Dodgy? HP aAgreement - Broker or Lender at Fault?

[df1970]

Hi All,

 

I've been looking around all morning to find some case law or regulation information to support an argument I'm having.

 

My questions is: If there is a problem with how a HP agreement was originally put together by a broker, should the lender also bear responsibility?

 

I'm arguing with a lender about some errors with a loan agreement but they are pushing me back by saying it's not their problem and that I should take it up with the broker.

 

I'm pretty sure that a lender is responsible for how their brokers put deals together.

 

Or am I wrong?

 

Cheers.

[citizenB]

Whose signature is on the loan agreement - theirs or the brokers ?

 

I thought broker simply introduced 2 parties.. the lender and the borrower - the contract is then with the lender !!

 

I will however, ask others on the site team

[df1970]

Hi, thanks for the quick response. The agreement is signed by the lender.

[citizenB]

Hi, thanks for the quick response. The agreement is signed by the lender.

 

Then IMHO, the lender is responsible.. however, do please wait for those with more knowledge to confirm this. I have left an S.O.S on your behalf

[dx100uk]

and under section 56 CCA

the lender are responsible for the brokers actions.

 

not GE Money is it?

 

dx

[citizenB]

Thanks dx

[df1970]

Many thanks.

 

It's a HP agreement for a car and the lender is British Credit Trust.

 

FOS are handling it at the moment but it's a very messy affair.

 

I made a comment in my complaint that BTC are liable for the actions of their broker

but the FOS want me to support my statement.

 

I had a reference to such a position but can no longer find it.

[df1970]

Could I rely on CCA 1974 Section 75 - equal liability or does this only relate to faulty goods? (my issue is incorrect purchase price of vehicle, terms omitted from the agreement and secret commission).

[dx100uk]

god even worse than GE.

 

BCT were Thames Credit.

 

they were buried to hide all their dodgy dealings with back handers to dealers for various commissions in garages

 

what are you disputing please?

[dx100uk]

section 56.

 

Consumer Credit Act Section 56. refers...

— (1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a) conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

© conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

[citizenB]

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/Ombudsman-news/79/79-car-finance.htm

 

I dont know if the information on the link above will help - if so, then you can quote the Ombudsmans own article at them.. because they wrote it !

 

And this from the OFT

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit-licensing/do-you-need/licence-categories/

 

Also, in the following Link the OFT appear to be saying that the lender is responsible for the actions of its agents.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49185[/ATTACH]

[df1970]

thanks - very helpful.

[df1970]

that has been really helpful reading. Thanks.

 

I'm just deciding now whether I should focus on section 56 or section 75.

 

Basic summary of facts:

 

 

1. I signed an 11 page HP agreement. 2 years later I realised that sections 1 to 8 of the terms were missing from the 11 pages. This has now been admitted as an error by the broker.
   
2. The purchase price of the vehicle on the agreement is also wrong by £1500 too much. Again an admin error - nothing to do with part ex or refinancing etc just a simple numbers error.
   
3. Broker put in writing that they do not get paid any commission. Subject Access Request revealed that a commission was paid.
   

 

My argument is that the agreement is void. For a number of reasons I need to focus my complaint on the lender.

 

So, I'm guessing I can use section 56 to make the lender jointly liable for the errors made by the broker. Correct?

 

Can I also use section 75 on the basis of misrepresentation (wrong price of goods and secret commission) and also loss (paying too much as the wrong price was put on the agreement)

 

Cheers.

[dx100uk]

is there repo involved in this too

as its in the repo forum ?

 

dx

[df1970]

Hi, no repo. I still have the car under lock and key and wish to send it back.

Edited February 11, 2014 by df1970
typo

[dx100uk]

ok I've moved you to the general debt forum

where you'll get better help I expect.

 

if the HP Agreement is crap by the ways you indicate

under section 90 that gives you the car

and all the payments back in many cases I think.

 

the agreement is irredeemably flawed

 

section 90 refers.

[Rex Shepherd 7]

Section 75 cannot apply to hire purchase agreements as the supplier of the credit is also the supplier of the goods and is thus not a d-c-s arrangement.

[df1970]

I see - so as the broker sold the goods to the lender who subsequently HP'd them to me, that eliminates section 75 correct?

 

Also, section 90 seems to be about protected goods being repossessed. That's not relevant here - yes it's protected but I still have the goods.

[Rex Shepherd 7]

HP works by the garage selling the car to the finance company who then supply it on hire until the consumer's final payment effectively buys it. The finance company also supplies the goods as well as the credit thereby being solely liable for the goods and not jointly so under S75.

[df1970]

ok great - thanks for that.

 

So, I'm relying on Section 56 - Antecedent Negotiations.

 

I've found an OFT document OFT303 which actually speaks about Section 75 but comments on Section 56 as follows:

 

Frequently, the supplier is the only

person a customer has any contact

with during negotiations. He provides

information about the credit terms as

well as about the goods, land, or

services being financed by the credit -

as when a furniture salesman explains

to a prospective buyer the hire

purchase terms on a piece of

furniture. In this case (if it is a

regulated agreement), under section

56 of the Act the supplier is taken to

act on the credit grantor’s behalf - as

his agent - as well as his own. In

effect, this makes the credit grantor

responsible for the negotiations as if

he had conducted them himself.

 

So on that basis, the lender is responsible for the negotiations as if they had actually conducted them. In my case this would be the incomplete contract, incorrect purchase price and the secret commission.

 

Can I argue on that basis?

 

Cheers.