Let this issue engage the courts

Jun 16, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I viewed with utmost horror my photo in Sunday’s edition of the Kaieteur News of June 14 2015, requiring anyone who is aware of my whereabouts to contact BM Soat Auto Sales. I view this action as an act of criminalization and defamation of character and feel compelled to address this letter to the Kaieteur News and BM Soat in an attempt to clarify my dilemma.
My business with BM Soat began in 2011, when I bought an Allion on hire purchase. I paid all instalments on that purchase for over a year. In March of 2012 I was out of the country and was notified that a few persons claiming to be employed by BM Soat visited my home, enquiring about the vehicle, on the pretext that they were advised that the vehicle had crashed.
Upon my return one week later, I drove the vehicle to visit my mother in Campbellville, where it was parked. Moments later my neighbour informed me of seeing person/s driving away the vehicle. I promptly reported the incident to the Kitty Police Station where the investigating officer, known to me only as Henry, took a statement and interviewed my neighbour. Being fearful, my neighbour did not provide a statement, but volunteered a description of the person she saw to the investigating officer.
In the ensuing interview with the officer, he indicated that he may have an idea as to who may suit my neighbour’s description, he then proceeded to call someone at BM Soat in my presence, demanding that two persons, whom he named, report to the station. I returned the next day on Mr Henry’s request and saw him interviewing two men who were the identified suspects. They were later released having denied involvement.
I indicated to Mr Henry my suspicion that the incident seemed like an inside job and requested that he visited BM Soat ‘Cut Shop’, which I was told was located on the East Coast, but he seemed unwilling to do so.
Being convinced that the sequence of events pointed to that business, I returned to BM Soat’s office the following day and demanded to see the spare key they had in their possession, and was shown a key. I was later afforded a discussion with the office boss on the same day and notified him of the theft. In that discussion, I was asked about the status of my insurance; which was enforced, and was told to file a claim with NAFICO given the fact that the vehicle had comprehensive coverage. The said claim was filed on April 2nd 2012 under policy number 01M02109.
I was told by the filing clerk at NAFICO to return in six months, as it would take some time for the police to do their investigation and inform them that all efforts had been exhausted in attempts to locate the missing vehicle before the claim could be processed.
I returned to the office of BM Soat the same day, as requested, to discuss a follow-up course of action and was advised that further payments would be suspended pending a resolution by the insurance company.
I made follow-up checks with NAFICO on more than three occasions, between the periods of 2011 and 2012, and was told that the police reports were not received. I did not contact BM Soat on the matter for over two years. Around March of 2015, I received a telephone call from BM Soat’s office requesting that I go to Kitty Police Station and uplift a copy of the report I had filed more than three years ago. I was unable to do so owing to planned field visits to my mining operations and indicated same to the caller.
I find it quite an unfortunate choice for BM Soat to publish the notice of June 14th 2015, having not contacted me in any formal manner on or about the matter. However, a gentleman whom I contacted on the said date via telephone Number 655-7197- which was one of the numbers published on my wanted bulletin of the said date – indicated to me that I was expected to still pay for the lost car. I therefore challenged BM Soat to show proof that such was ever communicated to me.
One would have reasonably expected that after more than three years, a respectful company would   have contacted the seemingly defaulting customer by letter on a matter of default payments; since my address is well known by the company. Rather, BM Soat chooses to adopt a course of action which is seemingly an attempt to cause me public embarrassment.
Notwithstanding, it may be possible that the genesis of my business with the BM Soat may not have been formally documented and/or conveyed to an ill-advised employee. I am therefore demanding a public apology for the embarrassment and potential damage to my image as an honest businessman.
I further advise that the company resort to legal proceedings in resolving the matter of payment from the insurance company, since I have also lost more than two million dollars in the unfortunate event.
Peter Hutson

---

---