Diddled into giving back car HELP PLEASE!! bluestone/close credit management

[applecart]

Hi, Sorry to butt in - but I spotted your letter.....Just thought it was a bit on the 'emotional' side - I thought it would be ok by you if I re-drafted it slightly.....hope you don't mind...

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint.

 

I set out below the basis for the complaint and requests for your timely redress:

 

• On the xxxx Date, I was visited by a [man/woman – give agents name if you know it] purporting to be an advisor; however, from the nature of the conversation it became apparent that I had been misled into inviting a debt collection agent into my home, where I was forced and cajoled into negotiations to repay the contested alleged arrears of £849.68 plus charges and interest.

 

• I was further misled into accepting that I had yet to achieve the third way mark under the agreement, when in truth a sum of £6256.81 had already been paid under the agreement meeting the legal criteria for termination under any HP agreement within the provisions of the CCA 1974 section 90 (1), the consequence being that you were in breach of the said statute in demanding return of the vehicle without an order from the court and taking receipt of additional monies

 

• Given the circumstances, I request that you honor my subject access request made on the [enter date the initial request was made here] which you are duty bound to supply within the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

• Further, I request that you take this opportunity to re-consider my claim made for the return of all PPI payments made under the agreement, re-pay the monies that I have paid over and above £6256.81 (or whatever the figure is that meant you could terminate), including interest and charges.

 

• Additionally, I request that you refrain from making frequent telephone calls and visits to my home in further breach of OFT guidelines in relation to harassment of debtors forthwith.

 

• Lastly, and in addition to the above requests, I require that you submit details pertaining to the amount of monies you secured from the sale of the vehicle.

 

It is with respect that I advise you that should you fail to acknowledge this compliant advising how you intend to address the matters herein, that I cordially advise that the matter will be reverted to a court of law after a period of 14 days has past without further recourse to yourselves.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

xxxx

 

Again, sorry for butting in.....but if it helps, then its all good : )

 

Apple

[dx100uk]

tbh the only issue for the formal complaint should be

 

They cannot take possession of goods under a HP agreement when there has been over one third of the credit paid unless the contract has been properly terminated and they have secured an order form the court.

 

If they do they have to refund all payments made under the agreement. This is your main argument in my opinion.

 

 

you unlawfully repo'd the vehicle

 

under the CCA act 1974 - give me all my monet back.

 

dx

[Peterbard]

tbh the only issue for the formal complaint should be

 

They cannot take possession of goods under a HP agreement when there has been over one third of the credit paid unless the contract has been properly terminated and they have secured an order form the court.

 

If they do they have to refund all payments made under the agreement. This is your main argument in my opinion.

 

 

you unlawfully repo'd the vehicle

 

under the CCA act 1974 - give me all my monet back.

 

dx

 

Yes in a nutshell.

[Peterbard]

There was a case a couple of years ago where a HP agreement was incorrectly terminated due to a defective default notice, ( the car was repossessed before the remedy period had expired).

A solicitor was engaged and an action for conversion of goods commenced, the action was aborted on the court steps when the finance company repaid all sums under the contract.

[HadEnough]

Ok, I see what you mean.

i have added the your paragraph dodgeball to the letter above. I will send this out and await a reply.

 

Does anyone know what they mean by Inception Date? this is on one of their docs.

Also this inception date appears to be the date the contract ends, does this hasve any bearing on what you have said above?

Sorry for all the questions, just worrying about the possible arguments they can defend their actions with.

[Peterbard]

It is not worth worrying about what they will come back with, at the end of the day you won't be any worse off for challenging them.

 

Inception usually refers to the beginning of the contract.

 

I should imagine that they will maintain that you voluntarily returned the vehicle, you must maintain that the only reason you allowed them to take it was because you were given no other choice.

[HadEnough]

Hi, Sorry to butt in - but I spotted your letter.....Just thought it was a bit on the 'emotional' side - I thought it would be ok by you if I re-drafted it slightly.....hope you don't mind...

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint.

 

I set out below the basis for the complaint and requests for your timely redress:

 

• On the xxxx Date, I was visited by a [man/woman – give agents name if you know it] purporting to be an advisor; however, from the nature of the conversation it became apparent that I had been misled into inviting a debt collection agent into my home, where I was forced and cajoled into negotiations to repay the contested alleged arrears of £849.68 plus charges and interest.

