Big Motoring World/BMW PCP Finance/Warranties 2000 - Range rover Evoque timing chain fail at 76k

[theoldrouge]

Please clarify why in Creations reply you are being referred to as 

“Your Client “Who’s Client?

Regarding ceasing warranty payments, what you are actually paying is a loan payment with which you purchased the warranty. To cease payment would trash your credit file 

As to the VT I very much doubt that they would accept a non runner as fair wear and tear

although with an independent report,depending on the results,it may be possible to put forward a convincing case

In view of the complexities of Creation rejecting  your complaints 

I would favor the FOS route over Court

Edited April 29, 2022 by theoldrouge
Spelling

[Hotdog77]

Hi there,

 

Apologies for the long delay, had some personal stuff going on.

 

Firstly I have no idea why Creations are referring to me as "Your client", the letter was not written as a third party as I referred to myself and gave all my personal details including address.  

If it bides them time, then so be it as I sent the letter addressed to the correct dept which was received and signed for on 14th, so they have until 13th June to send everything over.

 

In regards to the dealership (BigMW) they signed for the letter on 14.04.22, of which I should be due all the docs by thursday.  DO i need to chase them or remind them of their duties and obligations? although this should be something they know.

 

Noted to continue making the payments and to hang fire on the VT.

 

Hopefully both companies abide, which can then help build a case for the FOS or possibly going further.

 

Apart from awaiting both companies to respond to my SAR request, Creation should get back to me on or before 20th May 2022 with regards to their investigation (8 weeks).

 

 

[theoldrouge]

Thanks for clarifying just goes to show the numpties that you are dealing with 

Lets see what they come back with 

[Hotdog77]

I'm actually wondering if the dealer would come back with anything at all.  But yeah!! 

 

I can only hold on for hope and exhaust all my avenues with Fos.

 

Thank you and I'll update ASAP 

[Hotdog77]

Evening

 

I need some advice. 

 

Received a call today (couldn't answer) then an email. Was from creations acknowledging my SAR request dated 12.4.22, they need me to confirm my identity. 

 

Firstly I'm confused as they wrote to say they didn't k ow who I was and also addressed me as "your client"

 

Furthermore! Sar request should be actioned within 30 days,  yet they are contacting me about 2 days prior to the 40 day limit.

 

Need help on what I should do as this makes no sense to me .

letter 10th may 22.pdf

[dx100uk]

i would comply but i would not be giving them your photo.

they should already have your sig from the SAR request

 

have you moved since taking out this finance?

 

[Hotdog77]

Noted! 

 

I'll comply today.

 

Nope I've not moved at all.

 

How does the one calendar month work then, as their working to their own timeline?

[Hotdog77]

Good evening,

 

Thought I would give a little uodate in that the dealership  BIGMW have failed to respond and ignored my SAR request.  Will send out another letter tomorrow 

 

I'd be grateful for any links to  letter templates of this aspect. 

 

Thank you

[dx100uk]

On 08/05/2022 at 21:16, Hotdog77 said:

Apart from awaiting both companies to respond to my SAR request, Creation should get back to me on or before 20th May 2022 with regards to their investigation (8 weeks).

 

let things run till this date then get the FOS onboard with the whole sorry story.

 

dx

 

[Hotdog77]

Hey, 

 

Just so I'm clear!

 

So I should hold fire on sending a reminder of obligations letter to BIGMW?

[dx100uk]

there is no harm in reminding those you have sent an sar too on xxx date that there is a legal requirement to comply it within 30 days if they are satisfied with your identity, that can be enforced in a court of law.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

[Hotdog77]

Noted with thanks 

[Hotdog77]

Good evening

 

Have something of nothing really to tell

 

BigMW -

I received an email yesterday from the business manager requesting that I attend in person...rather ironic considering I'm imobile hhmmm....

 

" If you require further information could you please come to site and present valid ID.  The purpose of this is to prevent fraud"

 

I would deem this an unreasonable request!! Firstly it's taken 36 days to respond, why isn't my drivers license feasible?  Please advise here

 

Creation Finance - 

Received Docs from Sar request - Doc confirming pcp attached....What do you think?

 

Further to the above, I should have heard back from their investigation (20/05/2022) . I've heard absolutely nothing!  Do I at this point send a nudge email to them or just go straight to FOS regarding both parties?

