Help! Car repossessed, only 1 month behind, not received Termination letter..

[GSMGuy]

No wories

 

we have them by the nuts on this one

 

ill wipe the smirk off that cocky solicitors face

 

 

Just what the Dr ordered!

 

 

Mike

[mcjohnson]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute...

 

Payment due date - 01st of month...

 

01/12/2010 - No payment made - and no payment made during all of December

01/01/2011 (or closest working day) - No payment made

07/01/2011 - Default notice issued in relation to the above two missed payments

11/01/2011 - 1 payment made - Default notice has therefore not been satisfied

01/02/2011 - No payment made - account now back to two months in arrears

02/02/2011 - Termination notice issued; on account that the arrears haven't been cleared

10/02/2011 - Vehicle repossessed.

 

Just out of curiousity, between 01/12/2010 and 01/02/2011 why didn't you make a manual payment to clear the original arrears from December 2010?

 

The default notice on 07/01 will include the missed payments from December and January and, as such, the payment on 11/01 would not have cleared the default notice. As such, no second default notice was required and the OP was two months behind with the payments at the point the default was issued. Whilst the OP then made a further payment on 11/01/2011 a further payment was missed on 01/02/2011. Thus, when the termination notice was issued on 02/02/2011 the account was two months in arrears.

 

They do not need Mrs GSMs 'informed consent' to take the vehicle - hence it wouldn't be a repossession but a voluntary surrender, and because under 1/3 had been paid and - as such - the vehicle could be repossessed without a court order. However, the vehicle was parked on private property they did need the consent of the land owner to enter the property to recover those goods - permission that the OP was perfectly entitled to give.

 

Regarding the goods that were in the vehicle when it was repossessed, as these would have been included on your motor insurance (the electricals as retro-fitted equipment) you would be able to claim their value back from your motor insurance who, in turn, would be able to claim it back from the repo company. However, I don't think the rest of it is as plain sailing as others may suggest and the flip-side is that the Finance Company may come after you for the shortfall of the account, following the sale of the vehicle at Auction. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but merely indicate that - when viewed from a different perspective other than pro-consumer (and I'm not anti-consumer, but a neutral) - there is some ambiguity in the arguments that is being put forward from both sides.

 

Has your solicitor given you any further advise, following the letter from their legal department?

[GSMGuy]

Firstly, THEY changed the payment date from 01st to 14th, without us asking them. They wrote to us at the end of Dec saying they would collect ALL outstanding payments via dd on or after 14th Jan. They then collected ONLY one payment on 11th Jan, the important thing being, that we made sure there was enough money there to cover both payments, as advised BUT they only collected the one payment. They then wrote to us AGAIN a week or so later, AGAIN telling us they would collect all overdue amounts via dd on or after 14th Feb.. We made sites again, that the money was there, but they came and took the car on 10.

 

When they issued the DN on the 7th, the January payment had not fallen due yet, as they had written to us on 31st Dec advising that payments would now be collected on or after the 14th, therefore the dn was actually incorrectly issued and factually incorrect.

 

It is my understanding that they DO need Mrs gsm's permission to take the car from private land. They are merely trying to cloud the issue, as I think they have acted incorrectly, and I think they know it too.

 

Mike

Edited May 2, 2011 by GSMGuy

[GSMGuy]

Also, there is no way, if they thought they had acted correctly, that they would still be holding the vehicle in storage, they WOULD have disposed of it by now, as it's value alone will have dropped over 1k in the last 3 months, plus they'll have almost 3 months of charges, which I am damn sure we won't be paying.

 

Regards the reply to their letter, I am awaiting Postggj's kind offer of a draft letter.

 

Mike

[mcjohnson]

Also, there is no way, if they thought they had acted correctly, that they would still be holding the vehicle in storage, they WOULD have disposed of it by now, as it's value alone will have dropped over 1k in the last 3 months, plus they'll have almost 3 months of charges, which I am damn sure we won't be paying.

