Close motor finance - Disputed debt default

[cyril1982]

"Hirer is a slow payer and close to one third, suggest do not pursue." - That suggests intent to me

 

" ********only £87.08 off a 3rd****** NOD (notice of default) will go out over the weekend due to conduct of account, suggest do not chase and on expiry of NOD term repo as this is last chance to get vehicle back."- and that suggests despicable behaviour that makes me want to string them up high by their dangly bits

 

exactly, i think those two entries particularly the latter, add alot of weight to my claim that close made no effort to take payment instead opting to take the vehicle.

 

They practically admit it word for word, surely a court would not consider this acceptable conduct given that there were no arrears and anyway, 1/3rd was paid, it just shows they were scheming and planning to repo no matter what i did, they were waiting for me to miss a payment and when i didn't they just said, feck it, it's our last chance lets just repo it anyway.

 

Ba5tards!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

They are correct in the fact that insurance doesn't count towards the third but the charges are irrelevant!!

Look at it this way;

Say for example you have an agreement that states on it:

"Repossession Your Rights, if you have paid £100 we may not take back the goods against your wishes without a court order"

 

So as far as you are concerned, once you have paid £100 they need a court order to repo.

 

You would NOT be reasonably expected to think that you may or may not have paid £100 because they may or may not have added some charges that you don't know about or they are not at liberty to tell you about!!! It's ludicrous, if that were the case they may as well not bother even putting a figure because you would never have any way of knowing if you had reached it and the finance company could theoretically keep adding charges at will and you would never get above the third!!!

 

The insurance is an entirely different issue, it is clearly stated as a separate issue and is not included in the total amount payable where the third is calculated from.

[cyril1982]

They are correct in the fact that insurance doesn't count towards the third but the charges are irrelevant!!

Look at it this way;

Say for example you have an agreement that states on it:

"Repossession Your Rights, if you have paid £100 we may not take back the goods against your wishes without a court order"

 

So as far as you are concerned, once you have paid £100 they need a court order to repo.

 

You would NOT be reasonably expected to think that you may or may not have paid £100 because they may or may not have added some charges that you don't know about or they are not at liberty to tell you about!!! It's ludicrous, if that were the case they may as well not bother even putting a figure because you would never have any way of knowing if you had reached it and the finance company could theoretically keep adding charges at will and you would never get above the third!!!

 

The insurance is an entirely different issue, it is clearly stated as a separate issue and is not included in the total amount payable where the third is calculated from.

 

hey i agree with you completely, what you have written above is almost exactly how i argued my case to trading standards and the FOS i.e that the charges would have been added to the agreement which means they were added to the back end of the agreemeent, unless my payments were increased, i.e i should have paid £171 but close asked for £200 then i had not paid the charges, i may have incured them but i had not yet paid them.

 

unfortunately though i lost that argument twice when both trading standards and the FOS told me i was wrong.

 

i still disagree with them but having lost the argument twice i'm just glad that i can now prove that i paid one third regardless of how you view the way in which charges are added, i.e whether they are front loaded or back loaded it makes no odds now and that makes me feel a whole lot better as having lost the argument twice i'd have been nervous of taking that argument before a court.

 

incidently are you putting any such argument before the court in relation to charges, i know your case in more centered around the fact the repo agent came onto your property without a court order but it would be interesting to see if a court agreed with me and you or the FOS and my local trading standards in relation to these charges.

[cyril1982]

as a side issue to this, i was really angry at how the two guys sent to repo my vehicle behaved, they turned up at five to ten at night dressed all in black complete wiith black leather gloves trying their best to be intimidating (i'm not easily intimidated so i really wasn't impressed) and they had no identification with them.

 

They also had nothing more than a fax from close motors telling them my name and address and the vehicle details asking them to come and repo the vehicle.

 

They left me with only a card which said "ram recovery" and had no details of the company or where my vehicle had been taken. The repo agent only Initialled the card and did not leave his name.

the repo agents smashed the van window and broke into the vehicle in order to repo it.

