British Credit trust VT

[maka]

Hi i jusy called bct asking the process of returning a car that they gave finance for over 50% of car paid off and 50% of contract is up the car is now in negitive i owe £3000 car was valued by toyota for £2000 i know this is low as its a main dealer however BCT told me they would get the car it would then be taken away and valued however if there is a short fall in the price they get for it i will have to cover that is this correct? the car itself is in near perfect condition and low milage for an 05 @ 43000 miles been looking around autotrader and verious others site and the car is being sold privalty for around the £4000 to £4500 price.

[Conniff]

The value probably wont reach what is owed as it is more than likely to be sold at auction.

 

Before anything else and you go any further, if you have a digital camera, take a 100 photos from every angle and in every nook and cranny. They will for certain claim it is damaged.

 

Visit their website https://www.britishcredittrust.co.uk/ and put the details into their car search and see what it comes up with. If it is a good price, then take a screenshot of the result.

[crem]

Is your agreement with British Credit not a "standard" HP agreement with the option to VT the car when you are passed 50% paid mark? If it is then they are talking crap about you having to make up the shortfall against the auction price.

 

50% paid = nothing more to pay!

[andie_303]

I am currently VT'ing with BCT as it is also in negative by a long way and I have bought a new car.

 

Firstly they said they would drop the outstanding finance from 2.5k to 1.5k if I didn't VT but I said no and eventually they have caved and sent me the paperwork.

 

If you are on a HP agreement and have paid over 50% you are not liable for any further payments or shortfall.

 

I have made a cheeky offer in writing though - I wrote yesterday with a one time only offer that I would pay them £500 for the car on the condition they released their HP marker and cleared my credit file as fully settled. Should they disagree they must pick up the car before the 2nd July and I will be liable for no further payments.

 

BCT are in some financial trouble so they may need all the money they can get

[andie_303]

Well, Well, Well

 

My VT paperwork comes through today and what nasty little paragraph to they put in.....

 

"If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future"

 

 

WTF So I am liable for external market conditions or the fact that noone turns up to the auction!!!

 

I carry on reading through the information pack and it goes on to explain under the heading

 

How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork?

We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork.

 

And to top it of a £110 collection fee!!

 

They are seriously taking the p**s - someone tell me this is not allowed.

 

My contract with them at the time of buying simply says I have a right to terminate the contract under s99 of the CCA 1974 as long as I have paid over 50%, have no arrears and the vehicle is kept in resonable condition for it's age and mileage.

 

The stinger here is to go ahead with VT you have to sign to say you agree to these terms and you agree to be liable for the shortfall.

[Conniff]

A normal family saloon a few years old will not fetch at auction what it will at retail. You don't have to agree to those conditions as you have had no say in it's construction. They cannot refuse to accept the VT because you haven't signed that 'after agreement' clause they have just put in.

 

Just as you said

have a right to terminate the contract under s99 of the CCA 1974 as long as I have paid over 50%, have no arrears and the vehicle is kept in resonable condition for it's age and mileage.

 

If you want to write to them, tell them that is not part of the regulations or the agreement you signed up to.

 

ROVER FINANCE LTD -v- SIDDONS

Where the consumer terminates a hire purchase agreement, their liability is limited by the 50% rule in the Consumer Credit Act. In this case, the Court accepted that, even where the consumer is in breach of the agreement, and the finance company terminates, the same protection applies. Any clause which purports to impose a higher liability is an unenforceable penalty clause.

 

So the in arrears etc is crap as well.

 

Not a precedent as it's the county court, but worth keeping in mind for future reference - here's a bit more:

 

The Defendant had paid £4596.47 and arrears at termination were £650.52. The Defendant however still contends that as he was entitled to terminate in accordance with S99 up until the final payment was due he can still seek the protection of S100 to limit his liability and that clause 6 of the Finance Agreement is a penalty and unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

 

If the Defendant is correct he has no further liability in this claim, the Claimant only being entitled to £3552.20 and arrears at termination of £650.52, a sum of £4202.42. He has paid more than this. No evidence was adduced to me of contravention of the obligation to take reasonable care of the goods and no additional sum is due in this regard.

 

Unfortunately the copy agreement is very poor and I delayed judgment in this case to enable the Claimant to produce the original finance agreement to me. This cannot be done as the original agreement was so old it has been destroyed. It is therefore almost impossible for me to read clause 6.

