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

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Oh I see action in tort. Well there is section 32 of course.

 

But since the agreement would not have been correctly terminated it would not be relevant, can't terminate an active CCA agreement without a Default notice, kind of the whole point.

 

Anyway none of this is helping the OP.

 

The agreement had gone past its term sadly.

 

JHC. You just can't help some people.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Unsubscribing

 

Yes, I think that's for the best.

[Peterbard]

If you would like some instruction on procedure regarding termination of an agreement and statute bar GG start a new thread.

[applecart]

Let's say agent lied about options meaning vehicle wrongly surrendered. OP has good claim against creditor for negligent misstatement, breach of contract, breach of statutory duty, whatever. The limitation period is 6 years. What is being suggested is that because the OP's rights were concealed from him, limitation is extended. Wrong. The rights in question are a matter of law, you can't conceal the law from anyone as evryone is deemed to know the law. You cannot misrepresent the law.

 

So the OP is shafted on limitation.

 

Hi Gaston

 

I mean no offence, but...if you read section 32 alongside your comments posted above it may make more sense to you as to where it is the Law works in favor of the OP.

 

As I interpret Section 32 ...... it is there to protect innocent consumers like the OP seek redress as and when and if they find out they have been 'shafted' (not a word I prefer to use myself, I merely coin your phrase).

 

In accepting that we are all deemed to know the Law - it would be remiss to be deemed to know about section 32 and then simply ignore it ......or to mis-represent - that it will not assist the OP to take action against the Lender on the premise that 6 yrs have passed since the agreement was terminated - put simply......it is there for exactly circumstances such as the OP's.....

 

Hopefully, we can agree that as we are deemed to know the law - that we are using the right law - in the right circumstance - and can now move to assist the OP move this matter forward????

 

As I understand it - she has 8 weeks to respond to the Lenders letter - which I am looking at now and will post a draft response for your consideration - I'm hopeful you will assist and correct as and where you see fit?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Apple

[applecart]

This is the draft letter I made reference to:

 

Dear Ms Gannon

 

Thank you for your kind response to my letter dated [insert date], the detail of which I have noted.

 

I am grateful to learn that you have removed my telephone number from your system, however, it is with regret that I am obliged to advise you that I do not consider that you have fully addressed or concluded my complaint made.

 

Formal termination of the hire purchase agreement was my civil right within the provision of CCA 1974 section 99 (1).

 

Where you point to: ‘there may be outstanding monies for which I am liable’ – such liability was only relevant up to the termination date being the 9th June 2005 pursuant to CCA 1974 section 100 (1).

 

I would draw your attention to the account statement, it confirms that on the 22nd April 2005 I had paid one-third of the total price due under the agreement, meaning that I had the right to terminate the agreement pursuant to CCA 1974 section 99 (1), at the time your agent visited with me. By statute, the vehicle was protected against repossession within the provision of CCA 1974 section 90 (1), so that repossession of the vehicle without a court order was a breach of the agreement and is subject to the consequence of CCA 1974 section 91, for the benefit of doubt:

 

CCA 1974 s.90 Retaking of protected hire-purchase etc. goods.

(1) At any time when—

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

CCA 1974 s.91 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.

 

CCA 1974 s.99 Right to terminate hire-purchase etc. agreements.

(1) At any time before the final payment by the debtor under a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement falls due, the debtor shall be entitled to terminate the agreement by giving notice to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement.

(2) Termination of an agreement under subsection (1) does not affect any liability under the agreement which has accrued before the termination.

 

Having terminated the agreement on the 9th June 2005, my only liability up to that point should have been calculated within the provision of CCA 1974 section 100:

 

100 Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc. agreement.

(1) Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

 

I would be grateful for you to reconsider my complaint and take into account your position from the standpoint stated herein.

 

In the event that you deem that you cannot or indeed; are not willing to fully address my complaint at this time, would you be good enough to let me know at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

[signature]

[print name]

 

 

Let's continue to assist the OP - and keep within the spirit of the CaG - Thoughts please??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi HE

 

Please note: The draft letter - makes no mention of the fact that the agreement was and is unenforceable - I have left that issue out at this stage purposely - simply because if they can be found not to be reasonable at this stage - it will more than likely go against them should the matter end up in court.....

 

Apple

[HadEnough]

Hi Apple,

Thanks once again for your help with the letter.

 

I have come on to check my thread after a few days away and found loads of posts that i now need to read through.

 

In response to the Gastons comment 'you can't conceal the law from anyone as everyone is deemed to know the law '

 

I can only say that i did ask if I had the right to terminate as i had lost my copy of the agreement at the time and not only did they refused to send me one,

they also said that i had not paid enough.

