Quote:
Originally Posted by green van man
No, take you to the cleaners via the courts because you owe them money. You then have to counter sue them because you do not have use of the car. Guess who's pockets are deeper when it comes to court cases.
They do not want the car, they are a money house, they want the money you agreed to pay them, don't pay them and CCJs and debt collectors will be the next step.
|
They can threaten debt collectors all they like. Only court appointed bailiffs can do anything substantive.
I'd let them take it to court, and have done in not dissimilar circumstances (a computer that never worked properly and finance company persistently failed to assist with it after the vendor failed to resolve it), so I stopped paying), and won. It's a contract, not a suicide pact, and it is binding upon them to provide the contracted goods or services. Let them show the court the clause that gives them the right to continue to charge the customer when when are no longer providing the contracted service to them. They can't, because there isn't one.
Depth of pockets is irrelevant. The moment it gets to a court room its facts that hold weight, not bank balances, and a pallet full of gold bars makes zero difference. Fact here is they are arguably not providing the goods or services they have contracted to, and despite being asked to remedy the situation they have failed to do so, yet are still taking payment. I've taken my chance before on that and won, and I'd do so again
No need to counter sue. Let them spend the money and effort getting the matter to a court, and present your losses to the court for their consideration. Once the court have found in your favour then recovering losses a d compensation becomes pro forma.