faireclareVbritish credit trust

[fairclaire]

Thanks to both for the useful information and help.

 

I think I will pursue the SAR first so that I am in posession of all the facts. That way I will know exactly what they are likely to throw at me if I take them to court.

 

I doubt the car was ever put through an MOT by them. In the letter they sent asking for the remainder of the money it said that the car was sold at auction for £400...a fraction of what it was worth. So it is possible they MOTd it but I think unlikely.

 

I have already written to them stating that what they did was unlawful and that I am entitled to my money back etc. Their reply to that they would await instructions from my solicitor. Well I haven't got a solicitor and can't afford one. That's why I'm on here trying to do it by myself.

 

I've thought long and hard about what I'm taking on and am under no illusions that's there's no guarantee I will win. The amount of money I would be claiming back would be just less than £5000 even with the costs. If I keep it to just claiming what I have paid to them then I can keep it in the small claims court.

 

Im prepared to risk whatever it costs to take them to small claims. Obviously I hope it wouldn't get that far and they would realise how many mistakes they've made along the way.

 

But for now I'll try yet again to get the SAR out of them and report them to the ICO. I think if I do one thing at a time I've more chance of getting it right....hopefully

 

Thanks again guys for the advice. much appreciated

 

Claire

[fairclaire]

Hi folks

 

At Last my SAR has arrived! It's amazing that I have because these muppets sent it to my old home address (the one I left in a hurry etc etc) The one I haven't lived in for 18 months!! All mycorrespondence to them has my current address on and they are well aware of where I live. Luckily the people who now live in the house (after opening the letter) asked a neighbour if they knew where I lived now. She didn't but knew someone who might...and so on. Anyway I have it now, although god knows how many people have read it in the meantime. So I'm not very happy about that for starters.

 

The documents themselves don't contain as much info as I'd hoped either. There is a statement of all my payments, a copy of all the original paperwork when I bought the car, copies of correspondence sent to me and a copy of a default notice and a printout from their computer system. The computer print out is a bit hard to understand in parts i.e. whoever input the details has used some sort of shorthand I don't really understand. The most disappointing thing is that there is very little on the circumstances surrounding the reposession.

 

There is a reference to contacting the reposession company on the computer printout and the figures that they paid to the reposession company are on the statement but that's about it really.

 

So after waiting so patiently for my SAR it doesn't really give me any more info than I had already. I'm not quite sure where I go from here now. Do I now write to them, as I have done before stating that I dispute that the car was abandonded, that they reposessed it illegally without a court order and politely asking for my money back as per the terms of my agreement with them and as per the Consumer credit act. Stating that I will take them to court if they fail to do this? Or is it worth asking the reposession company for a SAR. I don't know if they will still have any info on me.

 

My thinking was to base my claim on their failure to get a court order in the first place. I can see no reference to court order in my SAR so I assume they never even considered it. That means that the reposession company just turned up at my address both times totally unnanounced expecting to take the car. Out of interest is it up to BCT or the reposession company to apply for a court order? anyone know?

 

Does anyone have any advice to offer?

 

On a different note when reading through the statement I was horrified to read that I had been charged several 'letter fees' at a whopping £75 a time! that's the most I've seen anyone charge for a letter. Even solicitors don't charge that much! It amused me that they charge 69p for a late payment fee and £75 for a letter.

 

Also on one of the notes on the computer printout there were references to other people's accounts being in arrears/defaulted etc. This was in the form of a list (which I was included on) the list had peoples full names and agreement numbers. Naughty! not only have I got details of other people's accounts, anybody who might have saw my well-passed round SAR could have them as well!

 

But those are niggly things. My main concern is the question of where to go next. All advice would be much appreciated

 

Claire

[lookinforinfo]

As far as the shorthand is concerned, you can ask for an explanation of

the terms. I imagine they may be holding on to certain info which mayl be part of any forthcoming case.

 

It should be the creditor who applies for the Court Order.

I can't see you will get anything from the repo. company as whatever they have will not be personal data of yours. It will either be contact between them and BCT.

 

You can complain about BCT for two breaches of the Data Protection Act. The first is not

keeping accurate or up to date records. And the other is the revelation of other peoples data.

 

As for the £75 letters-if they were sent by the BCT, I would say they were

penalties, if they were sent by their solicitors, they may not be.

 

As long as their figures confirm that you had paid over 50% of the loan, then

send them a letter advising them that as their figures agree with yours, they

should not have removed your car without a Court Order. Accordingly in

compliance with their T&Cs, and the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you are asking for a refund of all your payments. Point out that they sent your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)

to the wrong address [breach of DPA]. The correct address was where they breached the

CCA and trespassed on private ground, by repossessing the car when it was

patently not abandoned. And give them seven days to resolve the

matter or face you in Court..

