No Deposit offensive: customers alleging fraud have filed false report

Hire-purchase company No Deposit Cars has claimed to be the victim of an “orchestrated mudslinging campaign” by a group of customers attempting to evade their contractual obligations, in its reply to a judicial protest filed by the customers.

The company, its parent company Princess Holdings, its owner Christian Borg and its director Joseph Camenzuli, filed a counter-protest on Tuesday to a judicial protest filed on Thursday by 26 of its customers.

Amongst the claims are that some of the customers had been forced or induced to pay over €1,000 for imaginary contraventions, and to have been forced to make monthly payments of hundreds of euros for over three years, “for cars which they had never seen, much less driven.” They are requesting that Borg be prosecuted for offences relating to fraud and organised crime.

The counter-protest, signed by lawyers Giannella De Marco and Charles Mercieca, lambasts the 26 plaintiffs for “allowing themselves to be part of an orchestrated mud-slinging campaign” against the companies, saying that “one would expect reference to have been made to clear and precise facts and not to generic and imprecise allegations.”

The court filing claims that one of the plaintiffs had approached the company directly in order to disassociate himself from the judicial protest, contending that “his name was listed without his consent.”

Borg categorically denied ever telling a customer that nobody could do anything to him because he was backed up by powerful people and to tell the police that the car belonged to him if it was ever stopped.

Besides a categorical denial of the allegations made in the judicial protest, Borg, Camenzuli and the companies said they “are holding the protestors responsible for the crime of filing a false report, as well as in damages for personal and commercial defamation,” and reserved the right to take legal action to recover the damages.

Borg and the others are claiming that every car rental or “lease to buy” company adopts the practice of not transferring ownership of vehicles it sells until the stipulated selling price is paid in full.

They also took issue with the claims relating to issuing false receipts and demanding payments for cars which had not been delivered, saying this was untrue and arguing that the fact that the clients in question had not been identified deprived them of the opportunity to investigate and rebut the allegations specifically.

The same observation was made about the judicial protest’s allegation that Borg and the others had formed a criminal organisation, as there had been no attempt to substantiate the claim with evidence. “This is not only unjust from the legal aspect because it effectively constitutes a false report,” reads the counter-protest.

The lawyers argued that the fitting of hire-purchase cars with tracking devices was an accepted and regulated practice in the UK and had also been noted by the European Court of Human Rights in a recent judgement.

Insisting that the contract was similar to that used by other car rental companies in the market, they said it would be “interesting to see whether the allegation… also applies to similar contracts that are made by tens of other companies in similar contexts.”