Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Backdoor CCJ for Shortfall of Car Finance from VWFS (Audi Financial Services) - Set Aside but lost later hearing - 2018 diesel scrappage scheme help needed - want to appeal


Recommended Posts

Having looked at your topic in detail I wouldn't advise making application for appeal or set a side...your interpretation of sec90 CCA1974 is incorrect.

The Judge has not erred in law and his understanding of sec90. 

Its the final figure left that is forwarded to finance that creates the contract ...deposits trade in etc etc are not regraded as payments made under sec90 and therefore cannot be calculated as one third payment.

Save yourself further costs and disappointment ...forget the appeal.

 

Andy 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you. I am being told many different things from different people which is why I believe it is a very grey area. 

The judge acknowledged the part exchange but then disregarded the definition of a deposit in the CCA1974.

Also the agreement was improperly executed as the deposit was not taken into account, meaning the final figures sent forward were incorrect anyway.

If the traded in car did not count as a deposit then there was no need to ever put it on the agreement, they could have simply shown the final price as £7000 lower than was stated. 

Appeal is served now, it's worth a shot now I've come this far 

Also why are deposits not accounted for under S90? Does it specify that in the legislation? 

If I have taken £7000 off the total price of a car then in some form or another I have discounted the price by deposit or "any other means" which surely would fall under the definition of an advance payment under S189 and should be accounted for as such under the agreement

Edited by Unknown2024
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats between you and the car dealer.....does not form part of the finance agreement to credit.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would still like to see the court bundle 
Any part ex as deposit or any deposit paid on the agreement does imo count towards the one third or the half in the case of a VT

  • Like 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AndyOrch said:

.deposits trade in etc etc are not regraded as payments made under sec90 and therefore cannot be calculated as one third payment.

Just to correct myself it should have said scrappage scheme...obviously a cash deposit would form part of the agreement and payments made to the total value of the vehicle providing it is shown as payment within the HP agreement.

Just for clarity for readers you didn't actually request a VT on the vehicle ? Simply couldn't afford the monthly payments.

 

.

 

.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the crux of the argument.

The scrappage contribution should have also been counted as a deposit. It was literally a part exchange in return for a cash deduction so there is no reason it wouldn't be treated the same way. 

I did not request a VT, I was struggling to pay after a separation from my partner at the time.

However had the figures been reflected correctly, the VT cost would have been 2k not 9k and I may have considered it as an option. Instead, the car was marked stolen and removed from my possession by the police

Link to post
Share on other sites

the scrappage scheme is nothing to do with the agreement ...sorry.

it's an enticement to purchase a replacement vehicle.

just the same as shop signs that say 50% off or whatever. 

its a done and dusted deal done before you enter into the agreement for the remaining £sum. 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I get what you're saying and that is fair enough if that's the way it is,

the issue is that the Judge has agreed that I part exchanged my car against a new car but then failed to acknowledge that it was a deposit of some form.

To trade my car in and get a discount off a new car constitutes as a deposit by legislation.

The Judge has conflicted himself and this is where he is misinterpreting the law. 

I also shouldn't have had a scrappage discount and a dealership discount together, it says so in their terms and conditions, which in itself makes the agreement improperly executed at the very least. 

This may all make more sense when I upload the trial bundle, it's over 160 pages though so taking a while to redact my information 

it shouldn't have been marked on the agreement at all and the rrp of the car should have just been 7k lower then

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have to account for and show how the final finance figure was arrived at for head office/whomever to approve the agreement.

if they sold a new car £7000 below its listed price headoffice would go ballistic

the scrappage discount would have been the same regardless to how you paid for the replacement car. 

34 minutes ago, Unknown2024 said:

I also shouldn't have had a scrappage discount and a dealership discount together, it says so in their terms and conditions, which in itself makes the agreement improperly executed at the very least. 