[fairclaire]

Thanks LFI

 

I was hoping you would reply. I was intending to do what you said more or less.

 

I have no probs writing to them asking them for money back/informing them I will take it to court. I'm not too bad at official sounding letters as I write them as part of my job. Do you think I should include the DP breaches as part of the same letter or make that a seperate issue?

 

As for the penalties, would love to make an issue of that but would take my claim over £5000 and not sure if it would be worth the risk. My claim will have to be for just what I paid them as it sits just below£5000 with no room for anything else (pity!)

 

Have read recent posts regarding claims over £5000 and costs involved if you lose. Although I think I have a good case, I don't think I could afford to take the risk

 

anyway

 

If that fails I will pee my pants if I have to fill in the official court stuff tho. The other claims I have in hand are for banks and it's easy to adjust a template here on the site. I might struggle with the court papers and will be glad of any help/guidance you or any other kind soul can offer.

 

Thanks again for the reply. i know i keep saying it but it really is very much appreciated.

 

Will keep posting as and when but after tomorrow I'm off to sunny Madrid for a few days (not sunny...it's apparently as cold there as it is here:( )

 

Take care

Claire

[lookinforinfo]

No reason why you can't take out a separate summons for the charges.

Although you might wait and see what happens with the car since the

money they are chasing you for may well be gone, and as you haven't paid them

yet have you? Might be a bit of a liberty asking for them back.

 

Wouldn't worry too much about the Court papers-they are not expecting

a work of art.

 

Just enjoy yourself in Madrid-its a lovely city, but as you say very cold in the winter.

[parasite_swatter]

A number of the letters I recieved from BCT were charged at £75 each - these were 'Notices of Termination' letters (I got 3 for the one contract!)

 

I was a bit puzzled about your comments about the penalties - surely you can only reclaim penalties that youve paid anyway, so they would be included?

[parasite_swatter]

A number of the letters I recieved from BCT were charged at £75 each - these were 'Notices of Termination' letters (I got 3 for the one contract!)

 

I was a bit puzzled about your comments about the penalties - surely you can only reclaim penalties that youve paid anyway, so they would be included?

[fairclaire]

Hiya

 

I'm back. Madrid was cold! but lovely just the same and I had a great time anyway.

 

Parasite swatter. I wasn't thinking about claiming for the £75 charges for the last letters they sent me regarding arrears and the default etc. I think that would be a bit cheeky seeing as I still owed them money. There were a few other times in the past that I had been charged for late payments/missed direct debits that I've been charged £75 for. There aren't many but at £75 a time they certainly add up!

 

Anyway I'm not too concerned about the charges.....just amazed that any company can arrive at that figure for what is probably a system issued letter with my details on.

 

No, for now I'm concentrating on going after the repayments made to them. I need to get my suitcase unpacked, thaw out and get some more decent coffee - black coffee is served in thimbles in Madrid and is so strong they might as well just give you a caffeine injection - yuk!

 

I'll start putting something together tonight and hopefully get it finished tomorrow.

 

Keep you posted

 

Claire

[fairclaire]

Hiya

 

I sent a letter back to BCT stating all the points raised previously and got a totally unbelievable answer from them!!

 

You won't believe this!

 

They claim that their recovery agent spoke to the occupant of my then address who confirmed I didn't live there and who signed an 'abandoned vehicle questionnaire' and that 'that person' has signed this questionnaire.

 

I was incensed to say the very least. I was staying at the home of my best mate(of 20 years) an she was definately working away over 300 mles away at the time. no-one else lives in the house so there was absolutely no-one else there at the time of the repossession.

 

Until now I have avoided telephone contact with BCT but I was totally enraged by this and telephoned them. I asked them for the name of the person who had signed this form. Their answer was that it wasn't clear from the signature what the name was. I replied that surely the form contained more info than just a signature? Answer: not really...there's just some stuff about the car!!!!

 

I then asked why this document was not contained in my SAR. The reply to that was this document belonged to the recovery agent therefore was not covered by what info they held on me?? I then restrained myself and pointed out that if she (the totally incompetent person I was speaking to) was reading from it then it was classed as information that they held about me and should have been included in the SAR. I got nowhere with that argument and finally agreed to put my grievances in writing. But did warn them that if a satisfactory answer was not recieved very soon I would be proceeding to court.

 

I can't believe this. I don't believe for a minute that this document existed before I sent my letter pointing out their failings and threatening to take them to court. I know for a fact no-one at my address at the time signed it. And even if that were a remote possibility why not mention it before now? I have had so much correspondence with them over this and when I threaten court they produce a 'document' which says I abandoned my car there and somebody said so. Therefore they were justified....I don't think so!

 

I'm still ranting a bit because it makes me so!! mad. I have enough evidence to prove I was living there at the time, my mate has evidence that she is the home owner and was absent at the time. I now really want them to produce that document in court and explain just who has signed it.

