Diesel Scrappage Scheme

UnkownUser2024

400ixl said:

OP, not sure what to say, lots of people have stated an opinion that a discount is not a deposit and you have only repeated your stance that it is.

If you came here looking for support of your view and only willing to listen to those that do, then I am not sure you are going to get anything from this thread.

You appear to have your mind made up that you are right and the court and many others are wrong. Wish you luck with your appeal but fear you are throwing good money after bad.

It clearly states in legislation that a discount is by virtue a deposit when there is an exchange of goods. It also states that any term where there is ambiguity the favour should lie with the consumer. 

I came here for opinions and whilst there are some valid points being made, a lot of you are not understanding the situation and are doing nothing other than criticise

UnkownUser2024

WellKnownSid said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

I came to MSE purely because I was engaging with one user on legal beagles who believes I have a strong case, I wanted to see if anybody else in the know felt the same way or whether they felt I'm flogging a dead horse. 

The normal process is that you're supposed to pay lawyers to stop this going all the way to court.  

The process you are following is hoping to capture sufficient confirmation (presumably ignoring all evidence to the contrary) in order to justify going to court for a second time.  

Without appropriate counsel from a professional who has a vested interest in the outcome of your case, you are highly likely to achieve the same result.

As I say, it's probable VWFS will choose representation in court that will be far less pleasant with you the next time around.  They will (likely successfully) make themselves out to be the victim and you the non-paying low-life looking to make a quick buck.  Do make sure you wear a tin hat...

Thank you for at least offering something constructive this time. 

VWFS did that the first time, they weren't playing nice from the start but that to me is just further grounds for me to push it to an appeal and potentially have the support of a judge who understands it all better. Plus I will not be going without representation next time.

Some very pleasant members on here have already directed me in the way of some vehicle finance specialists who could potentially help.

I'm not expecting to do it all for free I just want a fair hearing

MattMattMattUK

UnkownUser2024 said:

WellKnownSid said:

I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge

This reads like: "I was obviously right, but a nasty person came along, asked me a load of tough questions then - typical - they went on to pull the wool over the eyes of the judge who's clearly got it all wrong".

My questions - what did you expect to happen in Court and what steps are you taking to prevent your complete lack of preparation from happening again?  As others have said, you are heading for a big feature in the Daily Mail in your current mindset.

If you appeal, costs will more than double.  I wonder how many millions might will cost VWFS (and the rest of the industry) if they allow you win at appeal?  I can't see them putting the office junior on it this time, I should imagine they'll put up someone substantially more credible.  As there was no case last time, perhaps they'll just ask you to pay all of their costs up front?

One thing I can say with certainty is that the law in 1974 was never written with a manufacturer dreamt-up marketing-dressed-up-as-a-scrappage-scheme almost 50 years later in mind.  Your reasoning is not as black and white as it first appears.

I fully accept that I had little chance against a Barrister who represents in Court every day. If he hadn't beat me I'd be shocked. My goose was cooked before I went in. 

I am a run of your mill, non-legally trained member of the public, I have "beaten" two barristers in court in two separate legal actions, the key thing in that situation though was that I had a legally correct position to argue.

UnkownUser2024 said:

However it stands that I have a good case and I find your remarks regarding my lack of preparation insulting. You have absolutely no idea how many days I've sat and researched for hours and hours and spent writing defences and Counter claims and witness statements and going over my case again and again so that I know it inside out. If you have nothing constructive to say please save yourself the effort of typing any further comments 

I and it appears everyone else commenting here , as well as legal representatives of the other party and a judge do not think you have a good case, you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your understanding of discount vs deposit and you seem to be basing your entire case on that misunderstanding. You further seem to be then suffering from confirmation bias, everything which vaguely and incorrectly hints at agreement with your position you seize upon, anything which demonstrates your incorrect position is dismissed as wrong or irrelevant. You are of course welcome to hold any opinions you like, but unless they are legally correct a court or judge to not need to respect them. 