 

now given that they had no court order and one third had been paid this was aggrevated taking wthout the owners consent, an offence which carries a possiible jail term.

 

does anyone know if i could, providing that i win my court case against close, pursue a seperate civil action for damages against the recovery company "ram recovery"? as they comitted an act of theft that night and to my knowledge ignorance is not a defence in a court of law.

 

therefore surely ram could not simply defend on the basis of, "we thought we were allowed to repo because close motor finance said we could". Surely they are responsible for ensuring that they have the legal right to vandalise and steal someones vehicle before they do it.

 

what do people think about this? could i bring an action against ram for damages, because i'd love to make them pay for what they did they guys who came to my house were ****.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Yes I understand your nerves but unfortunately this is how the FOS operate, they have no qualification or jurisdiction to rule on points of law. Their purpose is mainly to do with the conduct of the lender and generally they are opposed to anybody who appears to be trying to avoid paying; they take the view of "you had it, you pay for it" irrespective of the law!

 

Your argument is very valid and their argument is very poo. I strongly suspect that they wouldn't even dare to put it in front of a judge because what authority or evidence can they possibly have to back it up??

 

Is it written anywhere on the agreement or anywhere in the terms???

 

I haven't put anything in my claim about charges because there weren't any!! Very odd for welcome! However there may have been some but I am unable to show it because they have refused to give me a statement from my first agreement, incidentally that very act is now going to be their major downfall

 

In any case the charges are unlawful under the UTCCR so if they insist on bringing the same argument they will be admitting to unfair charges! You've got them snookered whichever way you look at it

[cyril1982]

as a side issue to this, i was really angry at how the two guys sent to repo my vehicle behaved, they turned up at five to ten at night dressed all in black complete wiith black leather gloves trying their best to be intimidating (i'm not easily intimidated so i really wasn't impressed) and they had no identification with them.

 

They also had nothing more than a fax from close motors telling them my name and address and the vehicle details asking them to come and repo the vehicle.

 

They left me with only a card which said "ram recovery" and had no details of the company or where my vehicle had been taken. The repo agent only Initialled the card and did not leave his name.

 

the repo agents smashed the van window and broke into the vehicle in order to repo it.

 

now given that they had no court order and one third had been paid this was aggrevated taking wthout the owners consent, an offence which carries a possiible jail term.

 

does anyone know if i could, providing that i win my court case against close, pursue a seperate civil action for damages against the recovery company "ram recovery"? as they comitted an act of theft that night and to my knowledge ignorance is not a defence in a court of law.

 

therefore surely ram could not simply defend on the basis of, "we thought we were allowed to repo because close motor finance said we could". Surely they are responsible for ensuring that they have the legal right to vandalise and steal someones vehicle before they do it.

 

what do people think about this? could i bring an action against ram for damages, because i'd love to make them pay for what they did they guys who came to my house were ****.

 

what do you think about this wannabe? could it be possible to pursue ram for damages too??

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

what do you think about this wannabe? could it be possible to pursue ram for damages too??

Well absolutely! It's certainly part of my plan Their behaviour was grossly unprofessional so you could definitely make a big deal of that although the problem seems to be that close told them that a third hadn't been paid and no court order was necessary.

I'm not sure if they have to check the paperwork first or just take their word for it. I'll let you know in just under 6 weeks lol!!

[cyril1982]

Well absolutely! It's certainly part of my plan Their behaviour was grossly unprofessional so you could definitely make a big deal of that although the problem seems to be that close told them that a third hadn't been paid and no court order was necessary.

I'm not sure if they have to check the paperwork first or just take their word for it. I'll let you know in just under 6 weeks lol!!

 

well i'll certainly be keeping a keen eye on your progress then.

 

i know ignorance is not a credible legal defence for us mere mortals but it never ceases to amaze me what companies are allowed to get away with.