 

• I was further misled into accepting that I had yet to achieve the third way mark under the agreement, when in truth a sum of £6256.81 had already been paid under the agreement meeting the legal criteria for termination under any HP agreement within the provisions of the CCA 1974 section 90 (1), the consequence being that you were in breach of the said statute in demanding return of the vehicle without an order from the court and taking receipt of additional monies

 

• Given the circumstances, I request that you honor my subject access request made on the [enter date the initial request was made here] which you are duty bound to supply within the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

• Further, I request that you take this opportunity to re-consider my claim made for the return of all PPI payments made under the agreement, re-pay the monies that I have paid over and above £6256.81 (or whatever the figure is that meant you could terminate), including interest and charges.

 

• Additionally, I request that you refrain from making frequent telephone calls and visits to my home in further breach of OFT guidelines in relation to harassment of debtors forthwith.

 

• Lastly, and in addition to the above requests, I require that you submit details pertaining to the amount of monies you secured from the sale of the vehicle.

 

It is with respect that I advise you that should you fail to acknowledge this compliant advising how you intend to address the matters herein, that I cordially advise that the matter will be reverted to a court of law after a period of 14 days has past without further recourse to yourselves.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

xxxx

 

Again, sorry for butting in.....but if it helps, then its all good : )

 

Apple

 

Thanks Apple. You are right. Letter writing isn't a strobg point of mine. I will use the rewording. Thanks

[HadEnough]

Some posts only just appeared from last night. I take your point Dx and Dodgeball, I will amend my letter. I will still include most of what I've already put but i will emphaise the point you have both raised above and use this.

Thanks for all your help, it is becoming clearer slowly...

[Peterbard]

The above letter seems to me to say that only sums over the one third are reclaimable, perhaps I read it wrong, in fact all sums paid under the contract are reclaimable should the creditor fall foul of section 91 and repossess the car to early.

 

I have just been re reading some of the earlier posts.

 

I understand that when the agent arrived you had the money to pay any arrears on the agreement and the contract itself was still within its term.

 

If this is the case you were completely misled when he told you that you had to repay the full amount t due under the contract.

 

Whilst the contract was still in force(un-terminated if you like) you would be entitled to repay the agreement as per its terms.

The only way that they can"accelerate " or demand premature payment under a regulated agreement is to first issue a default notice, this gives the debtor 14 days to get the account upto date, this is a statutory requirement and without first issuing this document they cannot demand that you pay the full amount outstanding on the agreement,(unless it is arrears).

 

 

So him saying that you had to pay the full amount was incorrect and in my view applied pressure on you to return the car that he was not entitled to. The CCA ensures that people in arrears of payment are given time to remedy before any termination of agreement takes place.

 

Hope you don't mind me going on about this , but I think it is as well that you are familiar with the process.

[applecart]

Hi Dodgeball, You are correct.... (I confess, I did not read all the posts - just looked to simplify the letter to be honest - make it more succinct and to the point)..... For the benefit of doubt .....Here's section 91 of the CCA 1974:

 

Consequences of breach of s. 90.

 

If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90—

 

(a) the regulated agreement, if not previous terminated, shall terminate, and

 

(b) the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the debtor under the agreement.

 

HM could amend the 2nd bulletted point referring to the £6256.81 to 'all monies paid to date due to your breach of CCA 1974 s.91' or words to that effect...

 

Apple

[HadEnough]

The above letter seems to me to say that only sums over the one third are reclaimable, perhaps I read it wrong, in fact all sums paid under the contract are reclaimable should the creditor fall foul of section 91 and repossess the car to early.

 

I have just been re reading some of the earlier posts.

 

I understand that when the agent arrived you had the money to pay any arrears on the agreement and the contract itself was still within its term.

Yes this correct although I only have my partner and my word for it at the time.

If this is the case you were completely misled when he told you that you had to repay the full amount t due under the contract.

He was threatening me that I woukd certainly inccur hundreds of pounds of court caost and a CCJ if I didn't VS that day.

Whilst the contract was still in force(un-terminated if you like) you would be entitled to repay the agreement as per its terms

With regards to this I am uncertain what paperwork was sent from First National regarding the default or termination. All i have is demand letters. The VS is signed after the date the agreement ran out and I was supposed tp pay the balloon payment or give the car back.

The only way that they can"accelerate " or demand premature payment under a regulated agreement is to first issue a default notice, this gives the debtor 14 days to get the account upto date, this is a statutory requirement and without first issuing this document they cannot demand that you pay the full amount outstanding on the agreement,(unless it is arrears).