 

Regards the reply to their letter, I am awaiting Postggj's kind offer of a draft letter.

 

Mike

 

Apologies; I thought I read earlier in the stream that you had a solicitor working for you on a FOC basis, and that they had been in communication with Santander's legal team. Noting that Santander had replied to your solicitors note, outlining their position, I was hoping you could advise what your solicitors advice was following this?

[mcjohnson]

Apologies; I thought I read earlier in the stream that you had a solicitor working for you on a FOC basis, and that they had been in communication with Santander's legal team. Noting that Santander had replied to your solicitors note, outlining their position, I was hoping you could advise what your solicitors advice was following this?

 

You seem to be under the illusion that Santander had changed the DD Date; they hadn't - the date of the 14th merely outlined when they would collect any outstanding balances. The payment date for the scheduled payment was still the 1st of the month. Financial organisations routinely have a 'second round' of DD to collect payments that have failed etc... But this does not replace the scheduled payment date, which was the 01st of the month.

 

Thus Santander would have still been expecting a payment on 01/01 and when they didn't receive one the account was then 2 months in arrears and the default issued.

 

The reason they're holding the car in storage is that it is still loaded with a substantial amount of your personal possessions and they're providing an opportunity for you to recover them before the dispose of the car, otherwise the vehicle would have been sold by now.

[GSMGuy]

If that is the case, then after only taking one payment on 11th Jan, when they had written advising they would take 2 payments, we would have expected the next payment to be due 01st Feb BUT they again wrote and told us they would be taking payment on the 14th, one month could possibly be construed as you suggest, but 2 months??

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Wannabe or Postggj, care to comment on the above few posts, would welcome your opinion..

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Received a copy today of letter from Santanders' Solicitor:

 

 

Dear sirs

 

Re: etc etc...

 

We can confirm that one further payment was received from your client after the 7th January 2011 in the sum of £368.33. Please find attached a statement of account showing all payments received.

 

We see no reason why the vehicle should not be disposed of. You have not advanced any legal basis as to why our client was a) wrong to terminate and/or b) reposessed their vehicle in breach of the CCA. We appreciate that the issue is "cintested" but that is hardly reason for our client to pospone disposing of their vehicle.

 

For the record, our client will be disposingf of the vehicle if we do not hear from you by 4pm on Friday 13th May with any sound legal reason as to why they should not.

 

 

Now, firstly, my posessions and equipment/property are still with the car, they have no legal right to them whatsoever.

 

Secondly, they now admit that a payment was received AFTER the date of the DN (07/01/11) however, they use the term "payment was received as if to imply it was sent to them, when in fact, the payment was collected via DD, and we had been informed that they would be collecting TWO payments at thaty time, which would have fully cleared the balance - EVEN though one of the payments referred to in the DN was not due until a week AFTER the date of the DN - It's not our fault that they only TOOK one payment, and not the two we were advised they would take, we made sure the money was there..

 

Any chance of some input from Postggj or Wannabe? It would be appreciated, asd it looks like the car will be gone in 4 days..

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Oh, and to add insult to injury, today I received a nice letter from DVLA, wanting a £55 "penalty" from me - What for??

 

For failing to inform them that I was no longer the "keeper" of the car, and had sold/transferred it to someone else...

 

Mike

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Apologies; I thought I read earlier in the stream that you had a solicitor working for you on a FOC basis, and that they had been in communication with Santander's legal team. Noting that Santander had replied to your solicitors note, outlining their position, I was hoping you could advise what your solicitors advice was following this?

 

You seem to be under the illusion that Santander had changed the DD Date; they hadn't - the date of the 14th merely outlined when they would collect any outstanding balances. The payment date for the scheduled payment was still the 1st of the month. Financial organisations routinely have a 'second round' of DD to collect payments that have failed etc... But this does not replace the scheduled payment date, which was the 01st of the month.

