regarding a time order, i thought you could only apply for a time order in defence of a creditors attempt to seek a court otder for return of the goods. since it appears that 1/3rd hasn'r been paid the creditor wont be seeking a court order.

not sure if balifs can seize a disabled persons vehicle, even if owned by the disabled person in question, you'd imagine not but i'm not sure, maybe someone else knows better. what i do know though is that baliffs cant seize other peoples property to settle a debtors liability, as motability vehicles are essentially hired vehicles that means the vehicle belongs to someone else (motability) its the same if you have finance or HP on a vehicle, they cant touch it. if a baliff does try to seize the car what you should do is report it to the owner of the vehicle, in this case motability, who will contact the baliffs and demand they do not remove their property, or if the vehicle had already been removed, the company may even report the vehicle as stolen, i've read other cases where finance companies have reported vehicles seized by baliffs as stolen. they simply can not touch hired vehicles, if the do so its theft.

although unlike regulated agreements there is no set timeframes for default notices etc the company have to act fairly and reasonably or risk breaching the unfair terms in consumer contracts act. How far behind were you with the monthly repayments? or was it just a case that you couldn't pay the balloon? if so how overdue was the balloon?

i can see how your thinking, that they would have just taken a sperate debit card payment by phone or something to cover the single premium but thats now how they say it works, they say it replaces your first finance payment and then they simply add an extra finance payment to the back of your agreement.

thats not how it worked, as i said above, the finance agreement makes absolutely no mention of GAP insurance and there was no box to tick, it was not sold at the time of taking out the finance agreement. i know that GAP often is/was sold at the time of buying the car by the dealer but not in this case. All i took out at the time of buying the vehicle and signing the finance agreement was a straight finance agreement with no insurances, this fact has already been confirmed with the finance company, there is no dispute in relation to that. what then happened is i got a phone call about a week later from the finance company offering to sell me a GAP policy i agreed to it but received no confirmation documents, terms and conditions or policy docs. not too sure what you mean by "self insured" but if you mean underwrote ther own policy they didn't, they claim they sold insurance for someone else then after that its nothing to do with them, the insurance company who the finance company claim they sold the policy for have a different view, claiming that the insurance policy was the finance company's, but because the finance company is not an insurance company they underwrote the policy, but they are nothing to do with it really they just pay out if there is a cliam. but here's the thing that doesnt sit right for me, the insurance company claim they were not paid but would still have covered me, now given that even when most insurance company's are paid they bend over backwards to avoid paying out i just don't beleive them, even the finance company say thats nosense, so on that basis and given that i have been the victim of an insurance [problem] before where premiums were not paid by the broker to the insurer meaning i had no cover, i'm investigating further. the 1/3rd issue in this case is by no means cut and dry, and likely too complex to be resolved on this thread, but none of it has any bearing on the section 140A breach of the CCA mentioned earlier in this thread, so i'm continuing my compliant on that basis with the GAP and 1/3rd issue marked "still to be resolved".

i havent had time to scan it, minus all personal info, and upload it. what is is it in the agreement you want to check? if its anything to do with the GAP insurance it isn't in there as it doesn't form part of the fianance agreement.

since the agreement was unregulated by the CCA i suggest you take a read over the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations, here is a link ..... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made take a look at shedule 2 at the bottom, it is a non exustive list of terms and actions that might be deemed unfair. if non apply take a thourough read over the rest of the regulations see if you think you may have a case to argue under these regulations. may also be worth contacting your local trading standards if you think the car dealer acted innapropriately. best of luck.

it doesnt work like that, the premium for the gap insurance policy is a single lump sum premium, equal to one months finance payment. if you agree to the gap then this payment is taken in place of your first finance payment and the finance payment is then deffered meaning an extra finance payment is added to the back end of your agreement. that is what the finance company say happened, however they dont seem, at least from what i can determine, to be able to prove the policy's existence and the finance company and insurance company both say they never received a penny claiming the other kept the full premium, and both company's say they are not responible for the policy. it seems both company's want to distance themselves from this policy, but why? thats what i'm trying to get to the bottom of right now.

well, the deposit definately does count, i paid a reasonably large deposit in relation to my agreement, thankfully the finance company are not trying to dispute that fact. regarding the 1/3rd this is a dispute that has been running a long time, the short answer is i had paid the finance company in excess of £600 more than the 1/3rd over the time i had the agreement, they disputed that i was over one third claiming i had a gap policy which replaced the first finance payment i made, then that i had incured charges on the account which left me slightly below. the gap policy i am disputing, i dont think it was ever put in place, the insurance company and finance company both say it was, but it has took four years to get insurance documents from them, which i'm not satisfied prove the policy was ever in force, plus the insurance company sent me a document which had zero amounts where payment was supposed to be recorded and a blank acceptance date, the insurance company say this is because they were never paid a penny in relation to my policy, they also claim that the are just the underwriter and the insurance product is that of the finance company and is nothing to do with them, they are simply the people who would pay out in the event of a claim, and they claim that the finance company kept all of the premium, though they still claim they would have covered me, yea right! but the finance company dispute this saying my whole premium was paid to the finance company and they are nothing to do with it because they made no money on it. so both claim the other had all of the money, and both parties claim that the other is totally responsible for the policy.....something is wrong so i'm still digging, the finance company have promised to send me a copy of the invoice where they paid for the policy so i'm waiting to see what comes of that right now.