 

However, it appears to me irrespective of the detailed wording of clause 6 of the Finance Agreement that the Defendants submissions have some merit. In reaching that conclusion I have considered Goode on Consumer Credit Law and Practice, S99 and S100 and S173(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

 

The Defendant did not terminate under S99 (although he would have been entitled to up to the end of the agreement and certainly as at the time when the Claimant terminated). The provision under S100 therefore doesn't automatically come into play, ie the Defendant would pay ½ total price as calculated.

 

However this is a regulated agreement and my view is that S100 must still be taken into account even where the finance company has terminated for breach as in this case. Substantial arrears are a repudiatory breach of the agreement and the absolute maximum which can be claimed is the sum calculated in accordance with S100(1) less payments. A minimum payment clause (which is apparently what claim 6 of the Finance Agreement is) is unenforceable as it imposes a greater penalty than that set out in S100.

 

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations include as examples clauses which impose financial penalties and which are therefore considered unfair.

 

Therefore in my view the debtor has discharged his liabilities to the Claimant and the claim is dismissed.

 

District Judge Eaton

 

19.7.02

Edited June 10, 2010 by Conniff

[andie_303]

Thanks Connif - whats even more fustrating is the fact I am not in arrears and never have been! I have paid on time without a problem every month the only reason I'm VT'ing is I have bought a new car and the finance is in such negative equity that it makes no sense to keep it.

 

I'm going to try scribing a letter shortly would you mind taking a peek in a while and giving me your feedback?

[Conniff]

No problem and if I can't advise, we will give postggj a shout, he is a wizard.

[andie_303]

Yep Post lives to annoy we are Welcome friends. Thank you will get drafting

[Conniff]

Yep Post lives to annoy we are Welcome friends. Thank you will get drafting

 

Will cost you more than a couple of digestive biscuits then

[postggj]

hi andie

 

i thought welcome were bad but still the same

 

talking rollocks

 

let me know when you have done the letter and ill go over it and add my bits

 

regards

[andie_303]

In looking at s99 and 100 of the cca I have come across this - I guess this is the subsection on which they chose to rely?

 

100 Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc agreement

(4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention, and subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly.

 

I suppose the grey area now is what constitutes "reasonable care"? and can the price they achieve at auction be used as a guide for the amount of "reasonable care"

[postggj]

it goes on the age and milage of the car

 

its expected a car xyz years old will have a few bumps and scratches

 

the key is reasonable for its age and condition

[postggj]

as long as you have paid 50% and have taken reasonable care of the goods

 

what they get at auction means didlly squat

[andie_303]

Apologies Maka for hijacking your thread but as we are about to start dealing with the same thing I hope you don't mind.

 

Here's my first draft....

 

[Address]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I write to you with regard to your letter dated 8th June 2010 which contains the paper worked I requested to voluntarily terminate my vehicle which is under Hire Purchase with your company.

 

As you are aware it is my right under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to return my vehicle early and forfeit ownership after I have made payments up to and above 50% of my contracted total as per section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act.

I have paid in excess of 50% and therefore I have the legal right to terminate this agreement.

 

Upon reading the information pack you have sent it seems your company is now adding what I consider to be unilateral unfair terms to this legal right which differ from that on my original contract paperwork that was signed in February 2007.

 

Your letter of 8th June 2010 states "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future"

 

and goes on to explain on page 2 of the information document

 

How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork?

We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork.

 

In stipulating that if a vehicle does not achieve Glass’s book value at an auction then this is automatically deemed to be the fault of the debtor I believe an unfair term. There are many extrinsic factors which could affect the price of a vehicle, the number of people at an auction, the location of the auction, the current financial state of the economy to name a few. I am sure with your company being in the vehicle trade you will also recognize that the sale price of vehicles at auction is generally always lower than the trade price the vehicle would achieve in at a garage. Therefore using a trade price guide to judge the value of an auction vehicle is I believe highly flawed and your use of this is designed solely for the financial benefit of your company.

 

There is no legislation contained in section 99 or 100 of the CCA 1974 that states the debtor is required to pay any shortfall in the price achieved by a vehicle at auction. In fact the only provision for any further payment beyond the 50% of full contracted amount is

 

Section 100 subsection 4 of the CCA 1974 states (4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention.

 

As you will see this only stipulates the good should be returned in “reasonable condition” this does not state that reasonable condition is determined by their resale value.

 

I ascertain that this is an unfair term in consumer contract regulations.

 

I now require you to either

 

a) Send amended paperwork that allows the termination of my vehicle as per section 99 & 100 without the unfair terms stated above.

 

OR

 

b) Explain why you believe you are entitled to enforce these unfair terms in clear and understandable English refraining from the use of complicated or legal jargon.