UnkownUser2024 said:

I'm not expecting to do it all for free I just want a fair hearing

You had a fair hearing, you lost, you will almost certainly lose again. How much more good money do you want to throw after bad?

UnkownUser2024

MattMattMattUK said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

WellKnownSid said:

I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge

This reads like: "I was obviously right, but a nasty person came along, asked me a load of tough questions then - typical - they went on to pull the wool over the eyes of the judge who's clearly got it all wrong".

My questions - what did you expect to happen in Court and what steps are you taking to prevent your complete lack of preparation from happening again?  As others have said, you are heading for a big feature in the Daily Mail in your current mindset.

If you appeal, costs will more than double.  I wonder how many millions might will cost VWFS (and the rest of the industry) if they allow you win at appeal?  I can't see them putting the office junior on it this time, I should imagine they'll put up someone substantially more credible.  As there was no case last time, perhaps they'll just ask you to pay all of their costs up front?

One thing I can say with certainty is that the law in 1974 was never written with a manufacturer dreamt-up marketing-dressed-up-as-a-scrappage-scheme almost 50 years later in mind.  Your reasoning is not as black and white as it first appears.

I fully accept that I had little chance against a Barrister who represents in Court every day. If he hadn't beat me I'd be shocked. My goose was cooked before I went in. 

I am a run of your mill, non-legally trained member of the public, I have "beaten" two barristers in court in two separate legal actions, the key thing in that situation though was that I had a legally correct position to argue.

UnkownUser2024 said:

However it stands that I have a good case and I find your remarks regarding my lack of preparation insulting. You have absolutely no idea how many days I've sat and researched for hours and hours and spent writing defences and Counter claims and witness statements and going over my case again and again so that I know it inside out. If you have nothing constructive to say please save yourself the effort of typing any further comments 

I and it appears everyone else commenting here , as well as legal representatives of the other party and a judge do not think you have a good case, you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your understanding of discount vs deposit and you seem to be basing your entire case on that misunderstanding. You further seem to be then suffering from confirmation bias, everything which vaguely and incorrectly hints at agreement with your position you seize upon, anything which demonstrates your incorrect position is dismissed as wrong or irrelevant. You are of course welcome to hold any opinions you like, but unless they are legally correct a court or judge to not need to respect them. 

UnkownUser2024 said:

I'm not expecting to do it all for free I just want a fair hearing

You had a fair hearing, you lost, you will almost certainly lose again. How much more good money do you want to throw after bad?

Perhaps you should have a read through some legislation then, as I have, and some case law regarding improperly executed HP agreements. 

I'm not disregarding anything, but everyone is arguing the same point back at me when I've already copied it verbatim from the consumer credit act 1974 which the finance company are legally bound to abide by

born_again

UnkownUser2024 said:

Perhaps you should have a read through some legislation then, as I have, and some case law regarding improperly executed HP agreements. 

I'm not disregarding anything, but everyone is arguing the same point back at me when I've already copied it verbatim from the consumer credit act 1974 which the finance company are legally bound to abide by

Look at it from this point of view.

You came asking for peoples opinions after doing the same at Legal Beagles site & being told you have a case, so why post here? They are properly a better site for legal advise, but again they are not having to stand any cost..

Yet you simply dismiss people not agreeing with your opinion. Citing your own research. Which begs the question do you not trust this?

In reality, no one is going to give legal advice (Against site rules). So your best bet is to pay for proper legal advice. If they say you have a case & you can afford to take it forward, go for it. 
If they say you have not, it's only coast a small fraction of what you stand to lose, if the other party get awarded costs.

MattMattMattUK

UnkownUser2024 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

WellKnownSid said:

I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge

This reads like: "I was obviously right, but a nasty person came along, asked me a load of tough questions then - typical - they went on to pull the wool over the eyes of the judge who's clearly got it all wrong".

