VT issues with Barclays Finance/Clydesdale Finance

[phuleproof]

Hi All,

Firstly, thank you to everyone who has posted, especially R0b , as it's proved to be incredibly helpful so far. Everything from the breakdown of our rights to VT and the sections of the CCA that detail it, to other peoples experience of debating the process.

My story so far is as follows:

7th Feb, I wrote to Barclays to VT my PCP agreement, having now paid over 50% of the total amount payable. Letter was sent special delivery and signed for on 8th Feb.

12th Feb, I phoned Barclays as had heard nothing back and they said they'd sent me paperwork I had to complete in order for them to process the VT. I refused to sign anything and reiterated my statutory right to terminate. They said they would not terminate it until i did and escalated my query to the complaints department. Being concerned by Barclays refusal to do anything, and based on many of the horror stories I've read here and elsewhere, I then started a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman.

13th Feb, I received a call from Barclays complaints department, where the agent said that until they received the car, I had to keep paying my direct debit and the agreement would not be terminated. They did say that if I delivered the car to the auction house, they would terminate the agreement and I could cancel the direct debit, that was due to come out of my account on 16th Feb. In the interest of expediency, i delivered the car to the auction house, took photos that were timestamped and geotagged of the car and the paperwork. I then wrote to Barclays saying that the car had been delivered back to their nominated location and that I was cancelling the tax, insurance and my direct debit. This was received and signed for by them on 14th Feb.

24th Feb, I received a letter from barclays saying I had missed a direct debit and needed to reinstate it immediately. I wrote back to them and explained all of the above and that they had tried to take the amount after the agreement should have been terminated and after they had had the car back.

19th Mar, I received another letter saying that the car had been sold and that I needed to pay an £84 Auction site transfer fee and a £30 Auction Site valet/appraisal fee. I then checked my credit record and found that they had also marked my account as in arrears, tanking my credit score. I phoned and spoke to Barclays on the number they detailed in the letter and they refused to discuss my account with me and said that i should deal directly with the Ombudsman instead.

I then wrote to Barclays and denied both fees and asked that they also correct my credit record, as I had not missed a payment, but rather they had attempted to take a payment they were not entitled to and it had rightly been refused. I detailed their numerous failings so far and my adherence to my legal obligations. I stated that in the event the FO finds in my favour, I will also be filing a claim for negligence and inaccuracy in regards to my financial records/data protection. I also mentioned that their behaviour is reminiscent of the PPI saga, which was also an attempt by financial organisations to obtain money they were not entitled to through deliberate deception.

7th April, I received a letter from Barclays saying that despite attempting to contact me (no missed calls on mobile or home phone and no answerphone messages), the arrears were still outstanding and the debt had now been passed to a debt collection agency. I will be contacting them tomorrow.

I have sent copies of all correspondence to the Financial Ombudsman, who must be getting sick of all the paperwork by now.

I'll post what happens next, but I'm essentially waiting on a decision by the FO.

All this at the same time as we need to apply for an extension on our mortgage to cover urgent structural work, but now can't due to the drop in my credit score.

Any feedback or comments would be welcomed. I can see it going to court as Barclays seem unwilling to respond directly to any of my letters. I'm hoping it'll be clear cut enough for the FO to get it sorted, but considering the stress it's caused and time it's drained so far, I'm worried I'm being overly optimistic.

[R0b]

Morning,

I'm afraid if Barclays have marked your credit file then your only option may be to go to court. BMW also have a habit of doing this but until you threaten legal proceedings and actually follow through with it, you don't know whether or not they fill fold and concede or defend it.

You might be best reading the following link as it is well discussed.

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...excess-mileage

[phuleproof]

R0b thanks for getting back to me and sharing this. I've read through and it's not especially encouraging.

There are a few differences though, would they affect the outcome much?

The Barclays employee I spoke to on 13th Feb, said that I could cancel my direct debit immediately once the car had been returned.

Also, having notified them of me exercising my rights to VT, they shouldn't have tried to take it.

Lastly, I notified them in writing of both of the above and that the car had been returned to their nominated location and the direct debit cancelled.

There are no excess mileage or damage charges/fees involved.

They are however, refusing to VT the agreement unless I pay them for collection charges and valeting.

Based on the reports I've found on the site so far, I'm not overly optimistic of the FO ruling in my favour, so debating whether to pursue the legal route as my credit file needs fixing.

Yours and anyone else thoughts on this would be very helpful.

[R0b]

The principle is the same whether its excess mileage or collection fees or damages for the car's condition. Lenders have a duty to accurately record your data with credit reference agencies which reflects your credit-worthiness and how good you are at making your credit repayments on time. Any other charges which are secondary and do not relate to the money loaned to you is (in my view) a misrepresentation of your credit history.

The thread I linked to made reference to the ICO's guidance on filing defaults and it quite clearly stipulates that sums made up solely of charges or fees should not be reported as a default. Granted, it doesn't say late payment but you could argue thats implied because it's still not related to your credit repayments, particularly if you have paid them all on time.

Anyhow, a more direct and applicable example I can give you is from my own experience with Santander when they filed late payment markers / defaults on my account relating to collection fees. I wrote a short summary about it on the link below.

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...e-of-your-case

I would stress that just because I was successful, does not mean Barclays will be the same and roll over.

[phuleproof]

Final Update on this.

Went back and forth with the ombudsman, who was insisting that in my original agreement, I agreed to pay for the collection of the car and to pay costs involved in it being sold.

I repeatedly pointed out that these clauses are void and not enforceable under the CCA, but he seemed to think that that didn't matter.

In the end I asked him, what the role of the ombudsman was, as it seemed to be unconcerned with the legal aspects of my case. He stated that the FO are there to evaluate fairness. not legality. Given that I'd agreed to paying those fees, he said it seemed fair that I should honour that agreement.

I argued the point and he eventually returned and said that Barclays would waive the collection and valeting fees and update my credit record..........AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL!!!

I'm not going to lie, it felt like a slap in the face after all the hassle. That said, I also felt that to refuse, would make me seem unreasonable in the eyes of the FO. So a little bit of a master stroke by Barclays. They do what they should have done all along and are legally obliged to do, but make it seem as though they are doing me a favour.

Anyway, I accepted and as of this weekend, my credit record is finally back to it's original score, as if this never happened.

Technically I guess it's a win, but after the time and stress involved in getting this sorted, it feels like more of a moral victory than anything else.

I'm still debating whether to file a claim against them for inaccurately recording my data, but given that they've now put it right and it would just be more hassle.

My thanks again to R0b for all his help on this, as I'm fairly confident that without the prep, i wouldn't have got this outcome.