Company Car- left employment now being chased for upgrade costs...

[MrShed]

I don't think you should make reference to the other two people as they left under different circumstances to you. This may well have been negotiated into the deal for them to go as part of an agreement.

 

I cant see the harm in mentioning it though?

[monkeychicken]

The second point is about your legal insurance - have a careful read through of the documentation to see if youre covered. Their first attempt is always to deny liability, so its worth wrting to the insurance company pointing out the specific clause that shows you to be covered under the policy - worth a try anyway

[m2000]

Ok Guys, I have updated the defence to the one below. Could you please read through and check it reads ok?

 

The last two points are the ones I am most uncertain about...

 

 

In the Birmingham County Court

Claim number XXXXXXXXX

 

Between

XXXXXXXXXXX - Claimant

and

Mr M2000 – Defendant

 

1) The defendant was an employee of XXXXX Society from xxxxx until xxxxx

 

2) The details in the POC outlined by the Claimant surrounding the notice period given, as well as the details within the contract of employment are not disputed

 

3) The Defendant is unable to either admit or deny the claim whether in full or in any part since the Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of documentary evidence supplied to him by the Claimant despite requests.

4) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the claimant returning the vehicle under the terms of any early redemption clause attached to this agreement, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by an early termination of the vehicle lease.

 

5) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the perceived loss claimed against him might have been mitigated by the claimant downgrading the vehicle under any relevant term of that contract which may or may not exist. The Defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by replacing the vehicle with the standard model at the appropriate time.

 

6) The Defendant avers that without sight of the original lease agreement he is unable to establish whether the interest claimed upon the perceived loss is lawfully due in the amount claimed. The Defendant avers that the claimant is not entitled to the interest in the amount claimed unless the Claimant is able to prove that the payment in respect of the upgrade was made as a lump sum at the inception of the lease rather than as an additional sum above the value of the standard vehicle on a monthly payment basis.

 

7) The Defendant avers that by failing to charge the current driver of the vehicle in question the claimant is in breach of the very same part of their own terms and conditions that they seek enforcement under by virtue of this action and this breach is a gross failing on behalf of the claimant to mitigate their perceived loss. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that they have failed to charge the current driver of this vehicle for the upgrade.

 

8) In the event that the Claimant can prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the defendant intends to enter a counterclaim to this action under CPR part 20 in the whole amount claimed against him and will apply to have this third party benefactor made party to such a counterclaim, it appears that the Claimant is happy to seek enforcement of their contract of employment and Car Policy through the Courts against specific but not all ex-employees yet strangely reluctant to enforce exactly the same term against this current employee.

 

9) The Defendant avers that the failure of the claimant to apply the same term of the same contract to the current employee is the action which has directly led to the loss claimed in this action. No loss would have occurred had the claimant been consistent in their application of this contract for any shortfall would have been met by the current employee who does after all enjoy the benefit of the upgraded vehicle at no cost to themselves contrary to the terms of the Claimants contract.

 

10) The Claimant had the opportunity to completely mitigate their perceived loss by charging the new driver of this vehicle. That the claimant failed for whatever reason to charge this owner should not be a matter for the defendant to be held culpable or compensate.

 

11) The defendant avers that any loss perceived by the claimant has arisen because the claimant has failed to charge the current user and the current user has failed to pay the balancing payment in question for a large number of months, both failings being contrary to the terms of the contract which the claimant seeks to enforce.

 

12) In the event the Court finds the term enforceable in Court against the defendant, the defendant will seek by way of the counterclaim to have the same term enforced upon the claimant and the current employee in order to mitigate his liability under this claim.

 

13) In the event that the claimant cannot prove that the current driver receives the benefit of this vehicle at no cost to themselves, the defendant avers that the claimant is attempting to enrich themselves unjustly by double claiming the upgrade amount from both owners of the vehicle.

 

14) The Claimant has indicated that they are unprepared to furnish the defendant with the information required to ascertain his standing in this case, this unwillingness to co-operate being a breach of the CPR rules on the duty of disclosure.

 

15) The Defendant wishes to be permitted to serve a correctly pleaded defence to this claim once the claimant has either voluntarily or under an enforcement order of this Court complied with their responsibilities under CPR and furnished the defendant with the documentation which will enable the defendant to accurately assess what liability if any he has in this matter.

 

16) It is known that at least two previous Employees of the Society who had taken upgraded company cars and have left the employment of the Society have not been requested to repay the upgrade liability due. The fact that they have not requested payment from these persons results in the Society not imposing the Company Car Policy in a fair and universal manner.

 

17) The Defendant has, on numerous occasions, expressed his desire to resolve the issue amicably and without the necessity of any court process. In this regard, the Defendant has, as a matter of goodwill offered to make payments in the region of £50-75 per month. The Claimant has refused this offer and has continued to pursue the matter to the stage we now find ourselves at.

Edited February 18, 2010 by m2000

[The GodMother]

Looks fine to me.

[m2000]

Cheers TheGodmother - much appreciated

 

I think it reads ok.. but if anyone spots anything out of place please yell at me!!

[m2000]

Right, I think I am going to print out the defence and get it sent off on Monday!!

 

Any other opinions on any changes etc welcome!

 

Thanks for all your help guys!

[MrShed]

Whatever happened with this?