My questions - what did you expect to happen in Court and what steps are you taking to prevent your complete lack of preparation from happening again?  As others have said, you are heading for a big feature in the Daily Mail in your current mindset.

If you appeal, costs will more than double.  I wonder how many millions might will cost VWFS (and the rest of the industry) if they allow you win at appeal?  I can't see them putting the office junior on it this time, I should imagine they'll put up someone substantially more credible.  As there was no case last time, perhaps they'll just ask you to pay all of their costs up front?

One thing I can say with certainty is that the law in 1974 was never written with a manufacturer dreamt-up marketing-dressed-up-as-a-scrappage-scheme almost 50 years later in mind.  Your reasoning is not as black and white as it first appears.

I fully accept that I had little chance against a Barrister who represents in Court every day. If he hadn't beat me I'd be shocked. My goose was cooked before I went in. 

I am a run of your mill, non-legally trained member of the public, I have "beaten" two barristers in court in two separate legal actions, the key thing in that situation though was that I had a legally correct position to argue.

UnkownUser2024 said:

However it stands that I have a good case and I find your remarks regarding my lack of preparation insulting. You have absolutely no idea how many days I've sat and researched for hours and hours and spent writing defences and Counter claims and witness statements and going over my case again and again so that I know it inside out. If you have nothing constructive to say please save yourself the effort of typing any further comments 

I and it appears everyone else commenting here , as well as legal representatives of the other party and a judge do not think you have a good case, you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your understanding of discount vs deposit and you seem to be basing your entire case on that misunderstanding. You further seem to be then suffering from confirmation bias, everything which vaguely and incorrectly hints at agreement with your position you seize upon, anything which demonstrates your incorrect position is dismissed as wrong or irrelevant. You are of course welcome to hold any opinions you like, but unless they are legally correct a court or judge to not need to respect them. 

UnkownUser2024 said:

I'm not expecting to do it all for free I just want a fair hearing

You had a fair hearing, you lost, you will almost certainly lose again. How much more good money do you want to throw after bad?

Perhaps you should have a read through some legislation then, as I have, and some case law regarding improperly executed HP agreements. 

I'm not disregarding anything, but everyone is arguing the same point back at me when I've already copied it verbatim from the consumer credit act 1974 which the finance company are legally bound to abide by

You are attempting to interpret the legislation and apply it to your situation. You are arguing that a deposit and a discount are the same thing, when they legally are not. You are trying to synthesize based on combinations of the CCA, an expired and no longer relevant government scrappage scheme and a manufacturer discount (which you incorrectly claimed was a government scrappage scheme) and dealer incentives. You even contradict yourself, as has been pointed out by previous posters. 

To win in court you must convince the judge that the law, a combination of legislation and potentially case law, is on your side, you managed to do neither. You have then come here and asked people's opinions, they do not agree with you, you have argued with them and told them that they are wrong because they do not agree with you. 

If you want to appeal this to a higher court then of course you can, but keep in mind that it will get very expensive very quickly and costs will be awarded, which will mean that the losing party will be required to pay them, based on everything you have said that is highly likely to be you. 

Herzlos

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

UnkownUser2024

MattMattMattUK said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

WellKnownSid said:

I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge

This reads like: "I was obviously right, but a nasty person came along, asked me a load of tough questions then - typical - they went on to pull the wool over the eyes of the judge who's clearly got it all wrong".

My questions - what did you expect to happen in Court and what steps are you taking to prevent your complete lack of preparation from happening again?  As others have said, you are heading for a big feature in the Daily Mail in your current mindset.

If you appeal, costs will more than double.  I wonder how many millions might will cost VWFS (and the rest of the industry) if they allow you win at appeal?  I can't see them putting the office junior on it this time, I should imagine they'll put up someone substantially more credible.  As there was no case last time, perhaps they'll just ask you to pay all of their costs up front?

