HP Problem been fast tracked so help needed

[steveoram1]

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.

[oddjobbob]

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.

[steveoram1]

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

[blackknight]

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.

[crem]

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!

[steveoram1]

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.

[blackknight]

What did he owe on the part ex and what did he get for it??

[steveoram1]

£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 January 5, 2012 by steveoram1

[blackknight]

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.

[steveoram1]

Thankyou for looking at this but I think you are missing the point. Our angle of attack is that the prescribed terms are wrong on the finance agreement.

[blackknight]

Was the deposit showing on the invoice or did it match the finance docs i.e no deposit??