[m2000]

Hi all,

 

The defence was submitted last week. I have today recieved the AQ, which I need to return by 18th March!! EEk!

[The GodMother]

N149 or N150?

It will say on the bottom of the form on the front page in small writing.

[m2000]

Hello The God Mother,

 

Thanks for reply, it is an N149 form which I have to fill in and return.

[The GodMother]

Directions for N150 or N149 Allocation questionnaire

 

This post might help u if not then just say and someone should help you.

 

Allocationquestionairres should also help u with draft directions so if there are any docs u want them to provide then you can put those in with the AQ and the judge will look at them.

Edited March 6, 2010 by The GodMother
found what l was looking for.

[m2000]

Thanks! I will have a read through, am sure I will be asking more questions soon though!!

 

I do need to try and get disclosure of the lease agreement, order form for the vehicle etc etc.

 

Thanks again!

[The GodMother]

you need disclosure of everything that will help your case. where that is proof of lease agreement or even payments you have made then you need it.

[The GodMother]

Just an idea but have you any way of contacting the 2 ppl that have left who are not being charged for there cars? They may hold valuable evidence which could be used.

[m2000]

I have kept in contact with one of them.

 

This person happens to be a daughter of senior management who left employment a month or so before me and didn't pay anything despite upgraded car, she also commenced employment at the same time as I was on the induction course with her.

 

One issue... I am not sure whether it would stand-up in court.. the conversation I had was on 'Facebook chat' on the internet, it shows her name clearly and basically shows that she was not made to pay anything back.... I have kept a copy of that conversation saved on my PC.

 

The other member of staff is no longer on any of the numbers I have, and I do not have the address for contacting him that way.

 

 

I am worrying about how I get this all worded-up, i.e. structure the request for documents. is it literally a case of bullet-pointing the documents I want details of?

 

I have put a lot of the documents onto the defence I submitted already... do these need to go onto the AQ as well??

 

thanks again!

M2000

[The GodMother]

hmmm

 

personally i would put in a list of docs u need. you need to in a way do a cpr 18 request as that is like a SAR request.

 

Maybe you should in your AQ draft directions as for the file of information they have on you and then from theresee if anything is relivant.

 

Something tells me that something strange is going on especially if one of the is a senior manager daughter.

[m2000]

yes- very fishy, given the fact that the senior manager's daughther:

 

1. Started at the same time as me (was on same induction course)

2. Was employed within the same role

3. Recieved the same salary package (all on the course did)

4. Had an upgraded car

5. Left a month or so earlier than myself with no upgraded car liability

6. It is common knowledge that the person above was a complete failiure within the role.

 

 

The only thing is, that I have recently found out that another member of staff (although not on the same course as me) left and HAS been asked to repay...

 

It still smacks of unfairness though, at least 2 other members of staff (same position and package) have left of their own accord and been chased for the car costs, yet those who were not succesfull and were *maybe* managed out, did not have to pay anything!!!

 

Sorry- needed a good vent!!

[The GodMother]

No its ok as i can understand your frustrated. As you can imagine everybody who finds this site is frustrated in some way b4 they get here and for a while afterwards when creditors are not playing ball.

 

Anyway yes i do smell a rat with these 2 ppl thoone of them being senior managements daughter makes it even more suspicious.

 

I will try and get u help from a more knowledgable person on what docs u need.

[m2000]

Hello again All,

 

Well, not heard anything, I thought that *may* have been in contact and offered to resolve it all out of court... it appears not!

 

I have got a few days (until 18th) to get my AQ returned, does anyone have anything to add?

 

I am ok with most of the AQ, but am not sure how to explain and layout text, basically in the section which allows you to make any additional comments...

[MrShed]

I dont think this one will settle outside of court.

 

I dont know about AQ details I'm afraid. If no-one comes along, I would perhaps click the red triangle to ask a mod to come along and advise if possible.

[m2000]

Hi All,

 

Right, I am in the process of completing the AQ. Under section G- Other information, I have so far drafted the following:

 

 

" In the XXXXX County Court

Claim number XXXXXXX

 

XXXXXXXX (Claimant) -- V-- Mr M2000 (Defendant)

N149 Allocation Questionnaire

 

Section G – Other Information

 

1. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the amount claimed against him could not have been mitigated by an early termination of the vehicle lease or by the downgrading of the vehicle in question to a lesser model

 

In order to establish the true situation I request a copy of the lease agreement in place between Inscape Fleet Solutions and XXXXXX.

 

2. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that they have failed to charge the current driver of this vehicle for the upgrade. In this regard, I respectfully request a true copy of the vehicle order form which was signed by the current employee driving the vehicle"

 

 

Am I doing this/wording this in the right way? Doesn't the fact that I have already pointed out the issues in my submitted defence mean I am simply duplicating myself??

 

I am really struggling to think of what other requests I should put on this?

 

*Confused!*

 

Many thanks

[m2000]

bumpety bump

[The GodMother]

M2000

 

I have put a link to the threadin the employment formus but they are saying if you want help u need to go over there.

 

I will ask a mod to help u out.

[m2000]

Hi GM,

 

Thanks for your reply and continued support.

 

I need to get the AQ returned by Wednesday PM, so need to get my skates on and fill it out..

[The GodMother]

I have asked mods to help out due to not being my area of speciality.

 

You migt want to post in the employment section but then it will mean telling them everything again.