VT Renault Financial Services - help please

[lbr102help]

I bought a 2003 clio in January 2007. I decided to VT as no longer need car. THey came to collect car today and I was not there but someone else was. They handed a report to person and it had £2000 worth of damage on it, some of which I agree with, other things I didn't and did not even think it existed, and some of which I would put down to normal wear and tear. I only owed £1,800 still on the agreement and the amount they say I owe for damages is more than this.

 

1/ Can they claim more than I had remaining on the loan?

2/ Am I within the rights to ask for the car back tomorrow morning as it woudl make more sense to pay off the loan as originally agreed and then sell the car and actually make some money, rather than owe more money than if I had kept it?

3/ They said that they will sell the car in about 2 days at auction, not repair it. Is this allowed as I expect that the way the car market is at the moment, they will not get a good value at auction

4/ They had given me the impression that they would charge me £150 for the missing service history when I spoke to them on the phone and first discussed VTing the agreement. Actually they want to charge me £750!

 

Any help would be much appreciated it. I don't know how I am going to sleep tonight as I feel physically sick. I need to call them first thing in the morning to try and get the car back. Many thanks.

 

Sorry - editing to add two more things. What counts as 'fair wear and tear'? I have tried to find it on BVRLA but can only find a book you have to buy. Also, one of the damages stated on the report is a hole in the carpet. Now I never noticed a whole in the carpet so I figure it must be small. They are charging just under £600 for it! I would also argue that the footwell is somewhere that my fee tend to sit and that yes, a six year old car will possibly have a carpet which may wear away anyway.

 

Any help on this will really be appreciated.

Edited June 10, 2009 by lbr102help

[lbr102help]

Last June I VT'd my HP car. They came and assessed it. I wasn't there at the time but my mother was. She refused to sign anything as it wasn't her car.

 

I disputed some of the costs (not all I might add) but some I feel are down to wear and tear and there is nothing saying otherwise in the fair wear and tear guide.

 

Now there was lots of tooing and throwing but to cut a long story short I told them in writing I was happy to pay some costs but not all as I did not believe all were fair (funny enough they came to almost exactly the amount that would have remained on the loan agreement).

 

Letter 1 they responded to but ignored my query about how I could dispute the costs.

 

I responded with letter 2 thanking them for what they had said but asking them again to answer my query.

 

This was in September and I heard nothing until about February which was a statement letter reminding me that I owe x amount of money.

 

I responded to this letter again saying that I wanted to dispute the costs and could they tell me how. Again, I have heard nothing back.

 

What is the best thing to do in this situation? I do not want to deal with them by telephone as I don't get anywhere and just end up running up a huge bill. I would like to have this resolved one way or another. My credit rating was near perfect before this so I'm wondering if it will have made it on to there.

 

Can someone offer me some advice please?

[lbr102help]

Anyone?

[crem]

I would have thought yoru only best course of action is to tell them to pursue it as a county court small claims and that you will present your case to the judge as they refuse to respond to your dispute

[buzby]

Defending yourself in court is one option, but the trend is often NOT to do this, but realise a percentage of the disputed value by selling it to a third party.

 

Before deciding what to do next, check your credit file to see what they have done, and use this additionally to negotiate a solution.

[lbr102help]

Thank you for the responses.

 

The problem is firstly that they have sold on the car (i assume - they have had it for almost one year). They won't tell me how much it has been sold for. Apparently they are not obliged to (although originally I was told that they would tell me).

 

I'm also not sure how I can tell them to pursue me in court as at this stage all I have done is ask them to tell me how i can dispute the cost. Other than the one letter I received reminding me of how much I owed (around January) I have not heard from them since. If I was to tell them to to pursue me through the courts then it seems it might be a bit premature as they aren't saying they will yet. I hope that makes sense.

 

I just don't know what I should do next. My options seem to be:

 

- Do nothing until they next contact me and then try to write them a letter again

- Write to them again despite not having received a response to any of my previous letters

 

I'm worried as I don't know what it is for the best.