 

The average laymen like myself especially at the age I was then are quite naive when it comes to the law.

 

The 'Debt advisor was also so intimidating that I felt pushed into a corner and buliied into making a decision.

If only I knew then what i know now.

 

With regards to the 6 years statute limitations surely as the account is still running this does not count?

[Peterbard]

Yes there is some case-law, provided by Sequency

 

The Judgment in Rover v Siddons

 

Traditionally, we have relied on published arguments when we made out 'penalty clause' defences to finance company claims. Whilst companies settled out of Court, often to the Defendant's benefit, it was not possible to use these cases as a basis for future argument. A recent decision in the Leicester County Court, although not a binding precedent, now offers a useful and persuasive basis for argument in future disputes with finance companies.

 

The case in question involved a consumer who bought a car on hire purchase, but then fell behind with his payments. The consumer did not understand, or try to exercise, his right to terminate at any point. Eventually the finance company served a default notice and terminated the agreement. The finance company repossessed and sold the car. Some time later they sued the consumer for the full cost settlement, making reference to a liquidated damages clause in the agreement. The District Judge also made it clear that the consumer’s entitlement to terminate the agreement was only extinguished at moment when the creditor terminated. It was therefore right to assess the finance company’s losses by reference to sections 99 and 100 of the Consumer Credit Act. The liquidated damages clause was found to be an unenforceable penalty clause and the claim was dismissed.

 

Sounds like concealment to me

 

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=1054

 

This may be way forward for the OP IMO.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Dodgeball
may be

[HadEnough]

Unsubscribing

 

I am sorry to see you go

 

I have appreciated your input and you have helped me understand a lot. Thanks

Edited June 26, 2013 by HadEnough
spelling mistake

[HadEnough]

crossed threads then.

[Peterbard]

Hi Gaston

 

I mean no offence, but...if you read section 32 alongside your comments posted above it may make more sense to you as to where it is the Law works in favor of the OP.

 

As I interpret Section 32 ...... it is there to protect innocent consumers like the OP seek redress as and when and if they find out they have been 'shafted' (not a word I prefer to use myself, I merely coin your phrase).

 

In accepting that we are all deemed to know the Law - it would be remiss to be deemed to know about section 32 and then simply ignore it ......or to mis-represent - that it will not assist the OP to take action against the Lender on the premise that 6 yrs have passed since the agreement was terminated - put simply......it is there for exactly circumstances such as the OP's.....

 

Hopefully, we can agree that as we are deemed to know the law - that we are using the right law - in the right circumstance - and can now move to assist the OP move this matter forward????

 

As I understand it - she has 8 weeks to respond to the Lenders letter - which I am looking at now and will post a draft response for your consideration - I'm hopeful you will assist and correct as and where you see fit?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Apple

 

 

Yes, there is also an argument that the SOL doesn't apply at all, if the contract was unfairly terminated, it is just that, this is not a tort, the OP is not seeking an "action" they are seeking to correctly terminate the contract.

Under section 99. the cause of action for her to reclaim damages would commence when the agreement was correctly terminated by her.(I would argue)

[HadEnough]

This is the draft letter I made reference to:

 

Dear Ms Gannon

 

Thank you for your kind response to my letter dated [insert date], the detail of which I have noted.

 

I am grateful to learn that you have removed my telephone number from your system, however, it is with regret that I am obliged to advise you that I do not consider that you have fully addressed or concluded my complaint made.

 

Formal termination of the hire purchase agreement was my civil right within the provision of CCA 1974 section 99 (1).

 

Where you point to: ‘there may be outstanding monies for which I am liable’ – such liability was only relevant up to the termination date being the 9th June 2005 pursuant to CCA 1974 section 100 (1).

 

I would draw your attention to the account statement, it confirms that on the 22nd April 2005 I had paid one-third of the total price due under the agreement, meaning that I had the right to terminate the agreement pursuant to CCA 1974 section 99 (1), at the time your agent visited with me. By statute, the vehicle was protected against repossession within the provision of CCA 1974 section 90 (1), so that repossession of the vehicle without a court order was a breach of the agreement and is subject to the consequence of CCA 1974 section 91, for the benefit of doubt:

 

CCA 1974 s.90 Retaking of protected hire-purchase etc. goods.

(1) At any time when—

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

CCA 1974 s.91 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.

 

CCA 1974 s.99 Right to terminate hire-purchase etc. agreements.

