Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ReasonableRon last won the day on June 5 2018

ReasonableRon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

164 Excellent

1 Follower

About ReasonableRon

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A dealer being FCA registered will, in 99.9% of cases, mean that they are just authorised to act as a credit broker (i.e. pass customer finance applications on to finance companies). It does not mean that they are a finance company themselves.
  2. But you said in Post#3 that you were going to replace them anyway? It seems that you bought the car knowing that they were 'near' the legal limit and clearly had made a mental note that this bill was therefore imminent.
  3. I had a Lexus hybrid a few years ago (300h with the 2.5L engine) and did actually manage over 50mpg on one particular journey of around 120 miles of mixed driving, but I was deliberately trying to get maximum mpg on that journey and it was too much hard work and nothing like my usual driving style for me to do it all the time. It was difficult, however, to then go and challenge the manufacturers claimed figures when i had achieved close to it myself.
  4. Each case should be looked at on its merits as there can be pros and cons either way. An example of what I was referring to about the danger of VT'ing too early in the contract is as follows: Cash Price of car: £15000 Deposit paid: £3000 Amount of finance £12000 payable over 60 months at £300 per month (i.e. total interest charge of £6000 - not too unusual if a customer's credit rating is less than perfect) Customer decides that they want rid of the car after 4 months, having made £1200 in payments. Everyone advises the customer about their VT rig
  5. Sorry but this is wrong. The liability to the borrower upon VT is 50% of the total amount payable, including interest and any balloon payment (if applicable). There is also no credit given for any proceeds the lender receives from the sale of the vehicle against this liability. The actual amount payable will be set out on the agreement, from which you simply deduct any payment already made plus the original deposit. It is for this reason that it is sometimes not economical to VT very early in the agreement, because the resultant liability will often be quite excessive. Because
  6. Hopefully over the last week there has been a greater sense of acknowledgement about the rights surrounding the short term right to reject, burden of proof, definition of satisfactory quality etc etc. This should result in a better quality of advice being provided in the future but for now I think it might be an idea to correct the slightly misleading information provided in the sticky at the top of the 'General Motoring Issues' section, particularly post #10 and the rather pointless argument that appears to have ensued. The problem with it being a sticky could be that those seeki
  7. Maybe so, but you generally don't find those people advising others on matters relating to the environment...... Seriously though, this is not the first time that this issue has cropped up and I think that it boils down to a fundamental misconception that the CRA 2015 presents some sort of 'silver bullet' that will magically solve all faulty goods issues. It will not. I have even seen people refer to this Act as if it is a suitable substitute for a guarantee on the goods "because if it goes wrong you will be covered under the CRA". The CRA is th
  8. Wow. I can't quite believe that me referring to what the law actually says is being stated as 'just another opinion'. This refusal to accept reality because it doesn't fit the narrative appears to be clouding the otherwise generally well-meaning advice overall, but does not do this forum any favours overall in terms of the quality of responses, particularly when this advice comes from members who by virtue of their post count are perhaps assumed to know their facts from their conspiracy theories? Maybe reference to the narrative and table on pages 39 & 40 of this
  9. The problem with the CRA, as with many pieces of UK legislation, is the confusing manner in which it is written. However, it is there. It is common knowledge that for the first 6 months there is a reversed burden of proof in which it is for the supplier to prove that the goods were not faulty at the point of sale. This is set out in s19(14) and s19(15) of the Act, however s19(14) sets out that this burden of proof only applies to the right to a repair or replacement or to the right to a price reduction/final right to reject. The wording of s19(14) ma
  10. My comment was made on the understanding that there was an option to attend in person, as there is with most 'normal' motor auctions. If not then I happily stand corrected. However, the site Terms appear to be clearly stating that by registering with them as a bidder you are declaring yourself to be a trader and not a consumer. OP did you register with them on this basis? * The user acknowledges that our business is that of selling used, recovered stolen, accident-damaged and/or insurance write-off vehicles and other used goods. * As such the user acknowledges that as a registe
  11. However Section 28(g) of the above legislation excludes coverage to contracts concluded at a public auction.
  12. I think that your view about a lightbulb being sufficient to render an entire vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality may well be considered by most people to be 'unreasonable' and therefore would fail the test for satisfactory quality at a very early hurdle. See CRA Section 9(2). I also think that a split wiper blade may also be legitimately argued against under the same grounds, bearing in mind that they are both easy and cheap to replace. I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to test this in court! Regarding the duty to inspect the goods, I agree that there is no actual duty.....ho
  13. Doesn't that slightly contradict what you said earlier in the thread about not being able to charge anything? I agree that the actual charges in this case seem to be massively excessive and probably easily challenged, but generally speaking if a firm can prove or justify what their reasonable costs are then they wouldn't seem to be in breach of any rules, or am I missing something?
  14. Not sure what doesn't make any sense about my post? I never said the OP took finance out, I was talking about the finance that the person (the fraudster) took out immediately prior to selling the vehicle to the OP. Assuming that finance agreement was indeed a fraudulent one then the decision in Hudson v Shogun Finance may well bind the court in this case.
  15. The issue that appears to work against you here is the fact that the vehicle was fraudulently sold so soon after the finance had been taken out, with no payments being made. This would indicate that there was an intention to commit this crime from the start (i.e. use the finance as a means to steal the vehicle). This takes the matter into different waters than if the vehicle was being sold further into the life of a HP agreement. Normally, providing you could demonstrate that you were clearly acting in good faith, you would be able to claim the rights of an innocent purchaser under s2
  • Create New...