PCP lease hell

[nx1977]

Buying my car from the lease co (my 2nd with them) under my rights in the contract. Car was a factory order for my specs, and I have the order form and contract etc. Collected car personally from the supplying dealership.

 

However kept getting conflicting details as to how this was registered from the start. I was told it was the same as my old car which was NAME C/O LEASE CO then address (somehow I got a photocopy in the docs with the 1st car).

 

I'm also confused as to how this should be anyway. Basically it's a personal lease, yet the finances as as if a PCP HP with balloon payment at the end to take full ownership.

 

Surely this means they are acting as a finance firm to sell me the car, then add additional services on top to equate to the leased deal?

 

 

The contract has a section which says:

Until payment of the balloon payment in accordance with clause x and all other sums due to us under the terms of this agreement we shall retain ownership of the vehicle and you shall be a mere bailee of it, and shall continue to be bound by the terms of this agreement. You shall be liable as (or as if you are) the owner of the vehicle in respect of any criminal offences committed by you. Administartions may be applicable

 

Clause x simply says that the contract can be ended if.... and mentions early repayment of the vehicle handing back etc etc.

 

 

I was always told (and have a recent email confirming so) recently it was simply a case of changing the address, as already in my name. They should have done this AFAIC, and havent, then I'll be listed as the second owner dispite being mine since new - obv not good for a resale/part ex point of view. :-x:-x:-x

 

I'm hoping it was as:

 

My name

c/o Lease co ltd

road

Town

Postcode

 

 

Spoke to the DVLA, and whilst they couldnt divulge/confirm the owners info, they've confirmed my details dont appear anywhere on their records for the car.

 

Can I demand a discount as a result? They are saying it's tough and to pay the amount in the settlement offer letter. I'm trying to fight, even with evidence of the email telling me how it was supposed to have been registered.

 

Can anyone help/advise me please?

 

 

Many Thanks.

[buzby]

A lot of misconceptions here about owners. DVLA don't care one way or the other, they only record the Registered Keeper, as it says on the V5C, the RK is not neccesarily the owner of the vehicle.

 

Every material name change to the RK generates (or I should say, 'increments') the number of keepers by 1. The only way to avoid this is to provide a 'correction' to the V5C, and as this isn;' requiring any buyer/seller transaction, and you will only be sending 1 signature on the firm, this will NOT increment the number of Registered Keepers.

 

HOWEVER, if the leasing company is noted as a beneficial owner by the DVLA - and you will have no way of knowing if they have, DVLA will advise the firm of the changes taking place - not the detail, just that there are changes, and they may well contact you for more details. But in the situation you describe, this shouldn;t be a problem as you are only amending the C/o address to your own address. If you do not HAVE the V5C, this will be problematic, and if you pay for a replacement, it will go to the address previously notified.

 

As to the first question - this is a minefield, what you have will depend on the terms agreed, and whether it is HP, PCP, PCH or any myriad of arrangements, only the contract paperwork can explain what you have, and the commitments you have to become sole owner.

[nx1977]

Thanks Buzby.

 

It is refered to by them as a PCP deal. They hold the V5C so they can tax it.

 

Contract says "conditional sale agreement" order form says "Personal Contract Purchase - with additional maintenance services". Quote says " Personal Lease".

 

Line one of the contract blurb (section 2.1 - above was from 2.2) says "We agree to sell, and you agree to buy..."

 

So surely if they sold something to me, then it should be clearly stated how the vehicle would be registered? As you say ownership and the Keeper are completely seperate, and the lease co can still own something even if not in their name on the V5. DVLA confirmed no legal requirement forcing them to register it the way they did - solely with their details.

 

DVLA also confirmed that an application to amend the details could be done if I can prove continued ownership and that the car was ordered with a view to sell to me. BUT would almost certainly fail, leaving civil action or agreement against the lease co as the only real answer.

 

My arguement is that with any PCP deal, the finance co always stipulates they retain ownership until full payment is made.

 

I have an agreement that states it is a sales agreement, a lease co that says it was legally obliged to register it that way, and the DVLA that said it's bolx.

 

So either they sold me the car, and additional services to equate to a personal purchase lease (isnt that archive site for websites great ), or it was always a lease in which case it should be a hire agreement rather than sales?

 

So either they sold me the car, or they hired me the car. Surely they cant do both under a credit agreement?

[nx1977]

In addition:

The only reason I can see for the to do it is to add value to the company as each vehicle would be an asset of the company.

 

But then surely this is a minefield by them selling it under finance to me?