 

Thus Santander would have still been expecting a payment on 01/01 and when they didn't receive one the account was then 2 months in arrears and the default issued.

 

The reason they're holding the car in storage is that it is still loaded with a substantial amount of your personal possessions and they're providing an opportunity for you to recover them before the dispose of the car, otherwise the vehicle would have been sold by now.

 

This. It is quite possible the default notice was correct. Forbearance in allowing time to pay the arrears doesn't invalidate it. Whilst some of what their solicitors have said is patently nonsense (e.g. that somehow you became the debtor) the suggestion that the possession was definitely illegal and that you can have all your money back, plus the car, plus damages is wildly optimistic. I suspect they didn't intend to repo the vehicle but their processes failed and now they are trying to retrospectively justify it, and could conceivably do so. I think they would be ripe for settlement negotiations (e.g. now that you have the car you accept it in full and final settlement and don't look for any shortfall).

 

Check their terms and conditions - there might be something in there to the effect that anything added to the vehicle becomes part of the vehicle and therefore their property.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Sorry I haven't had a lot of time lately, I will have a look at some time today and see if there might be anything I can offer

[GSMGuy]

Sorry I haven't had a lot of time lately, I will have a look at some time today and see if there might be anything I can offer

 

Thanks for that, it's appreciated..

 

Mike

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Mike, you really mustn't lose sight of the fact that you have done nothing wrong here. You had every intention of making your payments and keeping the car, the mix up with the payment dates was entirely out of your control and you did everything you could to put it right.

It is the other side that have royally screwed up here and they know it.

 

You do really need a clear, concise letter from your sol that outlines all of their failings and exactly what you insist they do in order to avoid legal action being taken against them. I must admit I don't know an awful lot about rescission of contract but I can happily share my knowledge on Sections 92, 87 and 140. Personally I would stick to the breaches of the CCA, but that is purely my opinion based on provable facts, offences and consequences.

 

I've gotta go out shortly but I'm happy to help out tomorrow with a few pointers if I can

[GSMGuy]

Mike, you really mustn't lose sight of the fact that you have done nothing wrong here. You had every intention of making your payments and keeping the car, the mix up with the payment dates was entirely out of your control and you did everything you could to put it right.

It is the other side that have royally screwed up here and they know it.

 

You do really need a clear, concise letter from your sol that outlines all of their failings and exactly what you insist they do in order to avoid legal action being taken against them. I must admit I don't know an awful lot about rescission of contract but I can happily share my knowledge on Sections 92, 87 and 140. Personally I would stick to the breaches of the CCA, but that is purely my opinion based on provable facts, offences and consequences.

 

I've gotta go out shortly but I'm happy to help out tomorrow with a few pointers if I can

 

Cheers, will pm you my email when I get home.

 

Mike

[mcjohnson]

Mike, you really mustn't lose sight of the fact that you have done nothing wrong here. You had every intention of making your payments and keeping the car, the mix up with the payment dates was entirely out of your control and you did everything you could to put it right.

It is the other side that have royally screwed up here and they know it.

 

You do really need a clear, concise letter from your sol that outlines all of their failings and exactly what you insist they do in order to avoid legal action being taken against them. I must admit I don't know an awful lot about rescission of contract but I can happily share my knowledge on Sections 92, 87 and 140. Personally I would stick to the breaches of the CCA, but that is purely my opinion based on provable facts, offences and consequences.

 

I've gotta go out shortly but I'm happy to help out tomorrow with a few pointers if I can

 

Mike - you know how I roll by now, so please don't take what I'm about to post as anything personal against you, but wannabee I'm not sure you're reading the right thread, or you need to take off the rose-tinted glasses and read the thread with more objectivity.

 

1 - The OP missed a payment on the 01/12 - a fact that wasn't pointed out until the second page of the thread, but essential in determining the validity of any default notices issued. Until that point was - relatively quietly - slipped into the post, everyone was under the assumption the payment on 14/01 had cleared the arrears on the account, when in fact a previous payment had been missed.