I can tell you that the first i knew I had to pay the whole amount was when the advisor came to the house.

So him saying that you had to pay the full amount was incorrect and in my view applied pressure on you to return the car that he was not entitled to. The CCA ensures that people in arrears of payment are given time to remedy before any termination of agreement takes place.

They did give me time and i kept intouch (the record notes show my contact with them) updating them of my pending re-mortgage.

Hope you don't mind me going on about this , but I think it is as well that you are familiar with the process.

I don't mind, in fact I really appreciate the time you are giving me.

I need all the help you can give.

[HadEnough]

Hi Dodgeball, You are correct.... (I confess, I did not read all the posts - just looked to simplify the letter to be honest - make it more succinct and to the point)..... For the benefit of doubt .....Here's section 91 of the CCA 1974:

 

Consequences of breach of s. 90.

 

If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of section 90—

 

(a) the regulated agreement, if not previous terminated, shall terminate, and

 

(b) the debtor shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the creditor all sums paid by the debtor under the agreement.

 

HM could amend the 2nd bulletted point referring to the £6256.81 to 'all monies paid to date due to your breach of CCA 1974 s.91' or words to that effect...

 

Apple

 

Hi Apple.

I am having trouble altering the wording for change this correctly, could you advise on what to put please.

I am also grateful to you for taking the time to help me. Legal issues etc is way over my head.

Much appreciated.

[HadEnough]

Right I've amended my letter again using Apples outlined letter. Ive added;

Further, I request that you takethis opportunity to re-consider my claim made for the return of all PPIpayments made under the agreement and refund 'all monies paid to date due toyour breach of CCA 1974 s.91' including interest and charges.

I'm just looking for confirmation that its worded right. Going to send thi sfirst thing in the morning, recorded del of course.

[HadEnough]

The above letter seems to me to say that only sums over the one third are reclaimable, perhaps I read it wrong, in fact all sums paid under the contract are reclaimable should the creditor fall foul of section 91 and repossess the car to early.

 

I have just been re reading some of the earlier posts.

 

I understand that when the agent arrived you had the money to pay any arrears on the agreement and the contract itself was still within its term.

 

If this is the case you were completely misled when he told you that you had to repay the full amount t due under the contract.

 

Whilst the contract was still in force(un-terminated if you like) you would be entitled to repay the agreement as per its terms.

The only way that they can"accelerate " or demand premature payment under a regulated agreement is to first issue a default notice, this gives the debtor 14 days to get the account upto date, this is a statutory requirement and without first issuing this document they cannot demand that you pay the full amount outstanding on the agreement,(unless it is arrears).

 

 

So him saying that you had to pay the full amount was incorrect and in my view applied pressure on you to return the car that he was not entitled to. The CCA ensures that people in arrears of payment are given time to remedy before any termination of agreement takes place.

 

Hope you don't mind me going on about this , but I think it is as well that you are familiar with the process.

 

Hi Dodgeball, I have been checking dates on the VS and it is a week after the agreement ran out however, I was told that they owned the debt before it finished and I was not allowed to hand the car back when it was due to be. Does this affect me? Very worried now. if you get chance please can you advise.

Thanks

[Peterbard]

HI Hadenough.

 

It is no use second guessing yourself, just wait and see what they come back with. Sending the letter will make you no worse off. When you receive your reply come back to us and we will advise further.

[HadEnough]

Ok thanks for getting back to me. I know your right, think I'm playing devils advocate with myself...

I'll grateful just to stop the bloody non stop phone calls...

[applecart]

Right I've amended my letter again using Apples outlined letter. Ive added;

Further, I request that you takethis opportunity to re-consider my claim made for the return of all PPIpayments made under the agreement and refund 'all monies paid to date due toyour breach of CCA 1974 s.91' including interest and charges.

I'm just looking for confirmation that its worded right. Going to send thi sfirst thing in the morning, recorded del of course.

 

see, you don't need as much help as you thought - this is fine : )

 

I agree with Dodgeball...don't second guess yourself...wait to hear back from them...the balls in their court... let's see what they bounce back with....

 

You'll find there is more than enough help on the CaG to help you to take the matter to court - should the need arise : )

 

Apple

[HadEnough]

Thanks Apple, glad I've done it right. I agree that this site and its members are worth their weight in gold.

Thanks again

Will report back when I have reply.

[HadEnough]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44482[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]44483[/ATTACH]

I have received a response already.