One thing I can say with certainty is that the law in 1974 was never written with a manufacturer dreamt-up marketing-dressed-up-as-a-scrappage-scheme almost 50 years later in mind.  Your reasoning is not as black and white as it first appears.

I fully accept that I had little chance against a Barrister who represents in Court every day. If he hadn't beat me I'd be shocked. My goose was cooked before I went in. 

I am a run of your mill, non-legally trained member of the public, I have "beaten" two barristers in court in two separate legal actions, the key thing in that situation though was that I had a legally correct position to argue.

UnkownUser2024 said:

However it stands that I have a good case and I find your remarks regarding my lack of preparation insulting. You have absolutely no idea how many days I've sat and researched for hours and hours and spent writing defences and Counter claims and witness statements and going over my case again and again so that I know it inside out. If you have nothing constructive to say please save yourself the effort of typing any further comments 

I and it appears everyone else commenting here , as well as legal representatives of the other party and a judge do not think you have a good case, you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in your understanding of discount vs deposit and you seem to be basing your entire case on that misunderstanding. You further seem to be then suffering from confirmation bias, everything which vaguely and incorrectly hints at agreement with your position you seize upon, anything which demonstrates your incorrect position is dismissed as wrong or irrelevant. You are of course welcome to hold any opinions you like, but unless they are legally correct a court or judge to not need to respect them. 

UnkownUser2024 said:

I'm not expecting to do it all for free I just want a fair hearing

You had a fair hearing, you lost, you will almost certainly lose again. How much more good money do you want to throw after bad?

Perhaps you should have a read through some legislation then, as I have, and some case law regarding improperly executed HP agreements. 

I'm not disregarding anything, but everyone is arguing the same point back at me when I've already copied it verbatim from the consumer credit act 1974 which the finance company are legally bound to abide by

You are attempting to interpret the legislation and apply it to your situation. You are arguing that a deposit and a discount are the same thing, when they legally are not. You are trying to synthesize based on combinations of the CCA, an expired and no longer relevant government scrappage scheme and a manufacturer discount (which you incorrectly claimed was a government scrappage scheme) and dealer incentives. You even contradict yourself, as has been pointed out by previous posters. 

To win in court you must convince the judge that the law, a combination of legislation and potentially case law, is on your side, you managed to do neither. You have then come here and asked people's opinions, they do not agree with you, you have argued with them and told them that they are wrong because they do not agree with you. 

If you want to appeal this to a higher court then of course you can, but keep in mind that it will get very expensive very quickly and costs will be awarded, which will mean that the losing party will be required to pay them, based on everything you have said that is highly likely to be you. 

Every law is always applied to a situation, that is the whole point of laws. In my situation the vehicle I traded in was a part exchange under the scrappage scheme, and annotated as such on my HP agreement and vehicle order forms. 

By trading in my car I provided goods in return for a discount against a new car. Under the definition I quoted in the CCA that makes the vehicle a deposit, by some form or another. 

Yes I lost in the Court room on the day, but when there's a retired vehicle finance on a legal forum telling me that I have a strong case, and he has also consulted his lawyer friends who are telling me I have a strong case, it puts me in a difficult situation which is why I came on here for some fresh pairs of eyes. 

I asked for opinions and I got them so thank you for your input 

UnkownUser2024

Herzlos said:

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

It wouldn't be the first time a car lender has written up an improperly executed agreement and it won't be the last.

If it is accepted that my car was a part exchange then it constitutes that they broke S90 of the CCA and I would be entitled to all sums paid into the agreement as they took my car without a court order

XRS200

UnkownUser2024 said:

Similarly, if someone is able to find the exact wording of the terms and conditions of how the Government managed the Diesel Scrappage Scheme in 2018 that would be an absolute life saver!

There are a couple of comments that this wasn't a government scheme.  

What argument would you have in court for appeal?

I would spend money getting a barristers opinion before going to court where you could end up with the other parties costs