Hello new member - VT car - pay for low loader?

[JoLowes]

Hi I'm a new member who has issues with VW Finance regarding a Voluntary Termination process. I advised them on 19th Feb of my wish to terminate the contract at which time the vehicle was taxed and tested. However due to delays and errors made by BCA, by the time they collect the vehicle it will no longer be taxed or tested as it ran out at the end of February. They are now asking me to pay the charges for a low loader to collect the vehicle as it can't be driven away. Please advise as I do not feel that I am in any way to blame for this problem and do not therefore feel it is my responsibility to pay for the low loader. That said If I have to, I shall have the car MOT'd and be done with it. Thanks Jo

[Phaeton]

R0b I believe it is their problem not yours, but R0b will confirm

[R0b]

Hello

As above, if you notified them to collect the car but it has taken over a month for them to do so because of delays and errors on BCA's part then you shouldn't be held liable for that. Just out of curiosity, did you tell VW when the tax and MOT would run out?

Strictly speaking, when you terminate the agreement and provided you have paid 50% of the total amount payable, any other liabilities which causes you to incur further expense is void and unenforceable. Your only responsibility is to look after the car and make it available for them to collect at a convenient time for both sides.

I generally say that any tax and insurance on the car is kept for at least 14 days after termination to allow them to collect it though if the MOT is going to run out then that is probably something you ought to make them aware of at the earliest opportunity. If you did that then I would say you have good reason to refuse any liability for the low loader. If you wilfully let the MOT expire and failed to inform VW then there might be an argument based on reasonableness that you should pay for the low loader (or as you said get an MOT).

From a legal perspective, you only have to return the car in a reasonable condition and although a valid MOT shows a car might be roadworthy, it's not definitive as an MOT only guarantees that a car is roadworthy on the day it is tested, and it could be, for example, unroadworthy two weeks later despite passing an MOT test.

You are in possession of all the facts and information so the decision really is whether you wish to challenge it or simply pay for an MOT and not potentially drag this out.

[Phaeton]

From a legal perspective, you only have to return the car in a reasonable condition and although a valid MOT shows a car might be roadworthy, it's not definitive as an MOT only guarantees that a car is roadworthy on the day it is tested, and it could be, for example, unroadworthy two weeks later despite passing an MOT test.

Also logically if the car were under 3 years old it may not of required an MOT anyway.