HP Trouble - Claim form issued.

[gh2008]

Ok, strictly speaking they have not complied. The Order was for them to 'make an application to' rather than submit an amended defence.

 

Personally I would let the Court deal with that bit - the DJ wasn't happy with them in the 1st place - this mess might just push the button

 

Re the price of the car - you are NOT entitled to the benefit of that - they are - they are entitled to 50% of payment & the car.

 

But there would still seem to be an issue over payments.

 

& the other issues previously mentioned.

 

IMHO, gareth, you have a choice, either pay up the amount claimed less what you can show you have paid and come to an arrangement to pay that off

 

OR

 

you think that the time you have spent arguing your case (100% correctly) together with them chasing a SB debt, the issues with the agreement and APR, the debt being assigned from a Co that did not have a licence to operate and was not trading in its own name, and just generally the way you have been treated whether that in your mind constitutes an 'Unfair Relationship'

If you, then do you think £1500 would be a suitable compensation for that. I do .....

 

jmho

 

There is also teh issue they pursued a Statue Barred debt which is contrary to the OFT Guidance and breached CPUTR

[gareth19]

Interesting. Are you sure this is a statute barred debt? Since I took out the loan I have paid fairly regularly and thus acknowledging the debt. I certainly haven't gone 6 years without paying

[gh2008]

Oh, well it's not then.

 

Reading what you had written in the 1st post it looked as though you VT'd in 2002 and didn't start repayments till Shoosmiths in 2008

[gareth19]

Ok. So I think I quite like your 2nd option. I have been messed around for 8 years now and finally Morgan's have proved I was right all along. Then as you say there is the APR which they entered incorrectly on the agreement and then the fact that On:Line had ceased trading in 2006 and yet the debt wasn't assigned to Cabot until 2008. Right then, so obviously my defence has changed now due to Morgan's chaging things so what do I do next? Do I write to Morgan's or the Court. Or neither and just wait for someone to contact me?

[gh2008]

Start getting everything straight, all the dates and re-read your thread a load of times and note down *everything* of interest.

 

Read up on the OFT guidlines, CPR Pre-Action Conduct CPR16, read S140 of the CCA, the SRA code of practice - see what I am getting at? build up a complete picture of how you have been treated and how there are sooooooo many things wrong with this claim.

 

Other than that - I would sit tight - the Court has still yet to consider your directions and issue any other directions as it see fit. (does everyone agree??)

[emandcole]

One word - Yep!

 

Always good to be able to point the finger definitively and back it all up with a ream of paperwork, perhaps even hit them round the back of the head with it to wake them up a bit

 

The more you can demonstrate how you've been prejudiced (seems to be the word of the month after the Brandon case) the easier it is for the judge to attach weight to your side of the argument.

[gareth19]

Ok just perusing the file of docs and there is the agreement between On:Line and Cabot for I assume when Cabot took over the debt. It is dated 30th Sept 2008 and it states "The vendor has agreed to sell and assign and the purchaser has agreed to purchase and accept the assignment of all of the vendor's right title and interest in and to the debts". So all letters I have from Shoosmiths state On:Line as the client up until January 2008 when suddenly it changes to GMAC (UK) Finance Plc. I had never even noticed until this case forced me to check all letters thoroughly. Then I also have a letter from Shoosmiths dated January 2009 when Cabot is listed as the client. From what I gather On:Line ceased trading in 2006 and effectively became part of the GMAC group somehow. I also now have discovered what docs were blacked out. They were exhibit "E" which the POCs state are "a redacted copy of the Cabot Europe Action History which details communications between Cabot and the defendant". Some of the pages are readable whilst other pages or paragraphs are blacked out

[Surfer01]

Wonder what has been blacked out?

[gareth19]

Wonder what has been blacked out?

 

mmm makes you wonder. obviously something they'd rather i didn't see yet if its a record of communications between me and them presumably i'd already know so don't see what the secret is. odd

[gareth19]

Ok they are now claiming £2064.73. I have just sifted through all my payments etc and not only have they ommitted to deduct £600 which the car sold for but I also have proof of a further £490 I have paid between 2003 and 2008 which they have not deducted either. I make the true balance I owe to be £974.73. This is a far cry from £9000 which they have been claiming for 8 years. Now I believe £974 is adequate compensation for 8 years of being hounded for a ridiculous sum of money which was by far not correct and also the stress it has caused my family and I along with the small matter of the incorrect APR. Therefore I think I should apply for the case to be dismissed.

[gh2008]

Gareth - it has been said several times now THE CAR IS THEIRS!!! & 50% read the agreement.

 

Right, now that's out of the way - for info http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/unfair-relationships-cases.pdf

 

I would still sit tight and see what the Court decides to do with them - but, other than that, there is nothing stopping you investigating several lines of defence (or attack)

[gareth19]

I am currently in court mediation. The claimant has substanially reduced the claim amount but there is now one small thing I'd like to check which we differ on. The £600 the car sold for at auction should not come of the balance of the account because I voluntary terminated. However other sources have told me that the £600 must come off the balance as it was returned and sold within the agreement guidelines. Any advice greatfully received.

[gh2008]

According to the terms of your agreement they get 50% AND the car (at whatever value that is)

 

as per my post directly above yours .....

 

This is on the agreement you signed & the CCA

 

100. Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc. agreement. —

(1) Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

(2) Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the “installation charge ”) the reference in subsection (1) to one-half of the total price shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one-half of the remainder of the total price.

(3) If in any action the court is satisfied that a sum less than the amount specified in subsection (1) would be equal to the loss sustained by the creditor in consequence of the termination of the agreement by the debtor, the court may make an order for the payment of that sum in lieu of the amount specified in subsection (1).

(4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention, and subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly.

(5) Where the debtor, on the termination of the agreement, wrongfully retains possession of goods to which the agreement relates, then, in any action brought by the creditor to recover possession of the goods from the debtor, the court, unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances it would not be just to do so, shall order the goods to be delivered to the creditor without giving the debtor an option to pay the value of the goods.

Edited November 26, 2010 by gh2008

[gh2008]

BTW, if this went to Court there would be a VERY good case for an Unfair relationship and I couldn't see them getting a penny to be honest ......

[gareth19]

thanks. what grounds would I have for unfair relationship? I have the mediator phoning me every few minutes so anything I can give her helps. Cheers

[gh2008]

Well, if you check the OFT's guidelines for debt collection I'm sure you will find lots there.

 

Basically if they *ever* demanded sums that they weren't due and even put you through the stress of a Court claim for any more than was legitimately owed ......especially if, all along you have admitted owing a given amount, then imho if it went to Court then you would get your time spent AND compensation for the treated you have received from them and every DCA they have set upon you.

 

Just add up the threatening letters and the amount they were claiming - imagine the stress and anxiety that may have caused ......

 

The Court has *very* wide powers under S140a & c to even include the creditor paying compensation to the debtor ......

 

again jmho but the creditor would be very very silly to not just walk away from this if it is only £1500 that is agreed outstanding .......

[gh2008]

Oh and all the damage caused by an incorrect default and all the unlawful processing or incorrect data etc etc etc