[buzby]

They don't tell you the selling price, because you will NEVER see this amount as a credit to the account, as a whole host of people will be paid their 'cut' before the residue is applied to your account. As you returned it, there should be a credit of some description, but unless you are asserting fraud - you won;t be able to challenge them on the amount.

[lbr102help]

Thanks for your response.

 

The thing is they haven't provided me with any credit to the account at all but basically even though I don't think the charges are fair (i.e. some of the damage stated on their document I believe is down to fair wear and tear and believe that it falls in line with that in the fair wear and tear guide), there is nothing I can? That seems incredibly unfair but if it is the way things are, its the way things are I guess!

[buzby]

Although you are 'hiring' the car, wear and tear is never a consideration - because the residual value is based on the actual amount they receive when they sell it (less of course all the hefty charges for all those firms that charge for handling and disposing), so what is left to credit your account is never the actual market value, but what the finance company received following disposal.

 

This is why it is often better to sell with their permission, as the charges that eat into your investment are avoided. You pass on the amount recieved, and add the total required as settlement and you move on.

 

Do remember, financing a car remains a mugs game, the finance company never loses, and will always profit from the arrangement. It is the user of the vehicle to takes the hit, even if they complete the term without problem, the amount paid is often in excess if the actual value of the rusting metal hulk, which in most cases loses 33% of its value the moment it is registered and has a Register Keeper.

[flub1976]

Quick point buzby. Under VT (which i beleive this is) the finance company gets the car and they keep the process as the agreement no longer matters. The only amounts that the op needs to pay is any amount to make good his failure to maintain the vehicle ( or goods) in a reasonable condition.

 

The proceeds and method o f sale are important however as if they obtained a fair market vaklue at auction for the car then they can not claim any loss through to ops lack of care.

 

Get a data subject access request of to them to find out how when and how much the car was sold for and also ask them to clarify the Glassess Guide and Cap guide values for the vehicle at the time of sale.

 

If the glassess guide trade price was £1500 and they got £1500 then they have no case. If they got £1200 then they would only be able to claim a max of £300.00.

[postggj]

can i jump in

 

if you vt a vehicle, thats the 50 % mark,

 

you hand back the vehicle AND OWE NOTHING.

 

WHAT THEY GET AT AUCTION IS IRELEVANT.

 

ALL YOU WILL BE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR IS ANY DAMAGE THATS NOT CONSISTANT WITH THE AGE AND MILAGE OF THE VEHICLE.

 

SO A FEW MINOR BUMPS AND SCRATCHES IS TO BE EXPECTED SAY ON A 5 YEAR OLD CAR

 

WHO IS THE FINANCE CO

 

WHAT ARE THE FINANCE COMPANY CLAMING FOR

[buzby]

As much as this sounds reasonable, I am unaware of any financial instirution that will operate in the way you describe, in that (a) the loan is secured on the goods, and if the goods are now worthless, then so it their claim against the consumer. Hence the provision of additional policies the 'write off protection' where the lender gets the consumer to pay for a plocy that protects their investment.

 

Indeed, translate this to property, a firm providing a mortgage will require (or supply) a buildings policy that will cover the property for all the usual perils that may invalidate their investment (falling off a cliff, becoming submerged, or a plane landing on it unintentionally, for example).

 

If the insurer then pays out for the loss direct to the customer, (say to buy a replacement house) then the mortgage supplier will not walk away sadly thinking it was hard done to, it will want the full funds due to it as the agreement has ended and will require the debt to be discharged. This is the reason Insurers usually ask for details of those requiring a financial interest.... and the DVLA notes this also.

 

If the money 'was spent' expect litigation for recovery in short order. and just because this is about mtor vehicles, I don't think there's too much of a difference in the way renting out money for profit is arranged.