2 - The OP missed a second payment on 31/12, which is attributed to the DD being claimed early - on 31/12 and to his wife's wages not going into the account until 'the last working day of the month' - which would be the 31/12... So if the wife's wages went into the account the same day the debits were taken, why wasn't the payment made?

 

So your assertion - that the OP has done nothing wrong and intended to pay their account - is simply not accurate. The OP has missed a number of payments and, despite apparently having the funds in the account to clear all the outstanding arrears, during the course of three months has failed to resolve the issue with the creditor. Clearly there has been some confusion with the paperwork with Santander, what with new DD mandates etc; but that is nothing that couldn't have been resolved with a 5 minute phone call and certainly didn't prevent the OP calling santander post 14th January to clarify why the payment hadn't been taken (as advised) and to make a manual payment.

 

I am not saying this to be critical of Mike, I actually sympathise with Mike as I can understand how confusing and disorientating situations such as this can be. However, it isn't fair to the OP to suggest that this entire situation is the result of failures by Santander when it isn't the case, as your comments suggest that this is a relatively open and shut case and - as you've no doubt evidenced from your own 1,600 posts + 18 month string of experiences - this is simply not the case.

[GSMGuy]

Mike - you know how I roll by now, so please don't take what I'm about to post as anything personal against you, but wannabee I'm not sure you're reading the right thread, or you need to take off the rose-tinted glasses and read the thread with more objectivity.

 

 

No offence taken - BUT, in fact you are reading it wrong - Here is the actual course of events:

 

 

• 01/11/10 normal payment made by DD - Account fully up to date, no arrears ever etc
  
• 01/12/10 payment missed
  
• 17/12/10 Letter received dated 14/12/10 advising of missed pyt - "Notice of Default Sum" but NOT a default notice, ie not giving date to rectify etc.
  
• 24/12/10 Letter received dated 21/12/10 "notification of outstanding payment" and enclosing new DDM, which was completed and returned, now making TWO live DDM's on account. Apparently THEY had cancelled the DDM at their end, and as such did not take a payment on 03/01/11 this was not a default notice.
  
• 03/01/11 Letter rcd dated 31/12/10 advising that they would now collect "all amounts remaining ourtstanding via DD on or after 14th Jan 2011". Thereby changing the payment date. As this letter was dated BEFORE 01/01/11 it is clear that they had changed the "due date" And that it was never their intention to collect a payment "on or after 01/01/11"
  
• 10/01/11 Letter rcd dated 07/01/11 "notice of default sum" NOT a DN - Showing 2 x payments O/S plus TWO "late fees" but we were expecting them to collect the full amount on or after 14/01/11 as per their letter dated 31/12/10 (prev bullet)
  
• 11/01/11 SINGLE payment taken via DD, not the TWO payments we expected to be taken - funds were available for full amount to be taken.
  
• 18/01/11 Letter rcd dated 15/01/11 advising that there was still ONE payment outstanding plus a late fee of £25
  
• 24/01/11 Letter rcd dated 21/01/11 now advising outstanding balance as ONE payment and ZERO late fees... Enclosed yet another DDM which was returned, making THREE live mandates..
  
• 03/02/11 Letter rcd dated 31/01/11 advising of late fees, and advising that they would now collect "all amounts remaining ourtstanding via DD on or after 14th Feb 2011" So we made sure there was enough money in the bank - Again.. Also again confirming the new payment date of 14th month, for the second time.
  
• 10/02/11 Repo man turned up and took car..
  
• 17/02/11 Unstamped termination notice received in post..
  
• End April 2011 - Managed to finally get a copy of the DN, dated 07/01/11 which INCORRECTLY stated two payments outstanding, as they had written to us seven days before that date advising of a NEW PAYMANT DATE of 14th month.
  