(1) At any time before the final payment by the debtor under a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement falls due, the debtor shall be entitled to terminate the agreement by giving notice to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement.

(2) Termination of an agreement under subsection (1) does not affect any liability under the agreement which has accrued before the termination.

 

Having terminated the agreement on the 9th June 2005, my only liability up to that point should have been calculated within the provision of CCA 1974 section 100:

 

100 Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc. agreement.

(1) Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

 

I would be grateful for you to reconsider my complaint and take into account your position from the standpoint stated herein.

 

In the event that you deem that you cannot or indeed; are not willing to fully address my complaint at this time, would you be good enough to let me know at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

[signature]

[print name]

 

 

Let's continue to assist the OP - and keep within the spirit of the CaG - Thoughts please??

 

Apple

 

I just need to clarify the below sentence in the letter. Should it say half? I had had paid that much and it is half that I needed to have paid to terminate. Just checking as I might be reading it in the wrong context.

 

'it confirms that on the 22nd April 2005 I had paid one-third of the total price due under the agreement, meaning that I had the right to terminate the agreement pursuant to CCA 1974 section 99 (1),'

[HadEnough]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44783[/ATTACH]

Thought I'd post this letter in response to the sar request i sent last year...

They like to contradict themselves a lot.

I am going to enclose this and a copy of my letter as proof of SAR request with the letter Apple has wrote for me being as they have stated that I have not paid for one...

Edited June 27, 2013 by HadEnough

[HadEnough]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]44784[/ATTACH]

[HadEnough]

Its hard to read, yet again me and my terrible pc skills...

word for word it says:

 

Blue stone credit management ltd has throughly investigated your account and has taken on board the point you have raised in your previous document that you have sent to us.

Due to the original agreement being taken out in 2005 we are under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the original agreement or any other documentation produced six years prior to this letter.

Therefore your request shall not be acted upon, which we are legally entitled to decline.

We can also confirm that we do not deem your account to be statute barred as you ahve acknowledged the debt through making payments to us up till 19/12/2011.

It is important that payments against the outstanding balance recommence as you are currently at risk of possible litigation action from occurring against you.

 

So basically its statute barred at their end for info but not at mine for payment, Hmmm.

[Peterbard]

I don't think they will be relying on the SOL regarding the production of documents. It is recognised practice that these can only be expected to retained for six years, reference is usually drawn to the money laundering regulations when the subject arises, but I think I am right in saying the these do not state the figure as a definite limit but rather as a guideline.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Dodgeball

[dx100uk]

you need to PDF attachments.

dx

[applecart]

I just need to clarify the below sentence in the letter. Should it say half? I had had paid that much and it is half that I needed to have paid to terminate. Just checking as I might be reading it in the wrong context.

 

'it confirms that on the 22nd April 2005 I had paid one-third of the total price due under the agreement, meaning that I had the right to terminate the agreement pursuant to CCA 1974 section 99 (1),'

 

Hi HE

 

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you...

 

The 22 April 2005 is the 'relevant date' when the vehicle was protected in Law from possession without an order from the court.

 

The finance company are wholly misguided in seeking to suggest otherwise. (I'm loving Ms Gannon's letter - she is doing herself no favors right now)

 

Please do not change the statement made or amend it.

 

The letter you send to her - should you decide to do so - will give her the opportunity to correct herself or not as the case may be - whichsoever stance she adopts will be addressed either way....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Yes there is some case-law, provided by Sequency

 

The Judgment in Rover v Siddons

 

Traditionally, we have relied on published arguments when we made out 'penalty clause' defences to finance company claims. Whilst companies settled out of Court, often to the Defendant's benefit, it was not possible to use these cases as a basis for future argument. A recent decision in the Leicester County Court, although not a binding precedent, now offers a useful and persuasive basis for argument in future disputes with finance companies.

 

The case in question involved a consumer who bought a car on hire purchase, but then fell behind with his payments. The consumer did not understand, or try to exercise, his right to terminate at any point. Eventually the finance company served a default notice and terminated the agreement. The finance company repossessed and sold the car. Some time later they sued the consumer for the full cost settlement, making reference to a liquidated damages clause in the agreement. The District Judge also made it clear that the consumer’s entitlement to terminate the agreement was only extinguished at moment when the creditor terminated. It was therefore right to assess the finance company’s losses by reference to sections 99 and 100 of the Consumer Credit Act. The liquidated damages clause was found to be an unenforceable penalty clause and the claim was dismissed.

 

Sounds like concealment to me

 

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=1054

 

This may be way forward for the OP IMO.

