Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
    • It was really this daft Privacy Notice we were after, but no worries, I'm 99% sure it doesn't count as a NTD otherwise in his letter Simple Simon wouldn't have offered the discount of paying £60 instead of £100. Apologies for jumping the gun earlier. It's a pity your friend paid.  It's neither here nor there if Excel would back down or not.  They are not some statutory authority.  They're just a cowboy private company.  The only way she could have been forced to pay is if a judge had ruled against her in a court hearing, which is highly unlikely given she could have proved to have been elsewhere. I see her "offence" was in May 2023 so logically Excel and their signs were there by then.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HP Problem been fast tracked so help needed


steveoram1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4483 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'm currently trying to help out a mate with his HP agreement. Story as follows -: He bought a car on HP while at the same time part exing another car which was in a bit of negative equity. He wanted to keep his payments at a certain level and was told by the salesman that to do this he would have to chip in just over 4 grand which he did. 20 odd months down the line and he decides to voluntarily terminate the agreement but turns out he can't as the 4 grand is not shown on his HP agreement at all. He has proof that he paid this to the garage as he has his bank statements etc. from the time. The other strange thing is that the car which was advertised on Autotrader as being up for £22,995 is shown as £25,668 total cash price on his HP agreement. We have spoken to Autotrader and have an email from them to confirm this was the price. We have had an allocation hearing and the case has been fast tracked but we have been advised to amend the POC by the judge to better state these facts. I would appreciate any help with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to tell us all the info on the HP agreement.

 

Car price

deposit (ie px price of car he pxed)

amount financed

any other additional extras (warranty, PPI, gap insurance etc)

interest charge

length of agreement

total amount payable

 

I suspect that the car the delaer took in part exchange has been written bacvk by £4k as otherwise the dealer would have a car thats £4k too deat on his books.. and you get no VAT relief for cars you lose mnoey on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Docs read as follows:

 

Cash Price 25,668

Advance Payment 0

HP Charges £4675

Credit Facility Fee A £150

Credit Facility Fee B £90

Purchase Fee £10

Total Charge For Credit £4925

 

Duration 60 Months

Total Amount Payable £30613

One Repayment Of £656.05

58 Payments of £506.05

Final Payment £606.05

APR 7.4%

 

On the invoice the car is shown as £25478

Plus Tax at £210 for 12 months RFL

 

There are no other extras, insurances etc.

 

I need to know if s.75 of CCA 1974 applies to this agreement considering the price.

What about the Misrepresentation Act.

He has the Finance Company to deal with at court not the motor dealer and we need to know the best way to amend the POC to include the price being raised.

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the £4000 was used to pay the negitave equity on his previous car and not as a deposit on the new car.

 

How much was the negative equity??

 

He would have to have paid just over £15000 to vt the car according to the finance doc figures which would take 30 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How has he justified the increase in advertised price from 22,995 to 25,668? It isn't unusual for the "list" price of the new car to be increased to absorb the negative equity of the old car rather than take a direct payment for the negative equity, but this salesman appears to have done both!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

He has already won a FOS judgement against the dealer. The FOS adjudicator concluded that the dealer "did not complete the finance proposal correctly which meant the deposit figure was not included in Mr #######'s finance agreement" The FOS also confusingly concluded that he suffered no financial loss as the total amount payable remained the same but surely this would only have been true had the agreement run full term. What prompted all of this was my mate wishing to terminate the agreement and him being told he couldn't without paying another 2 and a bit grand but if his 4 grand had have been on the agreement he would have been able to VT. All advice greatly recieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£38543 owed and given £31500 so 8k shortfall. Court case rests on agreement being unenforceable due to prescribed terms being incorrect (amount and frequency of repayments) and rights to VT being curtailed to the detriment of my pal.

Edited by steveoram1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So it looks like the extra money charged for the car £2673 and the £4000 cash was used to settle the outstanding finance.

If the shortfall was added to the amout financed he would have had to borrow an extra £6673 which would have raised the VT amount to 50% of £37266 (total amount for car) so 50% would be £18633, so he still would not have enough paid to VT.

So another £2500 to get out would be cheap.

 

Also he probably would not have got the finance through if presented like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...