Arnold Clark questioable tactics on old cars from customer

[Raym]

Hi All

 

Looking for a bit of advice regarding an ongoing issue my friend is having in relation to a car he purchased recently from Arnold Clark Vauxhall in Greenock.

 

I went with him to the Clydebank showroom a few weeks ago after seeing a car advertised on the Arnold Clark website. To cut a long story short, the car wasn't there and he paid a £100 deposit to have it delivered there to be test driven/viewed. The salesman messed him about over the following week and didn't bother getting the car for him so he went to the showroom in Greenock where he selected an alternative car. The salesman in Greenock brought up the previous sale on the computer from the Clydebank branch to cancel it, and stated at this point that the finance had been approved but now cancelled as he was no longer buying the previous car.

 

So, the saleman set up a new sale on the computer with the new car details. All went well and my friend collected the car a week ago on Saturday after the finance was again accepted and processed. My mate also traded in his old car. Then, a week later my friend got a call from the showroom asking him to attend and sign some new finance documents as there was a spelling error in the previous forms. I went with him tonight to the branch and the way in which he was treated was absolutely shocking...

 

We got there about 7pm and the salesman told him that because THE ARNOLD CLARK SALESMAN had spelled my mates name incorrectly, when he later corrected it, the finance was declined and no other company would offer the finance either. The salesman took great delight in informing my mate and I that he would have to take the car off him there and then. He could not offer my mate his old car back as it had already went to auction.

 

Arnold Clark were perfectly happy to leave the two of us stood in Greenock (25 miles from home) with the contents of the car's boot with no money to get home at 8pm at night. I dread to think what they would have done had it been an elerly person or a disabled person. Clearly they really don't care. They deliberately tricked my mate into attending at the showroom to "sign paperwork" when thier intention the full time was to "steal" my mate's two cars from him. They couldn't offer my mate his old car back and as far as I'm concerned, they surely are guilty of theft of at least one of the cars?

 

I'm looking for some advice on what the legal point of view in respect of this is. Needless to say my mate will be escalating this matter to Trading Standards, the Sunday Mail and BBC Watchdog first thing tomorrow, but I'm looking for any advice that anyone can offer meantime. He's not even going to bother with Arnold Clark customer services as they have been useless in the past and I would suggest that an article in the media would be far more beneficial.

 

As far as we are concerned, Arnold Clark surely must have a duty to ensure that the details they are entering onto systems are correct. Furthermore, surely they shouldn't be giving out cars willy nilly before finance agreements have been finalised. I feel that the way my friend has been treated is nothing short of appaling. The car was only £5500. Surely a company of Arnold Clark's size could fund the car themselves and allow my mate to pay them the monthly payments considering the blame here appears to lie entirely with the Arnold Clark staff.

 

Many Thanks for any advice you can offer

Raymond

[Matt63]

That's quite some post! There are four distinct transactions here:

i) The payment of the deposit

ii) The purchase of the new car

iii) The trade in of your mate's old car

iv) The settlement of the account for i), ii) and iii)

 

Well there is no doubt that your mate paid a deposit and then bought the car, equally there is no doubt that he sold his old car to them. Just because the finance was declined after the event does not nullify the previous three transactions. What the garage should have done was pursued your mate for the debt.

 

[A key point here by the way is what sort of finance, was it a lease or was it a personal loan? If it was a lease the repossession may just be covered by the terms of the lease, however there would have to be a default procedure to go through first.]

 

However, what they should not have done is "repossessed" the car without giving your mate the opportunity to pay for it. Assuming your mate still has the V5 log book, then he should be able to go to the police and, as you say, state that the car has been "stolen" by the garage.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Matt63

[Dragons Dennis]

Some of the worst advice I have read on the forum for a long while!

 

This was one transaction. The purchase of a new car which involved the part exchange of an old car and settlement by finance. The transaction was complete at the point ther customer left with his new car.

 

There is a very odd issue over the finance and that is one I would be looking into. How did the finannce company initially issue the approval if they didn't have correct details? Part of their checks would be voters register and credit checks. The details must match or they will brick wall it. So there is a piece of this jigsaw missing.

