Jump to content
yogibear1

MotoNovo Finance - Jaguar on HPi with mileage discrepancy

Recommended Posts

Please note that I have added some points.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I have sent a tweet out to the finance company which links to this thread so on Monday they will be aware of this discussion and the advice you are receiving. That may serve to add further pressure in addition to the letter


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do I write a continuation of my complaint as i have already sent a complaint letter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

Also I have sent a tweet out to the finance company which links to this thread so on Monday they will be aware of this discussion and the advice you are receiving. That may serve to add further pressure in addition to the letter

This won't cause me problems with the finance company, will it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but was there a previous MOT certificate when you purchased the car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yogibear1 said:

This won't cause me problems with the finance company, will it?

Not at all


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yogibear1 said:

do I write a continuation of my complaint as i have already sent a complaint letter

 

Quote

I am writing further to my letter of XXX  and  for the avoidance of doubt ... etc I am putting you on notice that 28 dys set by you is not acceptable to me ... etc

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yogi - I would certainly be following BankFodder's advice at this moment, but I'm also interested in the points I think Buyer-Beware and johnjordan are hinting at.

 

What does the MOT history of the car show in terms of mileage  (in particular the last one before you bought it)?  Looking at that history, is it feasible that it's been a simple mileage typo in the past?  You state a discrepancy of "26,000" miles but I'm assuming you've rounded this figure.  Is the actual figure divisible by nine?  I ask this because a difference divisible by nine can be an indication of a transposition error.  (eg 64,000 recorded as 46,000 = difference of 18,000 = 9 * 2,000).  Of course, if this has happened (and it's not unknown) the MOT mileage history would be all over the place and I would have expected it to have been spotted before now.

 

I would follow BankFodder's advice but I'd also check the MOT mileage history to see what the figures tell me.  (In the case of a 26k discrepancy I would have expected - depending on previous usage - either a suspiciously low annual mileage or even negative mileage!).

 

But I'm no expert, so stick with BankFodder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you PM Buyer beware orif you are not allowed

pm any siteteam member the reg number and we'll fed in on.

looks like BW has MOT database access and as any friendly MOT centre will do [if you have one local to you]

they'll printout all the years of mileage readings that have been recorded on the mot online system


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DX. The registration is on the HPI check with the mileage and MOT info. If you look at that report properly, you can see the ownership of the car hadn’t changed at the moment of the discrepancy.

 

The far greater majority of cars are clocked prior to their first mot birthday, NOT when it is in perfect view for every database to see. If you actually study the overall mileage it looks IMO clearly like a simple clerical error, yes it drops down but then it leaps by up by 46k (in a year) !! There is no concerning reason for it because the keeper hadn’t changed.

 

If I was the OP, I would ask the HPI report team to investigate the discrepancy (that’s their job) also, contact Jaguar for real time service work with mileages and take the car to Jaguar for them to check the ECU for any mileage changes, you will then have definite proof. I bet you a crate of beer it’s a simply a clerical error, that’s exactly what it looks like and  believe me I have much experience in sorting out many of these in the past. 

 

OP. Once, the discrepancy has been investigated properly and confirmed an error, the flag will be removed, you will also get it in writing and it will NOT affect future resale.

 

If it cannot be cleared then follow BF’s route. The car isn’t as described. 

 

HTH

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it is a mot input error it can be removed showing no discrepancy on the hpi system then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer to that – but that would be the single opportunity for the finance company to repair the defect. After that they would be required to refund you or replace the vehicle at your option.

Somebody else will come along who knows much better whether or not the erroneous record can be corrected so that it shows absolutely no trace. I think that is essential. I don't think that you should be required to accept any compromise or any fudge


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a clerical error isn’t a defect it’s simply a simply a clerical error. And yes, DVSA will delete or amend the error when confirmed. Simple

 

I would hold back trying to reject a vehicle over a potential clerical error until you know the actual facts first. Diving in all guns blazing, threatening this and that won’t change the fundamental facts. When you know exactly where you stand then you can make and educated decision on which route to follow. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not hold back from rejecting the car. I would assert my rights now within the six months window. Once you have done that then your position is reserved. Then you are open to negotiate with the finance company.

If you hold back so that you assert your rights after the six-month window then you will have sacrifice a position and also lost a negotiating hand.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, yogibear1 said:

so if it is a mot input error it can be removed showing no discrepancy on the hpi system then?

Absolutely yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BankFodder said:

I would not hold back from rejecting the car. I would assert my rights now within the six months window. Once you have done that then your position is reserved. Then you are open to negotiate with the finance company.

If you hold back so that you assert your rights after the six-month window then you will have sacrifice a position and also lost a negotiating hand.

