Hi DX That's exactly what we have done but they still insist they tried and failed to get the payment. Their stance and reliance on the Ts & C's is quite unbelievable.

Hi all Hoping someone can help.. . My brother in laws GF wanted to go to Truck Festival - a music event that is held annually in Oxford. She purchased her ticket on a deposit basis to be followed by a number of monthly payments. All going well until the last one for some reason. There were Direct Debits set up for Packman Systems to collect the payments acting as agents for Truck Festival however they have said that they were unable to collect the final payment and therefore her agreement and ticket is cancelled without refund - there Terms & Conditions say they can do that. ..see below copy/paste from the terms 'Our payment plan allows you to pay for festival tickets over 11 months. Any booking & delivery fees will be included in the first payment. Terms are stated at the time of booking with regards to the amount that will be deducted on a monthly basis. The date in which addition payments will be debited will be the date of original payment and amount deducted from your total balance. The method of payment at the time of booking will be debit for subsequent payments. If the funds aren't available in your account, or if your card has expired, you will be notified and given the opportunity to pay the amount due. After notification if you are unable to process the amount due you may incur additional charges or your booking with be cancelled with no refund. Tickets cancelled while on a payment plan will be cancelled down at the amount paid to date and no refunds will be issued' The issue is that funds WERE available for the final payment to go through and that has been confirmed by the bank so I think this is massive try on. The company taking the payments are relying on their terms and conditions and saying she doesn't have a ticket and she isn't getting a refund for the £80 she's paid to date. All she wants is a ticket.. . Can they do this to her? Seems very off to me but I'd appreciate any advice before I speak to them.

Hi I have a 12 month PCP deal due to expire in circa 4 months. I was always of the belief that at the end of such a deal one option open to me was to hand the vehicle back with no ties / penalties etc. (save for damage above normal wear & tear). I have opened by Close Brothers Agreement and its got the following When do the goods become mine? The agreement relating to the goods is a hire purchase agreement and you will only become the owner of the goods when you have paid all the amounts due to us under the agreement. If you wish to own the goods from the outset, this product may not be suitable for you. Until you have paid the total amount payable Close Brothers Motor Finance will be the legal owner and you cannot sell the goods. The agreement gives you a number of rights prior to the final payment falling due and these are set out in full within the terms and conditions of the agreement. These options are: 1) You may pay the final payment with the Option Fee and purchase the Goods from us at which point you will then become the owner of the Goods, until this time we will remain the legal owner of the Goods. 2) You may return the Goods to us for a minimum price of the Guaranteed Future Value (GFV). This value is shown on your agreement. The sale proceeds will be paid towards the amount due under the agreement. 3) You may part exchange your vehicle, at which point the dealer will value your vehicle. If it is worth more than the GFV then you can put the extra funds towards a new vehicle. If the vehicle is returned under option 2 and 3 above the vehicle should be returned in a roadworthy and good condition with no damage beyond fair wear and tear. The car in question is a 2016 VW Golf R - these are very popular lease deals and the market has been saturated with them so if I am reading the above correct (point 2) I may be liable for any shortfall if the vehicle sells below the GFV figure. Can they do this, is it legal or can I fight it (if indeed they pursue this route?) Thanks Shane

Hi all A quick update...on the 6th June we exercised our final right to reject the vehicle on the basis the trader and/or motonovo had failed to offer a repair/replacement in a timely manner and without significant inconvenience. I am a member of Which! Legal Services and as part of that membership I have access to lawyer who can offer advise so I explained the full details of the issue, how we've approached things and that we'd exercised our termination rights. I asked which to offer their opinion on whether we'd gone about things correctly and legally and to my delight one of their consumer lawyers wrote back to me yesterday saying as far as he was concerned we'd ticked all the boxes and agreed that our approach was fine. He suggested taking a case to the ombudsman or Small Claims to recover the travel expenses involved since this all started - considering that now. We've wrote to MotoNovo re-confirming our position and asking them how they'd prefer us to proceed with them getting the keys and other documentation back and we await a response (doubtful given their perceived lack of interest during the original complaint). The original trader has the vehicle in his garage so no organising vehicle return etc. A few things I need clarity on though if someone wouldn't mind offering an opinion:- 1) My brother in law has personal belongings stored in the van and would like them back. How is best to approach this? 2) We've cancelled the direct debit...the next one isn't due until 8th July (he paid the one on 7th June despite the termination being in effect...mostly in the hope theyd be a final hour way forward but sadly not) 3) As the agreement is effectively terminated what should we expect back from MotoNovo to confirm this? 4) Can they contest the approach we've taken...statutory law is clear of our rights when they fail etc. so just not sure how this may go. 5) Early on in the process there was a threat if the DD was cancelled for them to log the data with the various CRA's. What can I do to prevent them taking this action in the coming days / weeks? 6) Is my brother in law entitled to refunds (partial because I know the law allows them to make a deduction for fair usage) against what he's paid to date for the vehicle? If so how should we go about getting this - I assume we take this to MotoNovo AND should we be including a sum of money for the travel expenditure as well? I think that's it lol - could do with your opinions Thanks Shane

Thanks SteamPowered Last night we gave notice to MotoNovo as per the above that we had terminated the agreement based on their failure to offer a repair / replacement within a reasonable time period and without significant inconvenience. Lets see what their response to that is - I will keep you updated. One thing of note the 'trader' who the van came from keeps pestering my brother in law for so called storage fees. To date we've told him we are not liable on the basis it isn't our problem the combination of him and MotoNovo have taken so long to look into the complaint / defect.

