In a judgement in the names Astrid Parnis vs Neil Attard, a Tribunal ruled that a car buyer must settle outstanding payments and reimburse fines after failing to meet the terms of a car hire-purchase agreement.
The plaintiff was the owner of a vehicle and entered into an agreement with the defendant – a relative – who expressed interest in purchasing the vehicle. Given their family connection, the plaintiff agreed to sell the vehicle to the defendant for the reduced price of €8,000, down from the assessed value of €10,750.
The parties agreed on monthly instalments of €335 over a 24-month period, with the final payment being adjusted to cover the full amount. To protect her interests, the plaintiff agreed to allow the defendant to take possession of the vehicle, but with several conditions: the logbook would remain in the plaintiff’s name until full payment was made, and she would keep a copy of the car keys to recover the vehicle if payments were not made as agreed.
Things immediately started on a bad note. After the defendant took possession of the vehicle, the first payment was delayed by a month. Matters continued to deteriorate further when the second payment was due. It was delayed once again, and payment was only made after multiple reminders. The same delays occurred with subsequent payments, which also required multiple follow-ups from the plaintiff. Eventually, the payments stopped completely.
Repeated attempts by the plaintiff to contact the defendant and secure the agreed-upon payments were unsuccessful and the defendant either ignored her messages, made empty promises to pay, or responded with frustration, even claiming that if the plaintiff wanted the car back, she would have to cover the costs of the servicing he allegedly had done. However, the plaintiff had never agreed to such terms and maintained that the alleged service was solely for the defendant’s benefit.
In addition to the unpaid instalments and since the vehicle was still registered in the plaintiff’s name, she began receiving numerous citations related to traffic violations committed by the defendant whilst he was using the vehicle. Despite the defendant’s assurances that the fines would be addressed, these remained unsettled and eventually accumulated to over a thousand Euro. The defendant’s failure to resolve the issue with the relevant authorities forced the plaintiff to settle these fines herself.
After nearly a year of non-payment, mounting fines and repeated warnings, the plaintiff decided to take matters into her own hands and took back possession of the vehicle using the copy of keys that she had retained.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff received a call from a Police Station, informing her that the defendant had alleged that the plaintiff had “stolen” the vehicle. However, after hearing both sides of the story, the police instructed the defendant to remove his belongings from the car and hand over the car key and any copies, allowing the plaintiff to retain possession of the vehicle.
The plaintiff soon initiated court proceedings and presented a wealth of evidence before the Tribunal to support her claims, including a detailed account of the payments made by the defendant, messages exchanged between the parties, and official records of the fines incurred by the defendant which she had paid. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s actions was tantamount to ‘unjustified enrichment’. She showed that had the defendant leased out a similar vehicle to the one in question, the lease would have cost the defendant significantly more than the agreed terms between the parties. It was demonstrated that the defendant had only paid €1,340 over a 10-month period, far short of the €3,350 he owed under the agreement for the same term, arguing that the defendant was effectively using her vehicle for free and that when she regained possession of her vehicle, the value of the vehicle had depreciated without compensation.
On the other hand, the defendant claimed that his payments were in excess of €2,000 and had spent circa €800 on servicing of the vehicle. He further claimed that the parties agreed that the service expense was to be deducted from the final price; a claim which was strongly contested.
The Tribunal evaluated all the evidence presented, paying close attention to the defendant’s lack of consistency in his claims and his failure to provide documentary evidence to back up his side of the story, despite several opportunities to do so. In light of the evidence produced, the Tribunal found no reason to doubt the plaintiff’s version of events, particularly since her claims were well-supported by evidence. The tribunal also noted that the plaintiff had no reason to make up claims, given the ample opportunity and patience demonstrated by the plaintiff before she took action.
In its ruling, the Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff was justified in wanting to be compensated for the use of her vehicle for such a span of time. The Tribunal therefore ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding balance of the car payments and the fines she had been forced to cover, compensating her for the losses and damages she incurred due to the defendant’s failure to honour their agreement.
Plaintiff was assisted by Dr. Gianluca Cappitta.
Av. Gianluca Cappitta
Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on Malta Today.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
