In an article that appeared in this publication yesterday (Friday), it was revealed that operatives of BM Soat went to a Lusignan address and seized several household items from an elderly couple in an effort to recover monies that are owed to the auto-dealer. (See that story HERE)
But the head of the company quoted in the incident is saying that the news article was one-sided, and has thus sought to clarify some missing particulars of the story, while expressing his interest in reaching out to the affected elderly couple.
Pointing to the fact that the persons that were at the premises were there based upon a court order, the Managing Director of BM Soat Auto Sales Rameez Mohammed says that except for a staff that was present as a witness, it was the court that sent the bailiffs there to take the items.
Despite the fact that it was an order of court that had actually caused marshals to visit the home of the pensioners and remove their household items, based upon a judgement summons that was being executed on his company’s behalf, Mr Mohammed says that he is sympathetic at the plight that the elderly couple had to inadvertently endure, as a result of the crooked dealings of their grandson.
In an exclusive interview with the Guyana Guardian, the businessman told this publication that the image that was being portrayed in the article does not resonate with the way he does business, and ought to have made it clear that the action at the elderly couple’s home on Wednesday last was being executed by the court, and not him, despite the fact that the case relates to his company.
The businessman is adamant that the elderly couple must have been caught up a scheme that was concocted by their grandson, who is supposedly using the couple who is in their 70’s to shield his wrongdoing.
According to the businessman, at the time of the purchase the vehicle, the young man had provided various forms of evidence to satisfy them that is where he is living.
Several documents that were submitted by the businessman to the Guyana Guardian showed that the grandson in question had presented proof of address documents that is the same as his grandparents’ address and which seems to confirm that he was or is living there.
However, despite several efforts to get the young man to pay his instalments or to return the vehicle, he has failed to do so, thus leaving BM Soat with no other choice than to take the matter to court.
As a result, the court action would have meant that the same address at which the couple lives would automatically be where court marshals would have effected a judgement summons against the grandson.
This also means that when the court marshals visited the address on Wednesday they would have been going there based upon evidence provided to a judge, who would have found it necessary to let the warrant be executed at the address where the grandson lives supposedly with his grandparents.
Considering this Mr Mohammed explained that it was the High Court and not BM Soat who would have been liable for the effecting of the warrant at the house, and for any damages or inconvenience that may have been experienced by the elderly couple as a result of the marshals’ visit.
But even so, the businessman has decided to let the elderly couple have the benefit of the doubt, and will make arrangements to give them some $200,000 in compensation for all of the trouble, and will be working with his lawyers to see the return of their home furnishings which is currently in the custody of the court.
As a matter of fact, this will also require that the businessman expend additional sums of monies to have the entire seize action reversed, an act that will clearly be to his disadvantage.
But at the same time, the businessman is urging the couple to let their grandson do the right thing, and return a car that had he had disappeared with since collecting the vehicle on a hire-purchase agreement more than a year ago.
While the defaulting young man is not coming forward, relatives said that the car was acquired for a friend, and he has not seen the car or the friend for over a year.
Believing that the car is hidden with no plan for it to be returned, Mr Mohammed said he had decided to stick with the court procedures which can often result in the seizure of items that are suspected to be the assets of the defaulter.
And in this case, that is exactly what happened, except for the fact that the elderly couple claiming that the seized items are theirs and not the grandson.
Nonetheless, considering all that had recently occurred at his grandparents home, observers are now hoping that the young man will come forward and return the car to the dealer, or make good on his payments.
There is even some good luck in the air for the defaulter, since Mr Mohammed is even eager to return the entire down payment to the young man, if he returns the car, despite this being something that no auto dealer in Guyana would have done.
But in this case, the businessman wants to peacefully put the entire ordeal which has stained his business name, behind his back, and move forward with satisfying those customers who are genuine.