 

Any agreement where there is a 50% break, will STILL require the value to be relaised in the FHs favour, and I can attedst from personal experience, if an auction sale is completed and there is a shortfall, this WILL be recovered in a seperate action if need be, and don't forget the recovery cists, and the list of firms that will make th acution 'happen'. It's all paid for by the customer.

Edited June 30, 2010 by buzby

[postggj]

Totally Agree

[crem]

Any agreement where there is a 50% break, will STILL require the value to be relaised in the FHs favour, and I can attedst from personal experience, if an auction sale is completed and there is a shortfall, this WILL be recovered in a seperate action if need be, and don't forget the recovery cists, and the list of firms that will make th acution 'happen'. It's all paid for by the customer.

 

An official HP agreement has a clause written into it specifically allowing the consumer to return the goods after 50% of the total value has been paid, and at that point the consumer "HAS NOTHING MORE TO PAY". They cannot claim any shortfall at auction price or any other value for that matter except for damage to the vehicle which they can justify as being "unreasonable" damage for the age and use of the vehicle.

[flub1976]

Crem is correct. THis is not a mortgage or personal loan it is a Hire Purchase agreement as laid out in the hire purchase act 1964 and cunsumer credit acts. The Right to termination exists so that back in the old days the when cars held there value an awful lot better than now the customer could hand it back and walk away. This is no used to avoid negative equity situations and finance companies do not like it because they lose a lot of money.

[buzby]

A bit selective now - we've gone from all car finance schemes to just a single one - 'hire purchase'. If, as it appears, you believe you can terminate an HP agreement by returning the vehicle 'Goldfinger style' as a cube of metal to the HP house on the basis that you've paid 50% is a fallacy.

 

And extreme example, perhaps but certainly needed to debunk any expectation of a no-risk strategy to walking away from a deal. Wear and tear has to be reasonable for the year, and certainly reflect the anticipated residual value. If used as canine transport for the local dogs home up a 3 mile farm track, such value will not be realised, and therefore the buyer will have to make good the shortfall.

 

Move on to the other financial car purchase products that are not HP, yoy then lose the 50% break, and have to go with the agreement's terms & conditions. However, we're off on a tangent. The issue is more to do with what happened to the insurance payout and the vehicle, bearing in mind if a total loss there IS nothing to return for credit!

[flub1976]

Busby im trying to answer your last post but i think it might be on the wrong thread???

[buzby]

Nope, it is in answer to message #13.

[flub1976]

Right thanks that makes more sense.

 

The op has stated that his issue is with a VT'd Hire purchase agreement for a car so that is why the above posts are answering that. I think some of your comments are getting away form the HP issue as the laws and T&Cs are different.

 

TO summarise when the car is returned under HP for VT then the hirer is only liable for Half the total amount payable under the agreement plus any accrued arrears charges etc. This is provided that the goods have been taken care. There is a little room for interpretation in terms of what is and isnt reasonable care.

 

In this event it is the difference between two peoples idea of reasonable care. However the Finance company can not argue for more money to be paid than they can be shown to have lost, i.e. if they say owed £2000 becasue the car had lots of scratche sand needed a full respray but it sold at auction for 100% of glasses guide trade then they havnt lost anything because how would they expect to have acheived any more for the goods?

[lbr102help]

Right thanks that makes more sense.

 

The op has stated that his issue is with a VT'd Hire purchase agreement for a car so that is why the above posts are answering that. I think some of your comments are getting away form the HP issue as the laws and T&Cs are different.

 

TO summarise when the car is returned under HP for VT then the hirer is only liable for Half the total amount payable under the agreement plus any accrued arrears charges etc. This is provided that the goods have been taken care. There is a little room for interpretation in terms of what is and isnt reasonable care.

 

In this event it is the difference between two peoples idea of reasonable care. However the Finance company can not argue for more money to be paid than they can be shown to have lost, i.e. if they say owed £2000 becasue the car had lots of scratche sand needed a full respray but it sold at auction for 100% of glasses guide trade then they havnt lost anything because how would they expect to have acheived any more for the goods?

