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

[HadEnough]

Hi,

I bought a car on HP in 2002 and paid monthly for it.

 

Unfortunately I went through a rough patch and missed the last 3 payments of the agreement.

 

This was jan 2005, I was supposed to pay the total amount to end agreement or give it back after these last three payments.

 

I was contacted by someone who dealt with these issues who then came to see me,

by then i had the money to cover the payments i had missed but he said unless I paid the total amount straightaway then they would get a court order and repossess it

 

.i did not have 5000 pounds. I was told ( and I have a witness to confirm) That if I didn't surrendered it there and then I would end up with court costs and a CCJ.

 

Foolishly I did as I was told, he was very sincere and I was very young and naive.

 

The car was then sold by auction and I am still paying off the difference between the sale price and what I owe.

 

Thr car was an MG Rover which I know are now not around.

 

Can anyone advise me on whether I have a right to try and claim my money back?

 

If so, who shall I correspond with?

I do realise its just past the 6 years since I surrendered it but i'm hoping as I'm still paying that its an open case still,

also I only found this out as I was looking to see if I can claim back the PPI as I'm self employed which is why I haven't done this sooner.

( couldn't find my paperwork at the time that it was taken)

I feel very stupid for falling for this con so please go easy on me

Edited December 4, 2011 by HadEnough
bad english!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have asked others to take alook for you.

[HadEnough]

thanks

[dx100uk]

yes you can reclaim

 

sounds like you were diddled to hang on a mo.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

you can reclaim the PPI and the unlawful charges

 

[late/missed/letter/phone/debt mediation]

 

i bet all those show.

 

i think it best you SAR them first

unless you have all the statements.

 

here is a text file i often refer too:

 

If this is a regulated hire purchase/conditional sale agreement where the car is specifically mentioned on the agreement,

and you have paid more than one third of the total purchase price,

they can only repossess the vehicle with either a court order or your consent.

 

if it is a fixed sum loan agreement (personal loan), no mention of the car at all, they can't touch the car,

 

they are stuffed as far as repo goes. they can't even obtain a court order for a repo,

 

the only way they would be allowed to take the car is if you gave them consent to do so.

 

if you initially gave consent by signing the VS form its ok,

but the key is that that consent is revocable.

 

In other words, it still has to exist at the time of repossession.

 

if they take the car, it is highly arguable that you had withdrawn your consent when they took the vehicle (otherwise why would you deny them access?).

 

If they did repo without your consent, then the good news is that the CCA requires them to repay you everything you have paid under the agreement,

including your deposit - so effectively you will have had a totally free car for the time you had it.

 

dx

[HadEnough]

Thats great!

how do i go about it?

[dx100uk]

what bit?

 

get that sar off first

 

library green tab top left

 

dx

[HadEnough]

Sorry I only noticed first message!

I offered to pay the arrears but he refused to take anything but the total amount,

my boyfriend asked if I'd paid enough towards the car so that they couldn't do that

and he said that i needed to have paid half the total cost of the car which I had just come short of.

 

This I now know was a lie, he was very convinciing, sincere and sympathetic.

 

I tell you this as I did sign to surrender my car after i was given no other option. it was pay full amount or they would definately get a court order.

 

i was told this way i wouldn't get bad credit or more costs.

Obviously if i had know my rights and the truth I would Not have surrendered it.

I hope I do have a chance..

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Please listen to the advice DX100 is giving you, you are getting

excellent help.

Brig.

[HadEnough]

Don't worry i am! Any help with getting this mess sorted is deeply appreciated.

i am just worried now that it will look like i have just signed it over to them willingly which was only the case after I was told I had no choice.

I will send a SAR asap.

thanks

[HadEnough]

The company I am paying back the arrears to is close credit management BTW

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

You say you missed the last 3 payments on the car

- so why weren't the arrears the same as the balance when they came to collect it?

 

Think you'll find you are statute barred for claiming your money back though,

your cause of action started when they took the car which was more than 6 years ago.

 

Might possibly be able to reclaim payments made in the last 6 years though, as payments made by mistake.

[HadEnough]

It was one of those hp agreements that meant you didn't put a large deposit down at the beginning but you had to either settle in full after the three years was up if you wanted to keep it or give it back.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Ah - you mean a balloon payment? So you missed your last three normal payments plus the final (large) payment?

[HadEnough]

Yes thats the one. i was intending to trade it back in for another car but they wouldn't except the arrears without the final payment .

[jimbob67]

Hi all.

I'm new here but my understanding of the statute barred rule is that this isn't barred, the OP is still paying for this car, surely that means that the clock isn't even ticking? Nevermind already barred.

Also to my understanding the OP could argue that she was mislead into signing the car over so the statute could be waved, using the same arguements as the bank charge claiments? I know that I've read of dozens of stituations where this has happened?

 

I am now hiding behind the settee waiting to be shot down.

[dx100uk]

we dont operate like that here

else how do people learn......

 

you are correct in what you are saying.

 

however, in this case, its the otherway around

he would like to get his payments back!

 

as for the bombshell he is paying CCM, that proves he has been cash-cowed.