[buzby]

With most of these arrangements (except HP) the PCH and PC arrangements are 'flexible' - this means they are primarily HIRING you the use of the vehicle, and there is an option of purchasing, but this in not a fundamental requirement of the deal, you either make the baloon payment at the end of the deal and accept ownership, non't pay, and return the keys and walk away, or arrange a roll-ver with a new vehicle. As there are more options to upgrade or dispose, the last option - retention, is often the most unpopular as it requires a massive injection of funds to buy a car that may well NOT be worth the payment required.

 

Because of this, expecting the benefits of ownership to be automatic is sort of unrealistic. Back in 2004 the figure for retention was just 5% of PCH arrangements, and I donlt think it will have changed all that much since then.

 

As to your last point - I don;t see the vehicle being a company 'asset' as many of these firms are simply facilitators, they are also paid fees by the manufacturers (many are fleet sales, which is why the V5C is in their name) and they pay their OWN 'hire' charge - which is much less than yours, which is where they make their profit.

[nx1977]

But cant they register the vehicle as 100% theirs whilst selling me a car as new and not clearly stating that fact?

[buzby]

What do you mean by 'register'? If you are talking about the DVLA, this is ONLY as Registered Keeper, and as they arrange for the Road Tax as part of the deal, (I assume they post you the disks?) it has to work that way.

 

The car's legal status is that stipulated in your agreement to purchase/hire. DVLA have no views on 'ownership'.

[nx1977]

Exactly. They could have registered with the dvla as c/o. All they have done is add 1 keeper needlessly on the paperwork, and devalued the vehicle slightly.

 

Any HP agreement stipulates you dont have ownership until you've paid up. Hence you cant sell something on which finance is still secured without paying the finance co (and thus holding full title).

 

Correct?

[buzby]

This is one of the failings of the system, but I don't believe it makes that much of a difference to a potential owner, expecially if it is explained that 1 of hte RKs was simply the finance house - it's no big deal.

 

In my case, I collected ny new car, with 17 miles on the clock. It was 'pre registered' by the dealership to make their commitment to the manufacturer, and I bought the car as the FIRST owner, but 2nd Registered keeper - the dates prove the garage only were RK for 3 months, and can be safely ignored. For this 'inconvenience' I saved £5k - so I wasn't bothered!

 

You're still equating an RK to have some rights of 'ownership' it isn#t, it is a proceedural anomaly and will have no detrimental affect of your vehicle, becoming less of an issue with the passage of time.

[nx1977]

£2-700 difference according to 3 dealers I've contacted if I sell now! Lower if trade in, higher if private - which I WAS considering doing to close the neg equity gap of £1,000.

 

This isnt a pre-reg. I bought NEW. Therefore, unless specifically stated, should I not enjoy being the first registered owner?

[buzby]

As far as the Law is concerned it IS new - the way the leasing company chooses to administer it (leading to an additional Keeper) is a reasonable issue, and one I should think needs to be disclosed to the intending customer, but that's only my opinion. As for 'negative equity' - on a new car, the moment it leave the showroom you are in negative equity, and it looses a good few thousand pounds, so with that expectation, it would be hard to complain that an additional RK (even one in name only) has done much to affect the ultimate sale pricel.

[nx1977]

When I say negative equity, I refer to the settlement figure for the finance co and what the car is actually worth according to the likes of Parkers etc.

[patdavies]

This isnt a pre-reg. I bought NEW. Therefore, unless specifically stated, should I not enjoy being the first registered owner?

 

No, you didn't buy new - the lease company did. So. in reality you will be the second owner regardless of the fact that you have had the use of the vehicle from new.

 

There is no such thing as a registered owner - so you can enjoy that or not to your heart's content.

 

There may be some argument that since you were keeping the vehicle, then you should have been the registered keeper - but that is between you and the leasing company. If your lease included VED, then the leasing company would need to be in possession of either the V5C or the V11 reminder (sent to the RK) in order to tax the vehicle.

[buzby]

If your lease included VED, then the leasing company would need to be in possession of either the V5C or the V11 reminder (sent to the RK) in order to tax the vehicle.

 

Afraid not. You are already aware all that isrequired is the Document Reference in order to arrange for the purchase of a VED. No physical paperwork is required. I am aware of the leasing company dutifully supplying their contracted VED by paying for it, and the disk is posted directly to the lessee to the address of the V5C - so it is hardly a 'requirement'.

 

As to the lessee not being the first 'owner' - I'd go so far as to sugges that in mny cases, it isn't even the leasing company that is the beneficial owner, but the bank or finance house floating their financial bubble, often an equity parternship or similar - so on that understanding, the OP iso no more or less entitled to be the RK than the leasing company or their financial backers.

Edited August 24, 2009 by buzby