 

i mean if i said to you, "hey wannabe, that car down the road there belongs to me would you go and break into it and bring to me later at such and such an address" and you were daft enough to do it how far would you get with the old "cyril told me to do it" argument, you'd be charged and convicted because ignorance and/or Gullibility is not a defence.

i'd also like to see the lady copper who ordered me to remove my possesions from the vehicle or face arrest be diciplined for gross misconduct given that she was a key assissting party in what was an illegal act of theft but lets face it, if you can, as a police officer, push a man over who is stood with his back to you and his hands in his pockets causing him to have an heart attack and die and not face any criminal charges or diciplinary action (i'm refering to the case of ian tomlinson who died at the G20 protests in 2009 after being assaulted by a police officer) then what are the chances of any action being taken here.

So i'll forget the police but RAM are most definately in my sights.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

You are joking right??? Forget the police?? No way! They're just as much on my hit list as anyone else!! I have even told them as much!

I was reliably informed that as they assisted them in taking the car based on the scrap of paper they were shown they have left themselves open to be sued!!

I told them that once I have got my judgement with welcome I will be suing them too, they said that was fine

 

There are far too many instances where the police have got involved when they had no authority to and chosen to take a certain course of action when something else would have entirely more appropriate! They are just as much to blame as the unscrupulous lenders and there needs to be more exposure of their behaviour in order to put it right!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

P.S. I just wanted to say that my grammar really isn't that poor, I just can't bring myself to write such crappy companies names with a capital letter, they are totally undeserving of that courtesy!!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

hey i agree with you completely, what you have written above is almost exactly how i argued my case to trading standards and the FOS i.e that the charges would have been added to the agreement which means they were added to the back end of the agreemeent, unless my payments were increased, i.e i should have paid £171 but close asked for £200 then i had not paid the charges, i may have incured them but i had not yet paid them.

 

unfortunately though i lost that argument twice when both trading standards and the FOS told me i was wrong.

 

i still disagree with them but having lost the argument twice i'm just glad that i can now prove that i paid one third regardless of how you view the way in which charges are added, i.e whether they are front loaded or back loaded it makes no odds now and that makes me feel a whole lot better as having lost the argument twice i'd have been nervous of taking that argument before a court.

 

incidently are you putting any such argument before the court in relation to charges, i know your case in more centered around the fact the repo agent came onto your property without a court order but it would be interesting to see if a court agreed with me and you or the FOS and my local trading standards in relation to these charges.

As is usually the way with me, I have just stumbled across something that will assist you greatly whilst looking for something else!!

 

You can now totally forget the charges issue and get on with suing them for Unlawful Repossession

 

Close Finance's Charges!!!

 

Enjoy!

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Here's the FULL STORY

[cyril1982]

As is usually the way with me, I have just stumbled across something that will assist you greatly whilst looking for something else!!

 

You can now totally forget the charges issue and get on with suing them for Unlawful Repossession

 

Close Finance's Charges!!!

 

Enjoy!

 

i had noticed this article earlier, it is certanly interesting and does add some extra bargaining power to my letter before action as all close have ever done is hide behind their charges and now not only can i prove that the charges levied did not take me below 1/3rd but that a court has ruled them unlawful.

 

i can not wait to point this out to them and see if they really want to take their charges based defence before a court. it's been two years of banging my head against a brick wall but now things just sem to be dropping into my lap to allow me to win this battle once and for all.

 

i'm itching to get going on this, my lba is gona be soooo aggressive, i'm that confident i'm just gonna sock it to em like, i've got my eviidence, i want you to go before the court so that i can officially and unquestionably prove you acted unlawfully, you stand to lose more than i do as losing this argument in court will be detrimental to your professional reputation, oh and your charges defence, which you have used with trading standards and the FOS has just been blown out of the water by a court ruling which states your charges are unlawful, oh yea, and you sent me two documents relating to charges which prove the amounts you stated i had been charged to trading standards and the FOS were untrue, you still wanna take this before a court?..go ahead punk, make my day....lol ....

 

i realise i may have to tone that down a bit and pick my words more carefully but that will be the gist of it,

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

i had noticed this article earlier, it is certanly interesting and does add some extra bargaining power to my letter before action as all close have ever done is hide behind their charges and now not only can i prove that the charges levied did not take me below 1/3rd but that a court has ruled them unlawful.