On 28/05/2024 at 12:03, Unknown2024 said:

the Audi diesel scrappage terms and conditions that it is not to be used in conjunction with any other offer but mine was, don't know if that changes anything 

are these T&C part of the finance agreement or pre contract? we need to see them.

just for clarity too, unless you specifically asked for Voluntary Termination by writing to Audi, or you have it in writing whereby Audi are stating it WAS a VT, it would have been Voluntary Surrender.

sadly under VS you are liable for the full value of the agreement and the 50% VT figure is immaterial.

dx

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a voluntary surrender.

I did not agree to returning the car, it was marked stolen and the police took it. Hence the breach of S90 claim. 

They took around 13k off the RRP, 7k scrappage discount plus 1k cash deposit and 5k dealership discount. 

If the px car cannot be counted as a deposit then why did I even trade it in?  I could have just had a 12k discount and kept my car.

The fact is they did take my car and so it has to be treated as a deposit. They benefited from the px in some way or form or else they wouldn't have wanted my car. 

I googled audi scrappage scheme terms and conditions and found them, will have another look but failing that I have them saved on my laptop I can upload with the trial bundle

It also states that the car traded in must be in my name (it wasn't) but there is no benefit to me in bringing that up now

In order to qualify for the Audi scrappage incentive, terms and conditions will apply.

The old vehicle to be scrapped must be a Euro 1 to Euro 4 diesel passenger car first registered on or before 31 December 2009. Any make and any model is accepted, and must have been owned for 6 months or more. The scrappage incentive is available for selected new petrol, diesel or e-tron Audi cars only; used cars will not qualify.

It is not available in combination with any other offers, including any finance offers.

The new vehicle purchase is for retail customers only and must be registered in the same customer name as the old vehicle being traded in.

The offer applies to new cars registered before 30 June 2018

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Unknown2024 said:

It wasn't a voluntary surrender. I did not agree to returning the car, it was marked stolen and the police took it.

Or VT hence you breached the agreement did they serve a default notice to you ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spoken to a couple of old contacts in vehicle finance they both said to me that in the press blurb for the Audi scrappage scheme it stated that it was to be regarded as a separate discount not a px


Originally I was very sceptical that you had any grounds for appeal but having thought more about it I suspect that the  t and cs would have stated that you could not use another offer in conjunction with the scrappage discount and you also obtained a manufacturers discount so I can see where you are coming from 


Without knowing any facts of your case I suspect that they made great play on your acceptance of the agreement as presented to you 


So looking forward to reading the trial bundle and any further information on the case

  • Like 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for looking into this further. 

Unfortunately I did not make the judge aware of these terms and conditions during my hearing, so I am assuming I cannot now raise it as it would be deemed to be new evidence. 

However I do still believe I was presented with an improperly executed agreement

I will endeavour to upload the trial bundle as soon as possible 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you repost and clarify your px on pages 18 to 22 as clearly as possible please 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PX specified in those pages was my old car, a seat Leon which they valued at 7k under the scrappage scheme against the new Audi. 

There are some notes on those pages relating to other cars I was potentially looking to trade in but it was settled on my seat Leon in the end. I also paid a £1,000 cash deposit towards the agreement, hence the receipts. 

It is also worth pointing out than on pages 117 and 130 of the bundle, the seat Leon is specifically referred to as a part exchange

Link to post
Share on other sites

at this point nothing else really matters.

wait for the form to come back

theres no need to talk about what's right/wrong if you don't even have PTA bundle directions

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi,

Ok so you need to order a transcript and send it to the court and ask them to refer the file back to the circuit judge.

EX107 claimant and 48 turnaround would be my advice although its ultimately up to you.

Although I'll be honest its not looking very promising so you might just want to do the cheapest transcript option so if you lose you don't lose too much.

Edited by jk2054

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already sent the EX107 and been in touch with escribers, just need to pay and the transcript will be ready. 

What about the directions gives you the impression that it is not looking promising? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They normally ask for a PTA bundle from the 4 cases I've found online.

yours just asks for a transcript saying it cant be considered further without it ALTHOUGH they have stayed any action, and this might mean they think it has some hope, its sort of hard to tell.

I'd get on with paying escribers and get them going.

get the transcript back and send it to the court and ask them to refer the file back.

with the sums owed its worth it

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...?


×
×
  • Create New...