 

Thanks for all the responses!

 

Flub1976 - that is exactly correct. The car was bought on HP. I reached the 50% mark and returned the car udner the VT clause. The dispute is abuot reasonable wear and tear and (surprise suprise) the amount they decided I owed for damage was almost to the penny, the amount that would still have been left to pay on the HP.

 

I do not agree with their assesment of the damage. For example there was a hole in the carpet where the drivers foot would be where the carpet had rubbed away - I personally see that as fair wear and tear where as they don't. They also wanted to charge me £600 for that particular piece of damage which seems incredibly unreasonable.

 

I have tried to dispute how much is owed in writing but they will not respond to my letters which lives me stuck as to what to do. I feel they are being unreasonable - I have written to them asking them how I can dispute the costs and they just do not answer. Really stuck as to what to do.

[buzby]

As you have discovered, they actually hold all the cards. There is no arbitration that can be done independantly, you'd need to arrange and independent report, then sue them for the amount you have overpaid due to their unreasonableness. This action would also be used to endure your credit file was restored to what it was before they unjustly blighted it.

 

Hardly ideal - but without any other routes, the only practical one if an agreement cannot be reached. As for the trade guides, again - they even state this within, they are guides only and are not definitive (as how could they be?) each vehicle will have its own set of parameters, accessories and wear.

 

A common rouse is to make the customer pay for the recovery, resale and expense incurred with the idsposal, as an addition to the 50% VT. Customers are being held liable of all things they never used to, by how they pay, or if they're late or a whole range of practices aimed simply at ensuring their profit line is not adversely affected. So far, all this is 'legal', and the courts accept that any deviation from the norm - like a VT break, if it incurrs a cost, it is the hirer that pays.

[crem]

They also wanted to charge me £600 for that particular piece of damage which seems incredibly unreasonable.

 

I had a BMW 3 series that needed a new front carpet (one piece through from drivers side to passenger side) and the cost through BMW parts department was £199 so I think their 600quid estimate on yours seems a tad excessive!

[crem]

A common rouse is to make the customer pay for the recovery, resale and expense incurred with the idsposal, as an addition to the 50% VT. Customers are being held liable of all things they never used to, by how they pay, or if they're late or a whole range of practices aimed simply at ensuring their profit line is not adversely affected. So far, all this is 'legal', and the courts accept that any deviation from the norm - like a VT break, if it incurrs a cost, it is the hirer that pays.

 

I have just VT'd a Vauxhall which was financed through GMAC themselves and the total assessed damage was one paintwork scratch estimated at repairs costs of £39 which I paid straight away. The car was collected from my home by their agents (Manheim car auctions) and no further costs (collection, auction shortfall or anything) were incurred. I also have a new Vauxhall on HP as a replacement

[lbr102help]

I had a BMW 3 series that needed a new front carpet (one piece through from drivers side to passenger side) and the cost through BMW parts department was £199 so I think their 600quid estimate on yours seems a tad excessive!

 

Thanks Crem. Yeah - £600 for damage to a carpet seems excessive to me!

[flub1976]

If they impacting your credit rating then I would suggest a data subject access request to get all the information about this from them. This should get you all details about what they got for the car how quick they sold it and what they hold in terms of inspection etc. Then you can review that and get a repsonse of to them.

 

The chances are that you are not really getting hassled because its sitting somewhere and they just fir off a letter every 6 motnhs to show that they looking at it still.

 

There is little else you can do other than

 

a) wait for them to sue you or start actually trying to chase you and hence will maybe start speaking to you.

 

b) bring action against them in county court if you can show that they are impacting your credit rating or that they are hassling you for a debt you dont owe and want them to force an aknowwlegdement of no debt

 

either way is hard and you might be better to just ingnore them until it happends.

 

First step would be to sign up for the 1 month free trial of credit expert and find out what they are showing against you.