That about sums it up - So as you can see, YES, the 01/12/10 payment was missed, BUT, as THEY cancelled the DDM, THEY did not take a payment on 01/01/11 BUT advised us that they would then take TWO payments on 14/01/11, they also apparently issued a DN on the 07/01/11(never received) citing the payments due on 01/12/10 and the payment NOT YET DUE (from their own advice) on 14/01/11 as being "In Default" (Although how a payment that is not yet due or collectable be deemed to be in "default" I do not know)

 

THEY then TOOK (ie via DD) only ONE payment on 11/01/11 when we were fully expecting, as advised in their letter (predating the "DN") that, they would collect TWO payments.. THEIR error, not ours.

 

THEY again wrote to us AGAIN advising that they would now collect TWO payments on 14/02/11 - BUT sent a collection agrent, who ILLEGALLY reposessed not only the car, but also circa £2000 of MY PERSONAL PROPERTY...

 

Apols for CAPS, just wanted to make the relevant bits stick out...

 

Mike

Edited May 11, 2011 by GSMGuy

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Mcjohnson you are entitled to your opinion as are we all. I have no intention of getting into petty tit for tats with you or anyone for that matter, my time, attention and efforts are better spent elsewhere.

 

Nobody has to listen to anything I have to say nor do I insist upon it, but if I can help anybody as a result of my own experiences then I will.

Whoever you are and whatever your motive will have no bearing on me or what I do. I will not waste my time or energy defending myself against ill founded and pointless allegations, I know myself and have every confidence my actions will not mess with peoples' lives in any kind of contrary manner.

 

If irritating people and provoking reactions is how you get your kicks then do carry on but it just won't work with me, sorry.

[GSMGuy]

Oi you lot! LOL..

 

Calm down - It's only a commercial!! (Don't shoot me!)

 

Wannabe, did you have any thoughts on a reply?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Ok, have just had Sol email/fax Santanders' sols, asking for a 7 day extension, owing to the posessions/equipment still with/on the vehicle...

 

Just had an email back from their Sol..

 

Thank you for your email.

 

My client is prepared to extend the deadline by 7 days as requested.

 

Regards

So have seven days...

 

HEELLPP!!

 

Mike

 

PS, could this "easy" extension be seen as them still being unsure of their position??

[GSMGuy]

Ok, trying to draft a letter, to pass onto Solicitor, who will write as if from them..

 

So far, thinking along the lines of:

 

 

Dear sirs,

 

re Santander/Mrs GSMGuy etc..

 

Further to your letter of 05th May, we write further to clarify our position.

 

Your client has clearly breached the terms of the contract due to the following events and actions:

 

1. The original "payment date" was the 14th of each month, however, shortly after the agreement was signed in May of last year, our client contacted your client, asking for the payment date to be changed to the 01st of each month. Your client charged our client a fee of £25 for doing this, and then subsequent payments were collected on or after the 01st of each month with effect from 01st June 2010.
   
2. It is accepted that our client missed a payment on 01st Dec 2010.
   
3. Your client then wrote to our client on 14th Dec 2010 advising of the "missed payment" andagain wrote to our client on 21st Dec 2010, reminding our client of the "outstanding payment" and enclosing a further direct debit madate, which our client completed and returned as instructed.
   
4. On 31st Dec 2010, your client again wrote to our client, advising that they would now collect (and we quote) "all amounts remaining ourtstanding via DD on or after 14th Jan 2011," thereby changing the payment date. As this letter was dated BEFORE 01st Jan 2011 it is clear that your clienthad reverted the payment date "back" to the 14th of each month, and that it was never your clients' intention to collect a payment "on or immediately after 01st Jan 2011" as this would have not been physically possible owing to the way in which the requests for a direct debit payment are made.
   
5. Our client duly ensured that sufficient funds would be available to meet this payment (ie two instalments)
   
6. On 07th Jan 2011, your client issued a default notice, which referred not only to the (accepted) overdue payment from 01st Dec 2010, but also, to the payment due (by your clients' own instructions) on 14th Jan 2011 - This default notice, was therefore incorrectly issued, as it cited an amount that was not outstanding, and indeed - had not yet become payable - This is a clear breach of the CCA.
   