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

I've had a very quick look at this info - this is absolutely brilliant....it more than appears to support that which has been said in the draft letter.

 

Like HE has already stated and I agree - your input is so useful - you simply cannot 'unsubscribe'

 

I'm humbled by your knowledge and ability to track useful info - Thanks again for working to uphold and maintain the spirit of the CaG : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Its hard to read, yet again me and my terrible pc skills...

word for word it says:

 

Blue stone credit management ltd has throughly investigated your account and has taken on board the point you have raised in your previous document that you have sent to us.

Due to the original agreement being taken out in 2005 we are under no obligation to provide you with a copy of the original agreement or any other documentation produced six years prior to this letter.

Therefore your request shall not be acted upon, which we are legally entitled to decline.

We can also confirm that we do not deem your account to be statute barred as you ahve acknowledged the debt through making payments to us up till 19/12/2011.

It is important that payments against the outstanding balance recommence as you are currently at risk of possible litigation action from occurring against you.

 

So basically its statute barred at their end for info but not at mine for payment, Hmmm.

 

eeerm, keep a hold of that letter - it will be very useful to you in due course : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Yes, there is also an argument that the SOL doesn't apply at all, if the contract was unfairly terminated, it is just that, this is not a tort, the OP is not seeking an "action" they are seeking to correctly terminate the contract.

Under section 99. the cause of action for her to reclaim damages would commence when the agreement was correctly terminated by her.(I would argue)

 

I'm not sure if I totally understand where you are coming from here Dodgeball.... sorry : (

 

As I understand it...

 

There is no issue with regard to whether the agreement was terminated fairly or not - the fact is the agreement was terminated by the OP as the 'debtor'....the VS is evidences the termination on the 9th June 2005 - 3 mths after the third way mark had been achieved....

 

The vehicle was protected since 22nd April 2005 - third paid - court order necessary... no such order was ever applied for....

 

The Voluntary Surrender form - was the OP's formal termination of the agreement - the OP had a right to do so - it was done before the final payment under the agreement became due - section 99 applied

 

To quote from the link you posted:

 

"Where a consumer terminates a regulated hire purchase agreement, it is well known that their liability is limited by the '50% rule' in the Consumer Credit Act"

 

"Sections 99 and 100 set out the debtor's liability on voluntary termination. The sections are complex, but their main effect can be summarised in brief as follows. If the sum of payments made and arrears before termination exceeds 50% of the total price, than the debtor is only liable to pay the arrears. Otherwise, the debtor is liable to pay half the total price, less any payments already made" and so on and on...

 

For me, without more....I can see no reason why the OP should be led to even think that there is a need to terminate or 'correctly terminate' again....

 

The issue is... why is the OP still paying when the agreement was lawfully terminated - after a time, when not only the third way mark had been achieved - in relation to protection from possession without an order of the court - but also - more than 50% of the total amount under the agreement had been paid at the 9th June 2005.

 

If we accept that the OP terminated on the 9th June 2005 - and we then accept that the limitation period started from that time - it would be assumed that the OP has no right to bring a claim against the finance company after 9th June 2011.

 

However - we have a finance company here who have not applied the law correctly upon accepting the termination of the agreement... they have failed to recognise that the liability after termination did not lawfully extend past there having been paid to them 50% of the total amount due under the agreement...they have kept a terminated agreement alive in the misguided belief that they were entitled to the full amount outstanding under the agreement.....instead of terminating the agreement.... it would appear that they passed the alleged debt on to an 'agent' - who are of course now themselves liable to accept total liability to the damages likely to be claimed and more likely than not to be awarded to the OP....

 

If the finance company persist in the mistaken belief - then there will be no avoiding a claim being brought within the provision of section 32.

 

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

 

(1) Subject to subsection (3) 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."

 

Like I say, I was unsure of where you were coming from, so thought best to give a better insight as to how I am seeing this unfold - so that you can let me know if I have totally lost your point or there is something more that needs to be taken into account that I may be totally missing?

 

Apple

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

As I understand it...

 

There is no issue with regard to whether the agreement was terminated fairly or not - the fact is the agreement was terminated by the OP as the 'debtor'....the VS is evidences the termination on the 9th June 2005 - 3 mths after the third way mark had been achieved....

 

The vehicle was protected since 22nd April 2005 - third paid - court order necessary... no such order was ever applied for....

 

The Voluntary Surrender form - was the OP's formal termination of the agreement - the OP had a right to do so - it was done before the final payment under the agreement became due - section 99 applied

 

No, the agreement was not terminated by the OP or anyone else for that matter. The OP has confirmed that the term of the agreement expired in Jan 2005, so can't possibly have VTed in June 2005. The issue of a VT is quote simply irrelevant.