 

the OC wrote this off years ago - or didn't even require anymore payments as the deal was done.

 

but sold ir on for some reason, khowing they would never get anything themselves

 

i bet CCM fired off a few scary letters or phone call or doorstepping

anf the OP fell for it.

 

this SAR is going to be VERY interesting reading.

 

dx

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Hi all.

I'm new here but my understanding of the statute barred rule is that this isn't barred, the OP is still paying for this car, surely that means that the clock isn't even ticking? Nevermind already barred.

Also to my understanding the OP could argue that she was mislead into signing the car over so the statute could be waved, using the same arguements as the bank charge claiments? I know that I've read of dozens of stituations where this has happened?

 

I am now hiding behind the settee waiting to be shot down.

 

The continuing payments are only relevant insofar as a claim is made against the debtor,

because each payment is an acknowledgement of the debt and therefore the 6 year clock starts running with each payment.

But it does not extend limitation generally, for any claim by either party.

 

For a claim by the debtor against the creditor,

the clock starts running as soon as the cause of action arises

- which was when the vehicle was repossessed.

Payments made by the debtor after that can't extend limitation.

 

As for the misleading,

the OP would have to prove fraud to get round limitation - which is nigh impossible.

Anything short of fraud, for example plain ignorance by the repo agents, would not be enough.

 

So I think a claim for the return of all monies paid up to the date of repossession would be doomed

- although there would be a case for reclaiming payments made in the last 6 years.

[HadEnough]

I do have a witness to the whole meeting with the repo guy and although I fear that you might be right, surely its worth the fight either way.

I have sent my SAR request and I am putting the account in dispute.

if i can get back the payments i have wrongfully paid to ccm plus ppi i will feel that justice has been done.

I will keep you posted.

fingers crossed its a quick reply...

[HadEnough]

I have just realised that the company in question MG went out of buisness but has been bought again by a company in china, will this mean anything to my claim for PPI in any way?

Edited December 7, 2011 by HadEnough
added some

[dx100uk]

nope they will inherit all rights and contracts etc

 

dx

[HadEnough]

That s good to know Dx thanks, every little detail is going through my head and making me worry.

[jimbob67]

The continuing payments are only relevant insofar as a claim is made against the debtor, because each payment is an acknowledgement of the debt and therefore the 6 year clock starts running with each payment. But it does not extend limitation generally, for any claim by either party. For a claim by the debtor against the creditor, the clock starts running as soon as the cause of action arises - which was when the vehicle was repossessed. Payments made by the debtor after that can't extend limitation. Please don't get me wrong I'm not an expert but I have made claims for bank charges and won. It's a long time since I've read the act but I seem to remember that there is provision within the act to cover situations like this, it says something along the lines of,,, The 6 year rule applies from the date which the claimant could reasonably be expected know they've been diddled,,,

 

 

As for the misleading, the OP would have to prove fraud to get round limitation - which is nigh impossible. Anything short of fraud, for example plain ignorance by the repo agents, would not be enough.

 

So I think a claim for the return of all monies paid up to the date of repossession would be doomed - although there would be a case for reclaiming payments made in the last 6 years.

 

Fraud is a criminal offence not a civil offence.

 

These are 2 separate and very different entities, the level of proof for each is very different,

as in the bank charges claims, it is a case of arguing that the company, institution or whatever had a responsibility to deal fairly with you,

within the law and within the terms of the contract,

 

if they, as a respectable firm, who you believed were acting within this framework,

then go on to provide you with misleading/untrue advice/instructions, for whatever reason, doesn't have to be fraud,

 

it could be something as simple as poor training and again the claimant has no need of absolute proof any of this,

then it is possible for the six year rule to be waived, but only if the claim is started within 6 years of the discovery of this.

 

This has been the basis of thousands of successful charges claims going back well beyond 20 years,

there's dozens of threads on this site which use this to claim beyond 6 years.

 

I am not trying to flame you in any way, I just believe that there is a way for the OP to go for the lot, it won't be easy and will need a lot of work but it is possible.

[dx100uk]

yes agreed

 

lets try and focus help to the op

 

dx

[HadEnough]

Quick update, recieved response to SAR,

 

a 3 line cover letter and five pages of what is obviously screen captures,

loads of abbrieviations and codes with nothing to help translate them into usable/understandable info.

 

The cover letter just says word for word,,

 

"I write in response to your recent subject object request (SAR).

Please find attached all documenbts held by blue stone credit management.

If you require any documents held by our client, you will need to send a SAR directly to them".

 

They haven't even said who their client is or provided an address for them. Because MG went bust I would assume it's not them.

 

I realise that this is completely non-compliant but i'm unsure how best to proceed.

 

My first thoughts are to write pointing out some of the more obvious omissions such as where is the contract between myself and the OC which they are collecting on,

where is the contract between themselves and the OC giving them the right to collect the alleged debt,

copies of correspondence between all 3 parties,

Proof of where, when and how much the car was sold for.

 

Then inform them of their non-compliance and that no further payments will be made

and ask them to either confirm that this is the total information they hold or to send any more info within 7 days.

 

Is this about right? Thanx