 BankFodder, you can’t reject a vehicle on a whim, the finance company will simply not accept a rejection. They have every right to fully investigate the error for their own complete clarity. The clerical error, if it isjust an error can simply be deleted and you have absolutely no case to make. 

 

Dont you think getting the foundations right is best advice before taking the bull in a china shop approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. The statue makes it very clear that if there is a defect within the first six months then either a 30 day rule applies or a six month rule applies. The statute says nothing about the quality of the defect or whether it undermines the purpose of the contract. Beyond six months, the ordinary rules of contract apply and that means that you have to examine the effect of the defect/breach upon the purpose of the contract. Within the first six months there is no such need. If you are applying the six month rule then the dealer/finance company (in this case) has a single opportunity to remedy the defect and if they failed to do so then the purchaser has the right to reject the item.

The statute is very clear. There are no other interpretations – but if you disagree then please refer to your sources and let us know so that we can understand why you have a different opinion.

The purchaser here should absolutely reserve his position so that he takes the benefit of the six month rule under the Consumer Rights Act if the finance company is unable or unwilling to take steps to remedy the defect.

After the six-month rule has expired in this case, the finance company might quite reasonably say that this defect has simply affected the value of the vehicle but  has not undermined the purpose of the contract which is to provide a working vehicle. In that case the purchaser might be left with the vehicle is difficult to sell and is not as described but he will have to do put up with the defect and pass it on to the next purchaser with that defect in place.

By asserting his right before the expiry of the six months, as I have said, the purchaser reserves his extremely powerful right under the Consumer Rights Act.

Please don't simply respond with a bland contradiction. It's unhelpful. People are entitled to know the basis of your opinion.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert but Bankfodders explanation of the 6-month rule sounds spot on, it's better to be safe than sorry.

There is a defect as I was told by 2 traders they would not touch my car with a mileage discrepancy so to me that's serious.

 

Why was I not told about this mileage discrepancy when I purchased the car? why didn't the seller get it removed?

Why am i feeling nervous about selling the car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

Here we go again. The statue makes it very clear that if there is a defect within the first six months then either a 30 day rule applies or a six month rule applies. The statute says nothing about the quality of the defect or whether it undermines the purpose of the contract. Beyond six months, the ordinary rules of contract apply and that means that you have to examine the effect of the defect/breach upon the purpose of the contract. Within the first six months there is no such need. If you are applying the six month rule then the dealer/finance company (in this case) has a single opportunity to remedy the defect and if they failed to do so then the purchaser has the right to reject the item.

The statute is very clear. There are no other interpretations – but if you disagree then please refer to your sources and let us know so that we can understand why you have a different opinion.

The purchaser here should absolutely reserve his position so that he takes the benefit of the six month rule under the Consumer Rights Act if the finance company is unable or unwilling to take steps to remedy the defect.

After the six-month rule has expired in this case, the finance company might quite reasonably say that this defect has simply affected the value of the vehicle but  has not undermined the purpose of the contract which is to provide a working vehicle. In that case the purchaser might be left with the vehicle is difficult to sell and is not as described but he will have to do put up with the defect and pass it on to the next purchaser with that defect in place.

By asserting his right before the expiry of the six months, as I have said, the purchaser reserves his extremely powerful right under the Consumer Rights Act.

Please don't simply respond with a bland contradiction. It's unhelpful. People are entitled to know the basis of your opinion.

Im not trying to antagonise you BF. You’ve given your help, advice and opinion, am I not allowed to give mine ? I’m just giving balanced advice.  Can’t OP take whoever’s advice he pleases, as per your own terms and conditions, you are “all” laymen, non experts, non professionals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yogibear1 said:

I am no expert but Bankfodders explanation of the 6-month rule sounds spot on, it's better to be safe than sorry.

There is a defect as I was told by 2 traders they would not touch my car with a mileage discrepancy so to me that's serious.

 

Why was I not told about this mileage discrepancy when I purchased the car? why didn't the seller get it removed?

Why am i feeling nervous about selling the car?

I agree, yes it does and I absolutely agree with you, but the finance company aren’t stupid, they will also need to know the bottom line on the car. Is it straight with a simple error or is it bent... either which way you want to get rid and either way you aren’t going to be out of pocket. It it’s an error, get it deleted, if it isn’t return it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to the hire purchase company to make sure that the problem is corrected. If you want to do it yourself and you think you can manage it so that it leaves no trace then go ahead. There's nothing to stop you. But it's not your responsibility. It's a matter between the finance company and the dealer. The dealer had a responsibility to make sure that the car was completely correct in all its particulars – and they failed to do that.
To suggest that the purchaser is acting on a whim is really quite ridiculous. I'm not sure what kind of culture you find acceptable that one is required to pay 100% of the price and yet receive less than 100% of what one has been promised.