its looking more likely that i will pursuing them for a breach of contract under section 140A of the consumer credit act as i have internal notes obtained in relation to a SAR which show discussuions between staff where they are instructing one another not to attempt any payment on the account and not to notify me if i don't realise then if i fall behind they can terminate and repo, this is going on for three months before their plan actually works and i forget to ring in a payment after them repeatedly failing to send out a direct debit mandate. it is stated several times that they want the vehicle and not payment, why is anyones guess but i beleive it to be because i enquired about paying up to half and VT'ing and they didn't like that, but consipiring to do all you can to increase the likelyhood of someone missing a payment, then not following their own standard proceedure of telephoning and writing to the customer when a payment is missed because they do not want to alert them to the fact it was missed as they do not want the payment, then shortening their normal collection/default proceedure to further reduce the customers oppotunity to rectify the situation, plus admitting in a telephone conversation that the default notice upon which they terminated the agreement was only sent out at the time of repossession, (i.e witheld and posted late because they didn't want me to get it and then make payment) in my opinion would all amount to the creditor executing their rights under the agreement unfairly, a breach according to Section 140A(1-b). then there are Multiple, repeated and serious breaches of the DPA which i will have to report to the ICO. the list of issues i have with them is quite long, it is likely that i will be taking court action for the section 140A breach plus making a report to the ICO and possibly the OFT regarding other serious issues i have with the company.

i think it might be worth stating at this point that the the title of this thread shoul not be read as "how much can i screw the finance company for" but "what should i be asking for" because i have to write to them detailing my complaint and the eviedence i have and asking for the compny to take action to rectify their breaches (and there are several contractual breaches, not all of them explained in this thread). i was asking the question just to get some indicators but i'm going to sit down with a solicitor in the next week or so to get some real professional legal advice.

if the fact that i took exception to gaston's crude description of any money i may recover in relation to this reposession as a "windfall" and that i took offense at his implication that in the event of my recovering all sums paid i should be grateful at the prospect of having effectively diddled the finance company into providing me with a "free vehicle" when in actual fact even if i did get all sums returned i would still be thousands of pounds out of pocket due to the fact that the vehicle was essential to my job and therefore i lost my job upon the unlawful repossession taking place, if that offends you, the fact that i expressed my objections to his flippant manner, don't offer any advice, but please dont clog up my thread with childish and pointless posts designed to do absolutely nothing more than provoke a negative response. if you post again, unless the content of your post has any value to the case in hand, dont be suprised if you are ignored as a wise man once told me don't argue with fools, as people from a distance can't tell who is who. Edit: the above is just a joke by the way, yea me and Gaston had a slight failure to see eye to eye but we expressed our different perspectives in an adult manner without decending into child like name calling and i really didn't consider it to have been a major issue nor do i think that Gaston did either (correct me if i'm wrong) we put our points accross and moved on, so please, lets not try and drag it up and make it into something it wasn't.

having thought about this i may consider pursuing for failure to comply with section 87, i wasnt in any monthly arrears at the time of reposession, only the most recent payment was two weeks or so overdue and i can prove that this is because the firm repeatedly did not attempt payment in the hope i would go behind, which i didnt the first two months, but they quite clearly conspired to breach our contract. what damages are recoverable for such a breach? anyone know

no, what i'm saying is that they said some of my payments included charges, which they did, however even with those i had still paid 1/3rd, so they claimed to have lost my original agreement and then altered the level of agreed charges to make them chargable at higher rate then they lied about how much i had been charged, its this that i can now prove. i got a default notice in the post the morning that the guys turned up to repo the vehicle, it was dated around two weeks before the date it arrived, i suspect deliberately posted out late given the notes on the account. termination notice came about a week later. no copy default notice or termination letter were sent to me in response to my SAR.

because when it first happened i didn't have the all of the eviedence i do today, and the company tried to exploit that. sure i had bank statements that showed that i had paid way in excess of one third, some £600 in excess but the finance company disputed this saying that £171 was gap insurance and a little more than the remaining £440 was financial penalties,mainly for paying late during the three months they were not trying to take payment, so basically not taking the payment, then when i realised and rang with payment, blaming it on a error on my side and charging me late payment charges, and we are talking days late not weeks. to get the charges to amount to more than £440 they had to alter the agreement, so thats what they did, in response to my requesting a copy of my consumer credit agreement, which was done before i went to trading standards, the company said they had lost it and so had to send me a re-created copy, in this agreement there were astronimical charges such as £50 for a missed direct debit, £35 for a letter, £50 for a phonecall, they then invented instances of calling me and writing to me and claimed that these charges were incured. in light of this trading standards hit a brick wall, so i went to the financial ombudsman, he accepted that these were the charges to which i agreed since i could offer nothing to prove otherwise except my claim that i wouldn't have taken out the agreement if i saw those charges on the front page. fast forward and i now have solid eviedence to prove this, appart from when they were not attempting payment there was only one late payment, again, days not weeks late, this was when i changed banks and my direct debits were being transfered, they sent me a letter, which the recreated agreemnt states would be charged at £35, i found this letter and it states in it that "in accordance with the terms of your agreement you have been charged £12 for this letter" (whoops) in addition to this i recieved a log of all charges levied against my account in response to the SAR i mentioned earlier and it shows that i the level of the charges was alot lower than the re created agreement stated and less frequent than stated to trading standards and the FOS, the total is not enough to take me below 1/3rd.