Whilst your probably right, unfortunately i'm meant/have to go through their complaints procedure,stage 1 & stage 2 but have merely stated in the complaint what was taken from me unlawfully, and quantified it & justified it together with supporting documents, but without any other costs, such as legal, court, further loss of business and which, IF legal proceedings start, will spiral out of control, with more than likely the same result! However, i have also taken proffessional advice, who suggested i have to give the council an opportunity to resolve things 1st, considering it's quite an old case and can be classed as an abuse of process, if legal people get involved straight away!

I just have to find the right way. I'm sure they do have SOME sort of obligation to assist. I wrote to Mercedes sometime ago, raising a formal, however they wrote back saying they acted within the law. Like to know what/which law this is......Anyone have any idea? May just have to re open the complaint with them, and ask them a few more in depth questions,( ANY SUGGESTIONS???) in particular the law in which they are referring.

Thanks...... i was of the same undersatnding. But, i did inform Mercedes the next day, to which they said...as it's a pcn issue which is easily resolved by paying a fee, they don't usually get involved. However, they were contacted in June 2012, by EA, couple of months later and asked for £6000 to release the car for un paid debts. Which they refused to pay. But they still didn't force the EA to return it, even though they apparently asked them to return it to me. Already in motion with the Council process, to reimburse me with a like for like car, or it's equavalent in value (21k), loss of business up to end of hire purchase agreement from the time it was taken (18 months at the minimum daily rental rate) i guess i could have have charged for anything up to a max of 10 years loss of business, but giving them a incentive to settle. I'm sure there are many more costs i could have added, but i'm just sticking to the basics at the moment, but will be a different story if legal proceedings start. Keep you posted.

Hi, i'm quite sure they are in breach .......somewhere, just need to find the right angle on it!?? Any advise would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks!

Who are/is OP?

TT I think the Finance company recovered the car from the bailiffs for a few hundred pounds and it was the Finance Company that sold it. Several questions arise from that. 1] did the Finance Company have the right to sell the car without a Court Order as over half the payments had been made 2] what has happened to the proceeds of the sale-has any been paid to the bailiffs 3] if the bailiffs only accepted a few hundred pounds from the Finance Company then that would not even cover the towing cost and storage fees for 7 months let alone the PCN and bailiff fees prior to the seizure. If they are not pursuing Mercedes does that mean they have accepted that they were in the wrong? Hi, yes you are correct, Mercedes sold car via main stream auction. 1. It was a NON Regulated agreement, and the car was financed to my sole trading business, and a declaration has been signed by me to the effect that i aknowledge that i will not have the protection of the consumer credit act 1974, and therefore apparently a court order is not required.....Not to sure about that! Anyone know?? 2.Not a penny has been paid to the bailiffs, after car was sold. (prior to sale, Mercedes stated the settlement amount was £26,023.28 in December 2012) This is what they wanted in order to return the car to me. 3.Your right...The £300 paid by Merc's repossession company was not for ANY debts, but APPARENTLY for a new battery and diagnostics, as the car had been standing for so long, it would not start. This is what they said in a recent email, however, it was probably some sort of cash in hand/backhander payment... between bailiff company and another repossession/enforcement company!!

Enforcement company NEVER sold it. Whilst they asked Mercedes for payments 1st for £6000 and then finally 3 months later, for £4500, they refused, and Mercedes, apparently threatened them with legal action if the car was not returned to them, as HP agreement was in default, and they proofed they were the rightful owners, and were not resonsible for any debts. Ultimately, Mercedes's repossession company were told to liase with Newlyn, and negotiate the return of it. They paid £300 to release the car into their custody.

Had the car 18 months exactly and paid a total of £9544.48. Leaving me a debt of £9378.48 after car was sold in December for £14500 exactly.

Hi TT, Just for the record, it states that my agreement is a hire purchase agreement - non regulated. However, it's actually a PCP (personal contract purchase agreement) from Mercedes, on their Agility product terms and conditions. It CLEARLY states, that the HIRE period is 36 months, with a GMEV (guranteed minimum end value/optional purchase payment) of £16050.....which is the baloon payment , if made then i would have owned the car. If NOT, you simply hand the car back and don't make any payment. As if you were just renting the car. The hirer is also meant to be restricted to doing 8/10/12K miles per year (10k miles in my case), must service the car at Mercedes, and maintain it in good condition/repair. (Same as a contract hire agreement) Is there anywhere i could see Judge Mains report?

Good luck Just hope the evidence is enough to derail the expensive Barristers Newlyn will throw in, and their clients are exposed for the lying bullies they are. Thanks brassnescked....... I'll do my best and keep you guys posted as i hear anything. Appriciate all your help and support.

I didn't reach the decision lightly. Yes, i have all relevant documentation and more, to proof what i've said and what happened. Hopefully it's enough!

Hi tomtubby, Complaint sent to the appropriate court. Hopefully here something soon. Will update here, as it progresses.

That's my worry too about making a complaint about the bailiff. I guess the worst that can happen is the Judge will dismiss on it being raised late, or he/she could allow it. As for the LGO, i've been on the phone with them, and their time limit is usually 12 months from the time i became aware there was a problem, however the guy said they also can use their discretion and hear it, depending on the seriousness of the complaint, but not get involved until a have a final response from the council. As for civil action against the council, i think i'm with time limits? And making a complaint to the LGO doesn't affect this, as far as i'm aware.

Well, they were aware that car had been seized, but did not agree to the sale of it or anything else, but didn't turn up the pressure on the EA until the HP agreement had defaulted, however the car was bought on HP and financed to my business, and without it, i would no doubt find it difficult to keep the payments up, which they should have been aware of, but at the inital contact stage they chose to take a back seat. So maybe they also have some responsiblity to this mess? Any suggestions?