 

i can not wait to point this out to them and see if they really want to take their charges based defence before a court. it's been two years of banging my head against a brick wall but now things just sem to be dropping into my lap to allow me to win this battle once and for all.

 

i'm itching to get going on this, my lba is gona be soooo aggressive, i'm that confident i'm just gonna sock it to em like, i've got my eviidence, i want you to go before the court so that i can officially and unquestionably prove you acted unlawfully, you stand to lose more than i do as losing this argument in court will be detrimental to your professional reputation, oh and your charges defence, which you have used with trading standards and the FOS has just been blown out of the water by a court ruling which states your charges are unlawful, oh yea, and you sent me two documents relating to charges which prove the amounts you stated i had been charged to trading standards and the FOS were untrue, you still wanna take this before a court?..go ahead punk, make my day....lol ....

 

i realise i may have to tone that down a bit and pick my words more carefully but that will be the gist of it,

Now there's the spirit I was looking for!!

 

If you need a hand with your lba just say the word

[cyril1982]

just finished writing the next letter i need to send to close, this one is an lba demanding the rest of the docs they failed to supply in response to my SAR, this will go out tomorrow and i'll update my thread a ssoon as i get a response.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

just finished writing the next letter i need to send to close, this one is an lba demanding the rest of the docs they failed to supply in response to my SAR, this will go out tomorrow and i'll update my thread a ssoon as i get a response.

Cool

Just make sure you head it "Request pursuant to CPR 31.16"

[SB100]

Having some issues with them myself- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/271682-close-brothers-motor-finance.html#post3072696 Only a couple of weeks late, but constantly trying to get me to VT and even doorstepped me tonight- less than three weeks after the payment was due!

[cyril1982]

i'm unsure how to proceed here now. close replied to my SAR after i threatened legal action to enforce compliance because they failed to reply in the correct timeframe.

 

However, while they did supply me with all the documentation i need to prove one thrd had been paid certain documents were missing from my SAR, not least any form of proof that a gap insureanc policy, which they have previously relied on as part of their defence with trading standards and the FOS, was actually ever in place with their insurance underwriters.

 

Due to this missing information i issued another pre-legal notice that i would seek a court order requiring close to supply the documents that were missing if they did not supply them within 7 days, or failing that provide a written explanation as to why they were unable to provide such documents with an accompanying statement of truth signed by their head of legal and compliance.

 

close's deadline for this second pre-legal request passed on tuesday this week (Tues 10th Aug) and i have had no response.

 

i don't know whether to proceed with the request for a court order in relation to the missing docs, i don't really need them and if close wish to use them in their defence they will have to supply me with them at a later date anyway, so i'm wondering should i just start preparing my letter berfore action regarding my main complaint about the 1/3rd having been paid at the time of repo and get the ball rolling.

 

anyone any opinions on the best course of action?

 

any input would be gratefully received.

[cyril1982]

i just found another little gem of a document which further strengthens my case. Basically close's whole defence has always hung on convincing people that i paid ( and agreed to be charged ) £35 for a letter telling me i'm in arrears, aswell as some other hidious charges for them harrassing me by phone.

 

anyway, i have just been sorting through my files and what do i find? an arrears letter from november 2007 (Sent out 3 days after payment was due, i think that still counts as a late payment rather than arrears but whatever) in this letter it states that i have been charged £12 for the letter "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF YOUR AGREEMNT" but hold on a minute close motor morons, you have supplied (false) documents claiming i agreed to be charged £35 per letter in my original agreement (which just happens to have been lost), a tad inconsistent isn't it......well no actually, it's quite consistent with the copy of the fee ledger you supplied, the only inconsistent bit is the "recreated" CCA you supplied......come on admit it, you made the charges bit up didn't you?, it wasn't in the original agreement was it?........was it?...lol

 

so f***ing busted.

 

i think letter before action it is then.