7. On 11th Jan 2011, your client collected via direct debit, from our clients' account, the sum of £368.33, equating to one instalment, and not, the "all amounts remaining outstanding via DD on or after 14th Jan 2011" as previously quoted from your clients' letter of 31st Dec 2010. Please also note, that although your letter of 05th May 2011 states "We can confirm that one further payment was received from your client fter the 7th January 2011 in the sum of £368.33" it is in fact the case, that your client "collected" that amount from our clients' bank account - It was not "sent" by our client, who had made sufficient funds avaailable as requested by your clients' letter of 31st Dec 2010.
   
8. As your client collected on the 11th Jan 2011, what, at the time was the only outstanding payment under the agreement, then the default notice, incorrectly issued as it was, was actually satisfied at this point. Therfore any further action, would have required the issue and non-satisfaction of a further default notice, in accordance with sections 87, 88 & 89 of the CCA. For the avoidance of doubt, your client made no further attempt to collect the available funds from our clients' bank.
   
9. On 03rd Feb 2011, your client again wrote to our client, advising once again, that they would now collect (and again, we quote from that letter) "all amounts remaining outstanding via DD on or after 14th Feb 2011." Once again, our client ensured sufficient funds would be available. This letter, again confirmed the new payment date of 14th of each month, for the second time.
   
10. On 10th Feb 2011, notwithstanding that the previous default notice had been satisfied, that no further default notice had been issued, and your client had written to our client on 03rd Feb, as detailed in the above point - your client sent recovery agents, who reposessed the vehicle, from private property, with neither a court order, nor our clients permission, therefore breaching section 92 of the CCA.
    
11. On 17th Feb 2011, an undated, and unstamped (no postage - we have the envelope as proof) envelope was received from your client, containing a termination notice, dated 02nd Feb 2011, you will note that this termination notice was, in fact dated one day before your clients letter @ point (9) above, when your client instructed our client that they were going to collect further funds, on or after the 14th Feb 2011.
    

In view of the above, your client has breached the CCA on numerous points, not limited to;

 

• A incorrectly issued, and therefore invalid default notice. (Which was actually satisfied by your clients susequent payement request via the DD mandate) - Contrary to sections 87, 88 & 89 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  
• Reposession of the goods from private property with neither a court order, nor the permission of the debtor - Contrary to section 92 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  
• An incorrectly issued termination notice - Contrary to section 99 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  

In view of these breaches, we find your client to have not only acted wrongly, but to have also illegally terminated the contract via an illegal cessation of same. We therefore consider the contract to be void from it's inception.

 

Our client, therefore demands the following:

 

 

1. Immediate return of the vehicle, at your clients expense.
   
2. Repayment of all sums paid to date under the agreement, in the sum of £4879.98
   
3. Reinbursement of alternative vehicle hire, in the sum of £2375.00
   
4. Legal costs incurred, in the sum of £475+vat
   
5. To be released from all obligations under the agreement, and for it to be expunged from our clients' credit file
   
6. Compensation for the inconvenience of not having a seven seat vehicle, and being unable to undertake normal family activities for a period of 15 weeks from the date the vehicle was reposessed, in the sum of £50 per week totallinf £750
   

We trust this clarifies our clients' position, and look forward to your prompt reply, within 7 working days. At the expiration of this period, we have instructions to commence proceedings in the County Court, without further notice, for the recovery of the above, plus our clients' further legal costs.

 

Yours....

 

 

 

Any comments?? Please....

 

Mike

 

PS - Have edited it slightly (Thanks Wannabe!)

 

Mike

Edited May 20, 2011 by GSMGuy

[GSMGuy]

Ok, quick update.. Well letter went by fax and post on Friday, and so far, have heard - Nothing....