 

The issue is whether the VS was correctly obtained, or did the creditor need a court order. The OP's story is the latter, so in that case the OP had a right to reclaim all monies paid under s91 as retaking of protected goods. Concealment and s32 of the Limitation Act just don't come into it. The right to VT was not concealed from the OP because the OP had no such right after Jan 2005. A claim under s91 expired in Jun 2011 and that is that.

[Peterbard]

HI Apple

 

Firstly thanks fo the kind words although I am not sure they are justified on this particular instance.

 

My point was that the SOL depends on cause of action which in contractual terms is usually a breach, the termination of a contract is not a breach, the contract is either terminated or it isn't, if a contract is unlawfully terminated it just means that it wasn't terminated at all.(that is the argument anyway).

 

As for concealment, I see no reason why the unlawful repossession under the act could not be concealed if the OP was not aware that it was in fact unlawful. This is after all the basis of all belated claims under the SOL, in the case of illegal charges for instance.

 

Anyway just my opinion.

[HadEnough]

Hi HE

 

Apologies for the delay in coming back to you...

 

The 22 April 2005 is the 'relevant date' when the vehicle was protected in Law from possession without an order from the court.

 

The finance company are wholly misguided in seeking to suggest otherwise. (I'm loving Ms Gannon's letter - she is doing herself no favors right now)

 

Please do not change the statement made or amend it.

 

The letter you send to her - should you decide to do so - will give her the opportunity to correct herself or not as the case may be - whichsoever stance she adopts will be addressed either way....

 

Apple

 

Ok thanks Apple, I'll send as is although I will enclose proof of sar request from last year too.

[applecart]

No, the agreement was not terminated by the OP or anyone else for that matter. The OP has confirmed that the term of the agreement expired in Jan 2005, so can't possibly have VTed in June 2005. The issue of a VT is quote simply irrelevant.

 

The issue is whether the VS was correctly obtained, or did the creditor need a court order. The OP's story is the latter, so in that case the OP had a right to reclaim all monies paid under s91 as retaking of protected goods. Concealment and s32 of the Limitation Act just don't come into it. The right to VT was not concealed from the OP because the OP had no such right after Jan 2005. A claim under s91 expired in Jun 2011 and that is that.

 

Hi Gaston,

 

I'm sorry, I admit, you have totally confused me...that is not unusual by the way - I'm easily confused these days.. I must be getting old - no need to respond to the 'getting old' bit by the way - lol

 

For the benefit of doubt, I have come to my conclusion based on the evidence shown in the account statement - not by what the OP is alleged to have said in posts alone....

 

The account statement confirms that the agreement was due to expire on the 28.06.2005....not in Jan 2005 as alleged....

 

The third way mark and the amount is shown on the Agreement itself (albeit the figure is erroneous)

 

The third way mark and confirmation that it was attained is show on the account statement as being the 22.04.2005

 

The OP signed a VS (lenders terms)...VS = notice of termination (debtors terms, Legal term within the provision of s.99) on the 09.06.2005.... there is nothing in section 99 that refers to the 'form' of the notice....

 

If you can point me to the legislation where it necessitates that the VS is considered 'correctly obtained'.. or not as the case may be.... I will of course look into it.

 

I think again, I will need your help further on the second point you make...

 

I don't think it is only section 91 that applies to the OP's circumstance....

 

The reason section 32 comes into it... and you may not agree... but hear me out.....is simply because what should have happened - is the lender should have ended the agreement on notice of termination(or VS if you prefer to use this term) and closed the account down....there should have been no liability past the 50% mark under any circumstance levied upon the OP....

 

Section 32.... and I repeat... is the OP's only opportunity.... given as you quite rightly point out... to bring a claim against the Lender....

 

The lender has clearly concealed the fact that the OP should not be paying any money to it and has concealed this fact since 2005!!!

 

Regrettably for the Lender, the OP has found out....and the right to bring a claim is extended in favor of the OP outside of the normal 6 yr limitation period....

 

I think where you say..."The right to VT was not concealed from the OP because the OP had no such right after Jan 2005" ........when in fact, the right to VT was at all times legally available to the OP since 22 April 2005 on an agreement that was not intended to expire until 26.06.2005??

 

It may be that you still feel the OP has no right to sue since June 2011.... but, I know I'm getting old.... and I accept that.... but, I think in this particular case the OP would best be guided to rely on the Law and the facts that can be evidenced as being the truth....

 

Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from?

 

Apple