 

Police have no interest in this as Arnold Clark have not stolen anything. Indeed, if I was Arnold Clark I would now be issuing a writ against CAG for publishing libel! The car belongs to the owner, which in the case of finance apporved would be the finance company and if not approved would remain the property of Arnold Clark. The V5 means you are registered as a keeper not owner! Furthermore, they were handed back the car and keys at their premises which would not be theft in any event. Quite probably why it was done that way to avoid cost and process of officially repossessing the car at the buyers address.

 

However, I do feel that the way this was done was deplorable and if it is as posted I would want answers from Arnold Clark as to what the hell has gone on.

 

There is an element that as the contract has been cancelled, it is null and void in its entirity and thus the old car should be returned. The fact they have already sold the car makes it a difficult issue and technically it was not their car to sell and on that element your mate could demand their old car is recovered and returned to them as they still own the car.

[Matt63]

Dragon's Dennis is not correct. A sale of an item is a different transaction to the payment for said item. As i said, different finance arrangements exist for car purchases, it is entirely possible that the finance is just a personal loan in which case the finance company have no claim on the car. Arnold Clark have no basis to claim for libel unless what OP has written is factually incorrect.

[Dragons Dennis]

I am not going to get into a slanging match. YOU are the one who is libelling Arnold Clark, not the OP. You are the one who suggested that the OP report the car as stolen by Arnold Clark, thus the libellous suggestion that they are theives.

[Matt63]

I have been in publishing for 20 years and I can assure you that what I wrote was not libel. I didn't even name the company! OP might wish to change the name of the thread however.

 

The key to all of this that OP's mate signed a legally binding finance agreement and took delivery of the car. That agreement gives him rights to use the car as he pleases provided he makes the payments.

 

From what was described, the situation was that OP's mate had a car, and he owed finance, but was not behind on the payments, and therefore neither the garage nor the finance company had any right to repossess. And if they had no legal right to repossess, and they did so without consent, then yes, that is "theft".

[Guest arnoldclark]

Hi, We would like to help advise the customer in this situation, can you ask your friend to contact us at Customer Services on 0844 815 2129, and we would be happy to assist if we can?

 

Thanks

 

Alasdair

Arnold Clark

[sailor sam]

Not sure this is a police matter (yet anyway). My veiw is that there was/is an agreement made to provide finance to the OP's 'friend'. To terminate the agreement (by the creditor) would need a default notice to be issued stating the reasons for the termination. I doubt whether it is within AC's remit to 'reposess' the car, that would be for the finance co to persue. In anyevent, the agreement has been broken and if it was done in the way that the OP describes, then he could certainly sue AC and possibly the fianance co. Personally, my first call would be to the finance co to see what their version of events are. I do see that this has pricked up the ears of AC from the previous post from their Customer Service person, but before making any contact with them I would a) contact the finance co to see what their story is and then b) contact a solicitor or trading standards for advice then c) see what AC have to say (depending on the advice you are given).

[MARTIN3030]

Thank you Alisdair,we look forward to that.

Raym,we also look forward to updates,asw you are able to provide them.

[scaniaman]

Hi, We would like to help advise the customer in this situation, can you ask your friend to contact us at Customer Services on 0844 815 2129, and we would be happy to assist if we can?

See topic by Scott39---=-note, no offer of help here???????

Edited May 10, 2011 by scaniaman

[scaniaman]

This is indeed a strange story. It is virtually unheard of for AC or any other large firm to release a car to a customer until it is completely paid for. IE until the finance company accepts the application and pays the vendor.As other posters have said the first question that needs asking is of the finance company involved.As for AC's competency and tactics----Well.

Perhaps this case should be reported to the Financial Services Authority???

Edited May 10, 2011 by scaniaman

[heliosuk]

Nice to see you back Alasdair. Are you the same person who promises much and delivers nothing or a new improved version having been upgraded with the record profits the group has made giving poor customer service because Arnolds pension fund is suffering???

[queensclose]

Sounds like the finance company were refusing to pay ac over the salesman misspelling. Imagine you did it all correct because you would have produced all the required forms of ID and they copied them for the finance copy and that's were they picked up on the mispelling. Ac were quick to get their car back after realising their mistake.

Sailor Sam has some sound advice. After all because of ac making a mistake you are now without a car and left 25 miles from home.

 

Ac while your there your customer service in a disgrace.