 

Appears to have gone quiet, so (hopefully) maybe, their Sols have received the letter, and asked their clients (Santander) - "You did what???"

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Just had a quick update call from my Sol - Their Sol is apparently rattled, and was unaware of the full chain of events to date - They asked my Sol to provide "copies of the letters from our client on which you base your position that our client is in breach of etc..." My Sol has replied, enclosing copies, but also querying why they "were not fully briefed on this matter upon original instruction" and also that "obviously, your clients' actions are fully doccumented in their correspondence to our client" etc..

 

He briefly spoke to their Sol on the phone, to advise that (my) sol is going away for the week, but their Sol confirmed that they have advised Santander NOT to dispose of the vehicle at this stage...

 

Rumbles in the Jungle??

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Have today (over 2 weeks later) received a faxed copy from my Sol, of letter sent by Santanders' Sol to them yesterday..

 

They have asked for a "short extension" whilst they are "consulting with our client" and promise a "full and detailed response" shortly...

 

Now I'm no expert, but come on, almost 3 weeks, and still no response (in particular, no denial of the points raised in my last letter)

 

Either they haven't got, or can't think of a suitable denial/response or they are dragging it out for the sake of it??

 

Thoughts?

 

Mike

[GSMGuy]

Ok,

 

Today received a copy letter from my Sol, sent to the by Santanders' sols:

 

It reads:

 

 

Further to your letter of 25th May, and further disclosure on 31st May, we are able to say as follows (we have adopted your numbered paragraphs for ease of reference):

 

 

1. Agreed
   
2. Noted
   
3. A Notice of Default was sent to your client dated 14/12/10. The letter is coded L0244 and complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). A Notification of Overdue Amount (Final Notice) encoded L018 was sent to your client, dated 21/12/10. Again, this was in compliance with the CCA. Contrary to what your client has stated, no Direct debit Mandate (DDM) accompanied that letter.
   
4. A Statement of Fees (FEERM) was sent to your client, dated 31/12/10. It is denied that the letter confirmed in any way:
   a: That the payment date was changed
   b: That our client had reverted back to the 14th of the month
   c: That our client never intended to collect payment immediately on or after the 01st Jan 2011.
    
    
   FEERM
   This form is sent out in bulk on the last day of the month to all customers where there is a live DD setup. The form gives them notice of the intention to make a DD application for outstanding fees on the 14th of the following month. It would be the 14th (or the next working day) no matter what the "due" sate is. Put simply, it is more coincidence that the 14th was the date of inception for your clients' agreement. For the record, your clients' normal monthly direct debit instalment would be applied for on the 01st of each month. Fees are just that - fees, and completely seperate to the notrmal monthly instalment.
   
5. We canot comment on whether your client had sufficient funds. Nevertheless, this has no bearing on this case.
   
6. A Notice of Default was sent to your client, dated 07/01/11 and encoded L0500. The letter was in compliance with the CCA. It referred to outstanding payments ie £368.33 due on 01st dec and £368.33 due on 01st Jan and the fee of £25 for late payment, duly debited on the same date. As you may gather, it is denied that the Notice of Default was incorrectly issued, or that there has been a "clear" breach of the CCA.
   
7. A payment in the sum of £368.33 was received on the 11/01/11. This was due to an automatic reapplication for the recalled January DD our client received on the 04/01/11 - The first working date after the due date, ie 01/01/11.
   
8. The Notice of Default states that the arrears, correctly stated (at that time) owas in the sum of £786.66 and must be paid by 27/01/11. By the 27/01/11 only the sum of £386.33 had been received, therefore the Notice of Default, despite what you say, satisfied. Cosequently, no further Default Notice was required.
   
9. There is no record of a letter dated 03/02/11 being sent to your client. We can say, that on 01/02/11, a letter was sent requesting that your client contact our client urgently to make payments, but there is no mention of applying for a direct debit, nor anything in relation to a direct debit.
   
