In Dispute Over Misrepresentaton

[christieuk]

Hi there, hope Im posting in the correct part of the forum.

 

My question is basically, if you have a credit/loan agreement and the supplier misrepresented a product to you (in this case a caravan and a very significant charge they make was not made known prior to the purchase), is it possible to stop making payments under the loan agreement until the situation is resolved?

 

Trading Standards are involved and we are waiting to see what the supplier's reply will be. The credit company (Barclay Partner Finance) state that we still have to make the payments (we've paid out over £3k in the last year alone before finding out about this "hidden" charge) as "the complaint concerned is not part of the terms of your Loan Agreement".

 

My understanding is that when there are complaints about a product and in this instance, a misrepresentation, then the credit company should be involved as they of course advanced the monies to the supplier to pay for the goods and we then pay the credit company. I assume that means that they takeover any "problems" that occur. Can they wash their hands of the matter and insist on payment, before this can be settled?

 

Many thanks

[Guest louis wu]

Hi christie,

 

I think this question may be better asked in a more specific forum, I will ask for it to be moved for you.

 

louis

[Ell-enn]

Hi, moved to General Debt Issues

[Filthy Monkey]

I think you will need to be a little more specific about your complaint and what has been misrepresented, before anyone can offer any advice...

[christieuk]

Hi - thanks for your reply.

 

When we were thinking about purchasing the caravan, we were told about annual costs. These included the site fees, electricity, gas, water and insurance. All perfectly proper and accepted. There were additional charges for linen packs and cots if the holiday makers required them. Again, these are minimal and accepted.

 

As a caravan is a large purchase in this instance £20,000, there was also the question of finance payments to be taken into account.

 

When we the calculations of renting out the caravan, against the costs, we decided to go ahead on the basis of what we knew above. We were never going to get rich, certainly not with finance payments to be made, but expected to make a small profit to pay for any minor repairs, replacement etc.

 

We had bought at the end of the season, so our first year of letting was 2007. We received an estimate of income (as we had let Havens have it for the entire year to let out) and our net income was not even £3000. You can imagine our horror, we had expected, based on the rental indications to nearer £6000 at that time. It transpired that Havens "deduct" the cost of the passes which are required to use their facilities. There are in fact no "free" facilities in any event, holidaymakers pay to use everything, so all it is essentially is another "charge". As the cost of these "passes" can run into three figures for a week for a family, we are talking somewhere in the region of £3500 being deducted from the rental sums which are paid back to the owners for letting their vans out.

 

There is nowhere on any agreement that we signed including the finance agreement, that says that we agree to this being deducted. It is only mentioned in a letting brochure which you are given after you have purchased the caravan. It was never mentioned when the costs were being discussed, because, I would assume, no-one would buy a caravan when the true cost of owning and letting out a caravan is somewhere in the region of £9000 per annum without finance costs. It is impossible to earn enough money from the rentals to cover all the expenses.

 

Had this been pointed out at any time in our negotiations, we would never have purchased the van. It is simply not a viable proposition when you take the £3k finance costs into consideration. In fact, the van has cost us money rather than making any kind of profit.

 

We feel that this situation is covered under the Misrepresentations Act and Trading Standards are currently writing to Havens in this regard. Needless to say the finance company are not too pleased that we have stopped paying. They say our argument is nothing to do with them. Our argument is that they provide the finance for Havens and therefore are equally responsible for the situation.

 

Any advice most welcome.

 

Thanks

[tomterm8]

I don't think that the finance company is liable in this regard, it is a matter for the supplier.

 

it might be worth going to a soliciter for a free 10 minute consultation from a soliciter, OR your local college of law, Or the pro-bono BAR scheme for free and independant legal advice.

 

You should not stop paying until you get this advice.

[Filthy Monkey]

I agree. The situation would be different if the goods purchased were defective, but really what you are querying is the contract with Haven for renting out the caravan on your behalf. This has nothing to do with the finance company. Ignoring your obligations in repsect of the finance agreement will only cause you more problems. As tomterm8 suggests, have a suitatbly qualified legal representative look over the contracts and give you some advice.

[Surfer01]

Unfortunately this type of issue is common place within the static caravan industry and happens frequently. The finance company is not to blame and you should keep up with your repayments. Your issue is with the sellar but it is unlikely that they would have any of the issues described in writing and it is part of theier con, sorry, sales tactic. If you decide to sell you are going to be for an even bigger surprise!

[christieuk]

Hi there everyone, thanks for all the replies. I sort of see the argument about the finance company and was hoping to involve them to put pressure on to Havens. Thanks surfer for that info. I know there are fees involved when selling but surely if you induce someone to purchase without providing full information, then this is misrepresentation and a case can be brought under that Act? If this is a well known "con/tactic" I am surprised that someone hasnt taken this to Court before.

 

thanks

christieuk

[dad]

I don't think that the finance company is liable in this regard, it is a matter for the supplier.

 

Christie,

 

I am not sure that I agree with this. If the finance and the letting/sale agreement are all linked then the arrangement you describe sounds like a 'Debtor-Creditor-Supplier' agreement as described in s12 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In which case s75 applies:

75.

Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

— (1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

 

If the contract with Haven does not include any right to the charges then they are in breach of contract by deducting them.

 

Contract disputes can be quite complicated and in this case I would definitely recommend you seek legal advice from a solicitor with experience of contract disputes.

 

Dad

[Surfer01]

I agree with "dad" but again I don't think the issue is with the finance company. I think a lot of issues stem from people not reading and understanding their contracts properley and I am the first to hold up my hands on this. The way the T & Cs are written favour the landowner and not the caravan owner.

[Meldrew2]

Double-check your finance agreement. Is it Hire Purchase (where the credit company are clearly jointly and severally liable with Haven) or is is a personal loan where the finance company's liability is less?

[christieuk]

Hi Meldrew

 

Its a hire purchase agreement. But it seems that the creditor (BPF) and the supplier (Bourne Leisure) are colluding behind our backs!! The time line in letters is all wrong but the fact that they gave us till 1 August 08 to repay arrears and then sold the van back to Bournes at a fraction of its cost before then, means they havent complied with their own default notice. Notwithstanding that Bournes have been using the van themselves at least since early June, as we went there and found it occupied.

 

It just gets curioser and curioser as time goes on lol.

 

cheers

christieuk