I bought my car from you in 2008 and arranged my own finance with the back and on your salesman advice to sell my old car privately. I found a buyer for mine same day. My bank transferred the money and faxed you. Your salesman phoned me and told me to come and collect after 4pm

I let buyer the take my car and got a taxi you to collect my car only be told sorry we are not releasing your new car for 3days because of company policy on arranging your own finance. After you told me to collect I was left with no car for work. It was only after i Theatened to cancel the transaction that you give me one of your old bangers for 3 days

You didn,t even want to give me that. It was because I started to talk to the bank on recalling the payment.

I will never use you again

You sales people need to get it right because it seems the customer always suffers

[MARTIN3030]

The proof is in the pudding as they say.

While we are always happy to invite official customer service reps to try to resolve issues,we do expect this to be wholehearted,transparent,and above all else,productive.

I can well understand the apathy from some of our members,on the basis of resolution so far.

Here is an opportunity to prove people wrong-lets see.

If there is any examples needed of just how productive and benefits can be seen from genuine commitments to deal-look no further to the telecoms forums on CAG and see how Vodafone have embraced the chance.

Or Colin the Scottish Power rep in the utilities forum.

If our members do not see things happening,then I for one will share their apathy too.

Ball in your Court then Alistair.

[scaniaman]

Well said Martin. In my case the truth was not published, and the offer made was only to the benefit of Arnold Clark. The Sunday Post was also given incorrect information.As said previously, given the profits made by this firm would not suffer even if they treated every complaint properly, in fact the correct resolutation of complaints would creat more profit by way of satisfied customers telling their friends.What sort of business accumen do these guys have????

[sailor sam]

Before the OP (or his friend) enters into any dialogue with 'Alasdair', I would do as I suggest in my previous post 8 due to the potential seriousness of this matter. I urge the OP to come back and update us asap.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes agreed.

I will email the op and ask them if they can do that.

[MARTIN3030]

Well said Martin. In my case the truth was not published, and the offer made was only to the benefit of Arnold Clark. The Sunday Post was also given incorrect information.As said previously, given the profits made by this firm would not suffer even if they treated every complaint properly, in fact the correct resolutation of complaints would creat more profit by way of satisfied customers telling their friends.What sort of business accumen do these guys have????

 

 

Its a big company.

So often,the people tasked with doing their job,are really restricted as to what exactly their brief allows.

I have seen this with a few OCRs and will sometimes throw in awkward questions to get an understanding of how they are able to respond.

This isnt to catch them out,moreso to establish some trust.

I am still waiting for answers actually to quite a few questions-which tells me that they simply arent able to answer on CAG.

Shame really-but it does allow us to know from the start-where they are coming from.

[sailor sam]

Have we got any more info on this? Has Alisdair been back to the OP?

[jacqueline moir]

I am actually going through exactly the same thing now but after reading this i refused to go to the chat about the car tonight to be left without one. They gave me the car last week then called to say they made a mistake with my dob putting 1960 rather than 1989 they now want me to get a family member to take out the finance on car 'fronting' or give the car back. I already signed my car over to them and after checking my credit expert they have done 28 searches on my account and it has plummeted. They told me on the phone today that my car will be taken back by bailiffs if i don't return it as its not being paid for. I called black horse who said that the finance was proposed but they cant tell me any more than that.I asked over the phone what about the 285 i paid to cancel my own insurance and the 100 deposit and soon to be cancellation fees on my new car as well as the deposit. They said they wont be liable to this. Im driving around in a car thats not paid for and i said well whos fault is that not mine. I asked what about all the searched you have done on my account several to the same companies over and over he said he cant fix whats already broken...too late. The trainee i first spoke to said aw dont worry that will sort itself out in three weeks... i doubt it... Just spoke to cab who said i have to all back monday to speak to consumer rights. Where do i stand with this?? x

[Matt63]

Hi, Jacqueline, it truly is a difficult situation. Presumably you signed a finance agreement and have a copy? Did you pay a deposit? Do you have a receipted invoice? Have they sent any letters to you?

[scaniaman]

If memory serves me correctly, "Fronting" is illegal !!!!!!!!!!

Wonder if these tactics were why Clark lost the Honda franchise??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arnold shark---NEVER AGAIN

[Surfer01]

Also makes you wonder on the necessity to do 28 searches trashing your credit file in the process unless this is a deliberate tactic.

[Matt63]

Hello Jacqueline have there been any further developments? If you have a receipt you have the perfect defense against any bailiffs.

[sailor sam]

I notice we never heard what happened regarding the OPs case and Alasdair seems to have gone very quiet also.