraded alloy wheels worth £980 on the car for which they have the receipt, and also a personal number plate that cost a further £250, again the receipt is available. Photographic evidence that these items were on the car when the agent collected it is available.

26) No court order was obtained by the claimant and the car was returned with the full consent of the defendants. Therefore the defendants claim that this was a Voluntary Termination and not a repossession.

27) The claimants have entered a court claim for the full amount remaining under the agreement, yet they have also received the car back. The defendants would like to request details of what exactly has happened to the car.

28) The car had been unused, untaxed, uninsured and a SORN off road declaration made since the defendants sent the notice of Voluntary Termination at the beginning of June 2006.


29) The defendants requested information about their account via a Subject access request. With the information that came with this request was a valuation the claimant obtained when the car was bought by the defendants. This valuation was £3908. The defendants paid £5310 for the car.


30) The defendants were baffled by the constantly changing amounts that the claimant alleged needed to be paid in order to terminate the contract. The amount rose one month then fell the next, then rose again.

a)The claimants letters also contradicted each other as to whether or not the balance of any remaining insurances had to be paid in order to terminate the contract.

b) Due to the apparent haphazard way in which the claimants appeared to calculate the figures in order for the defendants to terminate the agreement, it was virtually impossible for the defendants to know exactly how much they were actually supposed to pay.

19) The defendants therefore claim that they Voluntary Terminated the account under the terms of their contract (section 5.1). The defendants admit that they owe £422.64 in arrears up until the date of the Voluntary Termination and dispute the remaining amount of the claim.