[cyril1982]

quick update, i decided to postpone the LBA as on further inspection of the docs i had at my disposal i realised one vital document was missing and so decided to request that doc from close as it should have been included in my SAR, they have gone very quiet and ignored my last request, i have decided to push for this doc as if i can prove it doesn't exist then close's defence is blown way out of the water, there is no way they can win.

 

it's proving hard to get a response though and so tomorrow i will be sending a seperate LBA relating to failure to supply the doc requested, if they don't supply it this time (or admit it doesn't exist) i'll be going for a court order oblidging them to supply it.

 

a little more groundwork may just save a whole lot of time in this case and bring it to a conclusion sooner, here's hoping it works, i'll be sure to keep my thread updated as events start unfolding.

Edited September 1, 2010 by cyril1982

[cyril1982]

Ok, so the allowed 14 days has passed and close motor finance have again, for the second time, ignored my LBA demanding that they disclose details of the gap insurance policy which they claim was in place as it was missing from my subject access request.

Now, given that close motor finance have repeatedly referenced this policy, even referring to it in the covering letter with my SAR despite not including a single document relating to it. I find their reluctance to provide me with such basic information as who the underwriter was for the gap policy and what the policy number was, just a wee bit fishy.

You might be thinking what’s the big deal regarding this GAP insurance policy as I haven’t fully explained it’s relevance up to now but here is the situation regarding this gap policy;

If the gap policy was in place close claim it replaced the first payment in my agreement, effectively reducing the total amount I had paid towards the 1/3rd, the FOS claim this is standard practise and perfectly allowable so if the gap policy was in place there is not much I can do about it.

The reason it is so important to close motors defence is that if they are creative enough with their accounting (which I can prove is based on false information) they can just about make the total amount paid add up to around £10 below the 1/3rd just as long as that first payment was gap insurance.

Sure I have a case to argue against this but it is far more complicated that it would be if I can prove no gap policy was in place because without that first payment being gap insurance no amount of creative accounting can make the total paid add up to less than 1/3rd.

So you’d think, given that this gap policy is the foundation upon which their argument against my compliant is built they would be only too eager to shove in my face and show me they have some basis to their claims, but no, they seem reluctant (or unable) to provide any such substantiating evidence.

I think I have them on the ropes.

....

So here is the next step, I contacted the ICO and they said that close should have supplied the gap details and they are happy to investigate the matter and if necessary take enforcement action against close to make them supply the docs (or admit no policy was in place), but before I submitted my complaint to the ICO I broke with my usual rule of no telephone contact and rang close’s legal and compliance department.

The guy who spoke to me said that a gap insurance policy, or details of, would not be covered by data protection subject access requests and so they had not failed to comply with my SAR for not supplying details of the gap policy.

So I asked if he was sure about that,

He said “yes I’m positive”

To which I replied “well that is funny, because I have just this minute come of the phone to the information commissioners’ office and they are of the opinion that you should be supplying these details under my data protection subject access request and they are prepared to take on my complaint and investigate you for failure to comply”

 

To which the reply came “oh, right, well I can see what information we have available and get that out to you within a couple of days”

Funny that as I could have sworn he said he was “positive” they didn’t have to supply it just a second ago...

 

So I wait (again) to see what materialises but if no policy number and name of the underwriter is supplied this time it’s off the ICO with this one, there is a backlog but hopefully going this route will be quicker than going to court as if I can prove this gap policy was never in place I really doubt close will let this get to court as they will have absolutely no defence.

 

Fingers crossed and I’ll keep this thread updated as things develop.

Wow that was a lot longer than I intended....

[jord_em]

I know this is was a while ago but I am taking CMF to court and wondered if I could quote your cases in court. They have tried to repo my car and issued me a defualt notice I did not recieve. However I phoned to pay the payment four days after the default (there saying they issued had expired) and they had already terminated the agreement. Then someone showed up on my doorstep an hour later!!

If the accept my payment I have paid over a third. Im not playing ball with this company and they cant treat people this way. I have hired a solicitor and am applying that they must change there late payment process and offer client some form of consideration. Thanks