 

As this letter from them didn't really answer anything I put in my letter to them and I agreed I would put my grievances in writing I have written them another letter. It contains some of the original letter and some new points. But I did write it when I was totally mad and hopefully it's ok?

 

Bear in mind I recieved no answer to my grievances over the SAR muck up or basically anything else I asked them

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account: xx

I ve now received the information that I requested from you in my Subject Access Request (SAR) dated 4th December 2006. I would like to point out that this data was sent to the wrong address (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). I have not lived at this address for some time as you are well aware. I have only received the information after it has been opened by the new householder of the address and passed around neighbours and friends until it finally reached me. All my recent correspondence to you has had my current address on it and I can see no reason why you would send such sensitive and private information to an address where you know I do not live. You have already pointed out in a letter to me dated June 22 2006 tthat it was established that I no longer lived there. This means that you have been aware that for at least 20 months that I no longer live at this address. I am sure that you well aware that this is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act (1998) and as such I will be reporting this matter to the Information Commissioners office. I will also be providing them with a copy of a document contained within my SAR that has details and account numbers of 4 other customers. I am sure that these customers would be alarmed to have their details and circumstances disclosed to a complete stranger.

I have had time to go through the bundle of documents sent to me. I cannot find any reference anywhere in those papers to the application for a court order to repossess my vehicle.

I’m sure that you are aware that under section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act. There is a requirement to obtain a court order before recovery action is taken.

90.—(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.

 

This means that you employed the services of a recovery agent to repossess the vehicle knowing that you had not obtained a court order as required by law. I can find no part of The Consumer Credit Act (1974) which states that there is any exception to the requirement for a court order.

Section 91 of The Consumer Credit Act goes on to say:

91. 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.

 

I have previously respectfully asked you to comply with section 91 of the Act by asking for all sums paid to be returned to me. You have refused my request.

This means that you have clearly breached both sections 90 and 91 of the Consumer Credit Act (1974). If you did apply for a court order to repossess the vehicle and for some reason this is not included in the documents requested in my Subject Access Request, I would be grateful if you could send me the relevant details.

I would also be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

• Why a court order was never obtained to repossess this vehicle before the matter was passed to the recovery agent? Did you have reason to believe that the Consumer Credit Act did not apply to my agreement with your company? Please bear in mind that abandonment was not an issue at this time as it was not decided that the vehicle had been abandoned until a second visit by the recovery agent.

• Apparently a signature was given by the householder of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to confirm that the vehicle was abandoned there (this has been strenuously denied by the person in question) Why is there no copy of this document in the SAR that I have received?

• Can you explain the relevant law which allows you to
  • Take the word of a third party that a vehicle has been abandoned
    
  • Allows a recovery agent to repossess a vehicle without a court order on those grounds.

I still dispute in the strongest possible terms that this vehicle was abandoned but regardless of that, the law surrounding repossession is very clear and has been blatantly ignored in this case. I would ask you to reconsider my request for reimbursement of all monies paid under this agreement.

If I do not get a reply from you within 14 days I will instigate proceedings to recover this money through the court. I will also seek to recover from you any costs involved in taking this matter to court.

I would also like to point out that the court may take a very dim view of not only the clear breaches of The Consumer Credit Act (1974) that you have committed but also the incompetent way my Subject Access Request has been handled resulting in a serious breach of the Data Protection Act (1998).

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

xxxxxxx

I have left the bit out about trespassing on private property purely because i thought the letter was getting to long and addressed too many issues. I did, however include this in the last letter. This issue along with everything else was not addressed.

I am so ready to take this to court now. These clowns have tried to take the total **** out of me and I really am mad.

Dothey really think that a non-existent (until now) piece of paper will make me go away?

I expected a fight and was prepared for that but I really didn't expect this. I have been honest and upfront about my situation and anything I did wrong. This just seems like a total panic measure to me.

All thoughts as ever much appreciated. Sorry for ranting....but it does make me mad!

Claire

[lookinforinfo]

Claire, I can well see why you are so incensed over this revelation. However,

if you think about it, this is very good news for you.

 

Why do people lie? They do so to get themselves out of trouble. They do so

to cover up a mistake. They do so when their case is weak-to make it look

stronger.

 

It is a shame that it was not BCT that lied, since that would have ruined

their credibility in Court. But the fact that the repo company have chosen to do so reflects the fact that the car was taken when it shouldn't have. Think

about it, Claire. If they were legitimately allowed to take the car, would they

have needed to lie?

 

You will need a sworn affidavit from your friend, confirming that apart from

your temporary visit, that they are the sole occupant of the property, and

some sort of receipt-hotel bill, train ticket, petrol or credit card receipt issued

up there, to prove that they could not have made that statement on that

day, and your case is halfway there

[lookinforinfo]

Fairclaire, while I was looking for something else, I came across this case

which is very similar to yours. the only difference was that the case was first

lost because the amount of the loan was put at over £15000, and so was not

considered a regulated agreement under the Act [£15000 was the cut off point].