A quick update MotoNovo have employed the services of a firm called 'Ace' to review the assumed defective vehicle. Today we've heard via text from the trader who the van came from that the defect did not exist at point of sale. We haven't seen the formal report and have asked for a copy. We did previously notify MotoNovo that the Agreement was terminated because of assumed rights as below:- © the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a) to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. I don't know what the law would say is a reasonable time period, but 25th April to now seems unreasonable for a motor vehicle. Inconvenience wise the lack of a van or temporary replacement has meant my brother in law has had to travel to/from work via train or bus at a cost of circa £50 per day...his costs are well over £1,000 now so I'd say hes been inconvenienced beyond belief. The trader and MotoNovo have been in possession of the vehicle since the 25th April. Should we stick to our guns in claiming agreement is terminated on the basis of the above...? Could really do with the MODS help on this one because it appears to be getting quite serious...

I saw the watchdog article. Sadly Vauxhall were only covering up to 7 years old in 2014 so we didn't get there in time (or didn't own the vehicle either). We shall see how things go with MotoNovo...the Team Leader I spoke to was well informed and sympathetic - let's see if this transpires into some form of agreement.

A quick update all MotoNovo have now agreed to have the vehicle in question examined by a third party company to determine if the defect would have been reasonably apparent at the point of sale. They now agree (after many heated calls) that the burden of proof falls on them. Injector failures on a diesel van with 75k miles must be quite rare so I am fairly confident the report will find in our favour (assuming they use an impartial / independent third party who is not geared up to simply give them the answer they want).

Thanks for you're post. I genuinely didn't think the law recognised mileage as a factor, I thought it covered all faults that occurred in the first 6 months.

Hi all An update 1) The agreement is a personal HP agreement between my Brother In Law and MotoNovo. It is not a business to business agreement 2) MotoNovo have issued what they call their final response and say because hes completed approx. 10k miles the burden of proof is on him to prove the defect was there at point of sale. The fault is do to do with the injectors and they say its a wear and tear issue. They also say their regulator would agree with their position - I don't agree. I have argued that the Consumer Rights Act isn't concerned with mileage, it only states (or implies) that if a defect occurs within 6 months the selling party is responsible for repair or replacement. They've now had the vehicle since the 25th April and my in law has been without a vehicle to get to/from London each day. He is paying for the train (about £50 a day). Is he within his rights to reject / terminate the agreement based on the above do you think? How should we take this forward...dig our heals in reject the vehicle / cancel DD or just pay up? Its potentially £2K defect to fix properly - the van was only £7k in the first place.

Thanks for the update, appreciated. My brother in laws business is very much in its infancy. He currently only supplies labour to one contract in London, he has no other sites which he travels to / from etc. The van is insured in his name as a personal policy. I think reading your post and the definitions on the link you provided gives us a robust argument that he is a consumer and the defect identified is covered under the legislation above. I done some internet research last night and it appears that the injector failure is a common fault on the van in debate. So much so that Watchdog got involved in Q4 2014 and the manufacturers in question offered goodwill replacements for vehicles up to 7 years old or with a set amount of mileage. The van in question is a 2008 registered vehicle - I've emailed Vauxhall on the off chance they may offer a good will gesture repair (I know the vehicle is now older than 7 years but worth a shot to see how friendly they are...the van only has 74k miles so bad for this type of failure early on in its 'life'). As always interesting and we shall see how things progress. Thanks for the input.

Mine is an affected model. We've had contact saying we're in a queue that extends more than 10 months. They offered us a discounted new model, think I had to pay £150 - I didn't go for that.

Hi Your post is interesting and I thought I'd update everyone with the latest. So after reviewing the finance documents with Moto Novo it's clear that my brother in law ordered and is paying for the van himself and not via his company. Now on to what might be the sticking point and as referenced above. My brother in law uses the van to commute to/from work in London each day - it is not used for anything else. How do you distinguish between ordinary commuting and using for business purposes. Is commuting a business purpose in the eyes of the law? We've been arguing with the dealer that my brother in law is covered by Consumer Rights Act (defects identified after 30 days but before 6 months). They've pushed back with no sound logic as yet. Moto Novo seem to be more understand and are reviewing. It would be great to have as many opinions on this as possible mind you... Thanks Shane

Hi Im writing on behalf of my brother in law who bought a used van via his limited company in November last year. Recently its been diagnosed that the injectors in the engine are defective and require replacement. This could be a costly repair. The trader he purchased the vehicle from gave him a 3 month return to base warranty which has obviously now expired. After initial queries the owner has come back and said the sale was a business to business sale and not subject to general consumer laws and the rights associated with this. Im not sure how to respond and could do with some help. So i guess the be all and end all is does my brother in law have any rights that would allow him to request a FOC repair to the van (my thinking is the 6 month consumer rule may be relevant in some form?) or does he just have to suck it up because he is not afforded the same consumer rights because the purchase was made via his limited company (which if relevant is very small i.e. 2 directors and sub-contract labour). Finance is with Moto Novo if that is relevant at all? Id be grateful if you could help me out with this one. Thanks Shane

Good point. I did also mention in the email about them confirming what equity was mine. The do buy back using their network of dealers.