I'm quite sure that if the purchaser had said to the dealer that he was only going to pay them 98% of the price, they would have objected very loudly and refused to part with the car – and very reasonably so.

I'm sorry that you seem to be suggesting that a consumer should accept mediocre standards whilst a dealer should not.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree with you BankFodder it's up to the finance company to put things right,  I bought the car in good faith.

 

I'm suspicious as when I spoke to the finance company they said they have just done a hpi report and they can see they did one when I bought the car and said to me there is NO discrepancy showing, clearly there was as i did one and it clearly showed up, so why the deceit?

 

I have done a little homework and its not 100% guaranteed that the mileage can be put right with no flag. 

 

So the ball is in the seller's court.

 

 

Edited by yogibear1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it's probably in your court to keep control of the situation and to dominate the finance company. If the finance company won't put pressure on the seller then there is really no reason for the seller to do anything. Actually, I wonder whether you might have some rights against the seller under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act. However for simplicity it might be better simply to keep on at the finance company. I think that you will wield most leverage if they think that you are going to force them to accept rejection of the vehicle and to insist on your refund plus costs and that you are likely to go to the ombudsman. I think this should be your position at the moment – and it's up to the high purchase company to extricate themselves from the problem if they can by clearing up the mileage discrepancy record – so it leaves absolutely no trace.

They have got powerful rights against the dealer because they can easily sue the dealer for breach of contract if they need to – but I can imagine that the dealer relies on them to finance other vehicles and so the dealer will be very anxious to behave correctly towards the finance company and of course this will benefit you.

He certainly shouldn't be accepting their unilateral timescales – particularly when they are apparently 28 days – and even then simply with a promise to revert to you and no promise of the solution. This is wholly unacceptable. Once again, make sure that you have asserted your rights under the consumer rights act and that your letter to them makes this absolutely clear.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written the letter that you suggested earlier and it's being sent recorded tomorrow.

I will keep you posted as I've never been through this situation before.

 

Again many thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well double check the wording that it clearly asserts your right to reject under the consumer rights act. I can't quite remember what I said


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?





  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if you go to the dwp website there is an online SAR you can fill in to get all the details.   here is your old thread mentioned above  
    • Thanks for the advice, I will call the council Tuesday morning and see what they say, and then send the I/E form.   Something doesn't sit right with me on the whole thing.    I found an email I had sent to my MP early 2008 detailing the problems we were having with tax credits, and I go into great detail of our situation and  employment history.   Work was sporadical and I am pretty sure we were on benefits throughout one of those whole periods (I even had a post on here about the bank charges problem)   In fact most of those time periods mentioned in post 4 there was little work. Worst 2 years of our lives! I dont know how to find records of benefits though for that long ago.
    • I won a prize in a Raffle operated by an organisation holding an event at a local venue. The prizes were displayed on video screens in the venue and on a printed list by the person selling the tickets.  The prize I won was stated as "4 (four) weekend VIP tickets to Birmingham Pride"   - I did not open the envelope until the following day - it contained 3 (three) vouchers for weekend "Premium" tickets to Birmingham Pride (Premium being a lower priced ticket than VIP).   A friend who was at the event with me had the phone number of one of the organisers - there being no other obvious way to contact them - the person confirmed the prize was stated as 4 tickets, it was supposed to have been changed to 3, but that it had not been done.   I considered that this was suspicious, I can accept it might not have been possible to change the wording on the video screens, but the person selling the tickets could have clarified this verbally, and could have altered the "4" on the printed sheet to show "3".    As "compensation" I was offered free entry to their next event. That would be £7 per person (if they intended to include anyone else I was attending with) which in no way equates in financial or entertainment value of the Pride event, which has tickets priced £88.00, for two days of live acts including Marc Almond, Faithless and Human League.   I would like to know if the offer of prizes as originally stated and the exchange of money for entry in the raffle constitutes an intent to create legal relations - and as such, that I am entitled to 4 (four) VIP tickets (not Premium) and nothing else other than a cash alternative of equal value to the expected prize.   Incidentally, the vouchers state to send an email to an email address at birminghampride.com – which I did several weeks ago, but have not received any response.   I assume even if the Pride organisers fail to respond, the raffle organiser is still liable.
    • you realise Gick its very easy to make win 10 look like win 7.? I wouldn't move from 7 because I do lots of RS232 and other basic comms stuff with vintage gear and past 7 it would not longer do what I want.   win10 put everything back and works better than 7  ive even got it on a very old 1gb ram vio pc  if you want help pm me and I can sort things for you. 
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...