 

Thank you

 

 

PCP contract_.pdf

Edited May 22, 2022 by Hotdog77

[dx100uk]

So back to almost post 1, it IS a PCP agreement. Def not your car and not your problem and wear and tear and warranty mean nothing and play no part at all.

 

Its for the retailer and finance company to argue out nothing to do with you whatsoever.  

 

If 8 weeks has elapsed you can goto the FOS yes.

 

Wheres my car

 

Dx

[theoldrouge]

Let’s have ALL the documentation in one place please 

Lets see the PCI and the FULL agreement that you signed 

PLUS the SAR comms log

Lets get the full information

[Hotdog77]

OK bear with me, I'll get the docs over ASAP.

 

In regards to the dealer asking for my physical presence to confirm identity, could I just send them my drivers licence? 

 

[dx100uk]

Can't see why not

[Hotdog77]

Hi There,

 

Let me know what you think? 

Pcp, docu sign, signed agreement, reconstituted copy of notes.

 

Doesn't really tell me anything, apart from confirmation of pcp.

 

Would like some help in terms of how the body of my complaint to FOS should go.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

docs (1).pdf

[dx100uk]

urm..

says HP agreement at the top

2nd page says PCP agreement details

i don't think it can be both!!

agreement void?

 

@theoldrouge

[Hotdog77]

@Dx100uk  are you saying that all the paperwork should read as "PCP" on the header?

[theoldrouge]

shame no pre contract info included

As to the header,

because PCP was not around when CCA1974 was written, the term Hire Purchase Agreement is used as standard

this does of course lead to substantial confusion

The difference being with HP you are increasing your equity in the vehicle with each months payments

With PCP you are merely paying the estimated depreciation of the vehicle, in your case in excess of £10k depreciation (I hate PCP with a vengeance )

Now as to your FOS Complaint, a two pronged attack if it were me

 

First obtain an independent engineers report, and complain as regards the useless warranty that you were sold for your peace of mind,but in effect was sold it for the dealers commission

Second insist you thought you were signing an HP agreement, the facts regarding PCP were never explained to you (the depreciation payments)

You thought that your payments were going towards purchasing the vehicle on a monthly basis nothing was explained to you

As a result you have been totally mislead and misold PCP, and require the agreement to be rendered void, and you want all your monies returned

[Hotdog77]

Morning both 

 

Thank you for the clarification and update @theoldrouge . I've been behind the scenes looking for an independent engineer. Wasn't so easy tbh. I have one on the cards and another company who I want to use but they are away till Monday.

 

I hope that by the end of next week I can instruct for the assessment to begin.  I've been given a price if £750 so far. Can I check that this is a standard looking price for this sort of thing?

 

Fyi to date the finance company still hadn't gotten back to me .

 

Much thanks 

[Hotdog77]

Morning Guys,

 

Just came to give you a little update on my case. 

 

Turns out the independent engineer deemed the vehicle  as not fit for sale at the point of purchase. 

 

The service was only due every 21k miles and where i over compensated and serviced every year, is what prolonged the timing chain from failing earlier. The examiner was of the opinion that the timing chain for the vehicle is not a serviceable item and does not have a recommended interval for replacement. Simply put, it should last the lifetime of the vehicle.  

 

The vehicle manufacturer (Land Rover) have subsequently modified the upper timing chain kits for this vehicle engine three times since this vehicle was built, and modified the lower chain kits some six times. Clearly confirming that a manufacturing defect is present to the currently installed timing chains at the point of build.

The vehicle clearly has a manufacturing defect and that this defect would have been present at the point of purchase. The examiner is of the opinion that the vehicle would therefore not have been of satisfactory quality and not fit for purpose at the point of sale in terms of Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not of suitable quality and not fit for purpose at the point of purchase in terms of Section 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

These findings have been submitted to the Finance company, even though they simply told me to sod off the to the FOS.  However, I was advised to cover myself and to furnish the Finance company with the findings.  Next step is FOS

 

How this ends and how long it takes is another thing, however I have the expert information that I need  

 

I will update as soon as i have the final outcome.

 

[dx100uk]

Well done 

 

Dx

[theoldrouge]

Excellent all looking very promising