 

Please be aware that I will also be reporting this matter to Trading Standards and should I need to progress this further to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

Andie_303

[postggj]

yep fine

 

there extra bits are not in the cca 1974

 

they cant overide the cca:D:D

 

shame

[andie_303]

as long as you have paid 50% and have taken reasonable care of the goods

 

what they get at auction means didlly squat

 

The car is I believe reasonable. There are no dents there is a small scratch on the rear wheel arch about 1.5 inches - I was thinking of getting that done before I VT'd anyway.

 

The car is a 55 plate with 65k miles on so approx 15k miles a year - perfectly reasonable i think.

 

It's obviously been MOT'd every year and has never failed or required anything to be done whilst being MOT'd.

It has an MOT until December.

 

Whilst it hasn't been dealer serviced it has had new parts fitted as required including 4 new brake pads and disks only 4 months ago and 4 new tyres 5 months ago.

[postggj]

scratches and minor bumps are fine for a car that age and condition with great milage

 

they cant argue the vt

[andie_303]

Thanks Posty,

 

Something tells me that this is going to be a long battle!!

 

Grrr from Welcome to BCT!!

 

All I wanted to do was buy a new frickin car!!!!

[postggj]

fos again ?????

[andie_303]

went the court route the first time - tried and tested

[andie_303]

Oh another thought should I fit something into the letter about

 

1) How do I know the price they claim to have achieved at auction is the actual price they received?

 

2) Once I relinquish the car to them at their drop in Leeds (otherwise i have to pay £110 for them to come and collect it!) how do I know they aren't going to damage it - thus diminishing it's value for which I will then be held liable for at their auction?!

[andie_303]

How about this?

 

[Address]

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I write to you with regard to your letter dated 8th June 2010 which contains the paper worked I requested to voluntarily terminate my vehicle which is under Hire Purchase with your company.

 

As you are aware it is my right under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to return my vehicle early and forfeit ownership after I have made payments up to and above 50% of my contracted total as per section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act.

I have paid in excess of 50% and therefore I have the legal right to terminate this agreement.

 

Upon reading the information pack you have sent it seems your company is now adding what I consider to be unilateral unfair terms to this legal right which differ from that on my original contract paperwork that was signed in February 2007.

 

Your letter of 8th June 2010 states "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future"

 

and goes on to explain on page 2 of the information document

 

How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork?

We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork.

 

In stipulating that if a vehicle does not achieve Glass’s book value at an auction then this is automatically deemed to be the fault of the debtor I believe an unfair term. There are many extrinsic factors which could affect the price of a vehicle, the number of people at an auction, the location of the auction, the current financial state of the economy to name a few. I am sure with your company being in the vehicle trade you will also recognize that the sale price of vehicles at auction is generally always lower than the trade price the vehicle would achieve in at a garage. Therefore using a trade price guide to judge the value of an auction vehicle is I believe highly flawed and your use of this is designed solely for the financial benefit of your company.

 

Upon relinquishing the car to your company at your branch in Leeds I will have no control upon the condition the car remains in. Yet were it to somehow become damaged in your care thus diminishing its sale value your terms and conditions will still hold me liable for that.

 

Furthermore will you provide evidence to show the price achieved at auction and that no damages, losses or extra mileage was incurred, reducing the value whilst the car is in your procession?

 

There is no legislation contained in section 99 or 100 of the CCA 1974 that states the debtor is required to pay any shortfall in the price achieved by a vehicle at auction. In fact the only provision for any further payment beyond the 50% of full contracted amount is

 

Section 100 subsection 4 of the CCA 1974 states (4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention.

 

As you will see this only stipulates the good should be returned in “reasonable condition” this does not state that reasonable condition is determined by their resale value.

 

I ascertain that this is an unfair term in consumer contract regulations.

 

I now require you to either

 

a) Send amended paperwork that allows the termination of my vehicle as per section 99 & 100 without the unfair terms stated above.

 

OR

 

b) Explain why you believe you are entitled to enforce these unfair terms in clear and understandable English refraining from the use of complicated or legal jargon.

 

Please be aware that I will also be reporting this matter to Trading Standards and should I need to progress this further to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

Andie_303

[postggj]

1/ take no notice on the auction

it has no relevence on the vt

 

2/ take loads of photo before you hand it over

 

get the garage to do a report

 

the same that target rental do prior to hire and get them to sign it

[andie_303]

1/ take no notice on the auction

it has no relevence on the vt

 

I have to take notice until they rescind it or I can take it to further authorities.

 

Just thinking if I explain all the ridiculous reasons them why they can't do what they say they want to it could all go further in my favour should FOS or courts get involved at a later date