10. It is denied that our client illegally reposessed their vehicle, and you are referred to our previous detailed letter of 15th April in that regard.
    
11. Your client failed to pay the arrears, and as such the Agreement was terminated on 02/02/11. It is of no concern to our client of when your client will say that she received the termination notice.
    

You then go on to alledge various breaches of the CCA, all of which are denied. You may like to reconsider "section 99" again because that is in relation to debtors terminating agreements, and not creditors.

 

So, if you had not already gathered, your claim, listed A to F is rejected.

 

Proceedings

We are of the opinion that both parties have already pleaded their cases, and there seems little point in continuing to correspondence in any great detail. we have instructions to issue proceedings against your client for the balance on the Agreement, which stands at £20,069.82. Before doing so, it will be necessary for our client to mitigate their loss and therefore dispose of the vehicle.We are hereby giving you the opportunity to take your clients' instructions on the content of this letter before the vehicle is disposed of.

 

If we do not hear from you within 14 days, the vehicle will be disposed of and proceedings issued. We note that you are instruced to accept service.

 

Will edit and add my comments later, but in brief, it's full of cr@p - WE HAVE the letter referred to in "9" and it DOES say they will collect outstanding amounts via DD on 14/02/11 - 4 days AFTER they took the car (illegally)

 

Also, received today from Santader - Would you believe, a "Notice of Sums in Arrears" in relation to the agreement, telling us "we have not made the payments, resulting in arrears of £2309.88...

 

Ok - Firstly,

 

The letter they refer to in point 3 - This was a "Notice of Default Sum" and NOT a Default Notice.. And contrary to what their Sols may say, there WAS a DDM enclosed, and it was duly completed and returned - We DO have a copy and also proof from Mrs GSM's bank that there were TWO live DDM's bearing the same reference number, active on her account..

 

This FEERM they refer to? WTF? Again, we have the letter, and it clearly states on it - "If you have recently made a payment this may not yet have reached your agreement. Any amount that remains outstanding on or immediately after 14th January 2011 will be collected by Direct Debit under Direct debit instruction reference -: Account no.. If you are experiencing difficulties paying your account, it is important that you contact us as soon as possible"

Obviously, we had made sure the funds were available, and the letter clearly states that they are going to collect them on/after 14/01/11 - we were not having "difficulties" and their instructions/intentions were clear from the letter - so OBVIOUSLY we didn't contact them! Once again, the letter sent by santander indicates the opposite of what their Sol says...

 

In para 5 - Yes, they are correct, they cannot comment on whether sufficient funds were available (they were!) BUT they ONLY TOOK ONE PAYMENT, not the two payments advised in the letter.. They made NO attempt to collect a further payment, as they had told us they would...

 

Para 6 - Yes, DN received - A "proper" one - However, it referred to a missed payment, and one not yet due (as they had told us they were taking them on/after 14/01/11!) Also it was for 2x payaments plus TWO x £25 fees, not one, as stated incorrectly by Sol..

 

Para 8 - Do the maths.. Two payments of £368.33 plus £25 (as referred to in para 6 of their reply) is £761.66 and not £786.66 as stated on the DN...

 

Para 9 - Now this is where it gets interesting - Guess what.. WE HAVE THE LETTER that they can "find no record of" AND it DOES CONFIRM their intention once again, to apply for "all outstanding payments on/after 14/02/11" (ie four days AFTER they (illegally) took the car) It also DOES NOT mention "contacting us urgently" it merely repeats the previous letter's "if you are having difficulties, please contact us etc..." So yet MORE LIES!

 

Para 10 - Been over this - YES YOU DID!!

 

Para 11Well we would have received the Term Notice - HAD you have put a stamp on the envelope, which is a "Santander" branded one - and yes, we have it...

 

Anyone care to comment or steer me as to where next?

 

Thanks

Mike

Edited June 21, 2011 by GSMGuy