However, as there is a great deal of difficulty in exactly specifying what the

amount of the loan is, on appeal, the Judges decided that it should be the

cost of the car that was important. And while PPI was payable it was not

part of the loan, but a charge for the loan, so the appeal was allowed.

And the Judge had confirmed that the Act does stipulate that without a Court Order they must refund your payments if they remove your car.

 

Here is the link-

Humberclyde Finance Ltd v Thompson (t/a AG Thompson, A Firm) [1996] EWCA Civ 787 (23rd October, 1996)

[fairclaire]

Thanks LFI

 

Very interesting reading! Once I got my head round all the legal stuff.

 

There is hope for me yet i think.

 

I have given BCT until Friday 23rd Feb to reply to my letter before taking action against them. I was meaning to spend this last week looking into exactly what I need to do and make a start on whatever that is but with half-term/poorly child and other stuff I haven't had a minute this week. I hope to get some spare time over the next few days to get started. I may get a reply from BCT this week but I'm not counting on it and definately not counting on any reply being a favourable one.

 

Have had a look at some of the templates and stuff on here before but they're specific to bank charges etc. and don't really help with this situation. I'll post again with whatever I do come up with.

 

Thanks again for the link. Its always good to read something that keeps my hopes up.

 

Claire

[fairclaire]

Well BCT never did reply to my letter asking for a refund of the money I'd paid. So (a little later than anticipated) I have taken the plunge and yesterday took my N1 to the local county court.

 

1. Under a Hire Purchase Agreement dated xxth December 200x No.xxxxxxxx between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant let a vehicle (registration no. xxxxxxxx) on hire purchase to the Claimant.

 

2. The cash price agreed was £xxxxx.00 An initial payment of £xxxxxx and a part exchange value of £xxxxxx were agreed as a deposit. There was an acceptance fee of £xxxxxx .The total charge for credit was £xxxxxxxx. The hire purchase balance made up of £xxxxxxxx and was payable by 48 equal instalments of £xxxxxxper month. The total purchase price was £xxxxxxxx of which one third is £xxxxxxxx.

 

3. The hire purchase agreement was an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1974 applies and this claim is a Consumer Credit Act claim.

 

4. The Claimant made £xxxxxxxx in payments in addition to the deposit paid. The total sums paid were therefore £xxxxx The vehicle in question is therefore a "protected good" under section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

5. On or around xxth June 200x the Defendant repossessed the vehicle without the Claimant's consent or authority and in contravention of s.90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Claimant therefore claims in accordance with s.91 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

a) A declaration that the Claimant is released from any liability under the agreement.

b) The return of the sums of £xxxxxxxx paid by the Claimant.

c) Interest in accordance with s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984.

d) Courts costs associated with bringing this claim before the court

 

 

After much thought and a few converstions with people who know a bit more about these things than I do, I decided to keep it simple and stick to what the law says. I thought about putting in a part about the trespassing but decided that it was making things complicated and made it look like I was complaining about too many different things. This may or may not come up if it ever gets court. I can only hope leaving it out doesn't come back to bite me on the behind.

 

I don't know what to hope for now. part of me wants to just get my money back as quickly and easily as I can. but I have to admit I would like to see what they had to say to a Judge!

 

Well whatever happens I've paid my £100 and that's as much as I can lose and if things do go my way I have alot more than that to gain.

 

Wish me luck and I will update when I hear from either BCT(bloody car thieves:D ) or the court.

 

Thanks again to all who gave me encouragement and advice to go ahead with this. I may be back for more..........

[lookinforinfo]

I think you are right to keep your initial points briefly. You will be able to add

trespass etc at a later date.

 

Good luck with your claim, but don't expect a quick resolution- two three

months at a minimum.

[fairclaire]

An update...been busy so no time to update recently.

 

Court claim lodged on 19/03/07

 

BCT replied with a pretty paltry offer in my opinion, stated that the acknowledgement of service had been returned to the court and they intended to file a defence. I have nothing from them since.

 

Well, their 28 days to do so was up 2 days ago so I telephoned the court yesterday and they informed me that no defence had been filed.

 

I know that they can still file a defence after the time limit is up. I have today sent my request to the court for judgement by default.

 

Does anyone know how judgement by default works? is it (as i hope) a straightforward matter of allowing the claim because of their failure to reply or can the claim still be disallowed? will the court still want to see the 'court bundle' that I have put together.

 

I have no idea what to expect now. it seems to good to be true that I might get a judgement by default so i'm not counting on anything at the moment.

 

Any advice on what happens with judgement by default would be greatly appreciated

[jet_black]

How did things turn out? I'm having problems with these clowns too.