Sorry that the pics are unclear. It is what I was expecting. They have said though that tghey will honour the sar when i send a cheque for £10 which i have already done last year and they refused to send me all documents as it was statute barred. They need to make their minds up. Any advice on what to do next would be greatly appreciated.

BTW, i still have no evidence of car sales, they onky enclosed the vs, car agreement, ppi crossed out agreement and a letter stating i still owe £745...

Edited June 13, 2013 by HadEnough
picture too small

[applecart]

Hi Ya

 

I could not access the attachments you posted H.E.... : (

 

Hope you don't mind me butting in again.....

 

It is clear they are playing games - the Compliance Officer - what's her name - ah yes: 'Ms Fothergill' - is obviously adept at staving off her work load by sending out 'rebuff letters' that say nothing, in the hope that you will 'go away'....such letter normally suggest incompetence....ah, well - lets see how she deals with what must be your Next Step...

 

You cannot reneged on what you said in your previous letter - she will have it on file....we promised that we would only take action if she did not offer a resolve...but before we take the next step,.....

 

I need to see what she has sent to you - or can you type up what she has said (exactly) in her letter to you please...?

 

Please be assured that as far as I can tell so far - Your cause of action and your rights to deal with the dispute remain unaffected, especially given the circumstances in which your dispute has come about - so don't worry so much about the time we take to deal with the money they owe you - ok.....

 

Apple

Apple

[applecart]

Hi HE

 

Whilst we wait for you to come back....

 

Your claim is not statute barred because - This is what the Limitations Act 1980 section 32 says:

 

32 - Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.

 

 

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

 

the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

 

References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.

 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

 

The circumstances posted by you appear to show that your right to terminate was concealed from you.

 

 

I hope this helps?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi HE

 

Just to assist further....I have looked at your Credit Agreement - I found that the figures are totally erroneous....

 

Please accept my apology for the length of this communication, but:

 

The Total Amount of Credit is stated as £10,347.43.

The APR is stated as 8.1%

 

CCA 1974 section 9 (3) provides:

 

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.”

 

The amount that should therefore have been added to the £10,347.43 should be £1,342.74

 

• (you have been charged £1,681.19)

 

The Total Credit Amount payable at an APR of 8.1% would be:

 

£10,347.43 + £1,342.74 = £11,689.74

 

• (your repayment has been erroneously hiked by £823.88)

 

CCA 1974 section 9 (4) provides:

 

“For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.”

 

So… that £85.00 charge should not be included to have caused the erroneous sum of £1,681.19 to be inflated to £1,766.99 and added to have caused the total sum due to show as £12,113.62….

 

Then as if to add insult to injury…. Out of the Blue, we see the figures inflated again to include an erroneous £400.00 to show that your total credit inflates to £12,513.62…

 

Overall, confirming that they had added an erroneous £823.88 for you to pay…

 

It makes a huge difference to your Termination Rights - Here’s the difference:

 

A third of the correctly calculated credit would have come to £3,896.58

 

A third of the erroneously calculated credit comes to £4,171.21

 

To add further insult to injury – you have been sold the concept that your only right to terminate is when half of the £12,513.62 has been paid at £6,256.81!!!

 

It seems to me that the ‘deposit amount’ was added back into the sum and they included and added interest to the £85.00 charge for the credit facility to boost the figure…

 

The Termination section, should have included a section showing the third way mark in addition to your further rights in the event you went on to the half way mark.

 

That third way mark on the correct application should have been £3,896.58 – it is missing

 

The half way mark - correctly stated should have been stated as £5,844.87 – it is incorrect

 

I've got reference to some case law to do with void credit agreements somewhere - I'll have to dig it out for you to see if it will be relevant in your case....here's hoping it won't be buried too deep : (

 

I hope this helps

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Where is the agreement ?

[applecart]

Morning Dodgeball,

 

It's at post '44'

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Thanks Apple just being lazy.

 

The total credit figure is £10347.43

 

Repayments 1 '@ £303.67

35 @ £218

 

Last balloon payment of £4156.50

 

APR 8.1%

 

Total repaid on loan is £12,113.62

 

Total amount paid = £12,132 +£400 deposit = £12532 TAP

 

The £85 finance fee is included within the TCC as it should be as is the £100 deposit. The figures representing one half and one third of the agreement should be calculated from the TAP.

 

Which are correct sadly

Edited June 15, 2013 by Dodgeball