Tweet
HI
I just googled this , i wrote it in 2006 and thought i would try and dig it up after a query about the subject by someone on here, we have all learend a lot since it was penned and there are many things on her that we would not let the hirer get away with now but it still may prove useful to some.
Voluntary Termination Saga
I decided to invoke the VT clause on my Hire Purchase contract.
My first step was to contact the lender and inform them this I followed up by a recorded delivery letter stating my intent. I had paid over half the agreement value and was entitled to terminate with nothing more to pay, in theory.
After hearing nothing for 2 weeks I rang them and they said that I would have to fill in their own paperwork to be able to complete the termination.
A week later the paperwork arrived together with a settlement figure and a glossy leaflet which spelt out the folly of my actions and how much better it would be to get another loan and buy the vehicle.
I duly filed the leaflet in the bin and filled in the form returning it recorded delivery.
After hearing nothing again for a week I rang them and was put through to an answering centre somewhere I think in South Africa, they told me that they could not proceed because there was arrears on the account, baffled I inquired as to the nature or these arrears £202 the man said, but I protested the repayments are £303 and the current one is not due for 10 days when it is paid by direct debit. He then hung up after refusing to let me speak to a representative of the credit company.
Reluctantly i paid the £202 and rang them again for an address that i could deliver the vehicle to, by this time it had been a month since my initial request. They said they would get back to me the next day.
The next day I received another VT request form and another glossy leaflet. I rang them and they said that I would have to fill that one in as the other one had been scrapped because or the arrears on the account, wearily I did as I was told. Whilst on the phone I protested that it was costing me money to insure and tax the vehicle and since I had now purchased another car I had to pay to have it garaged, also stupidly I mentioned that if this took much longer the MOT would be up and I would have to pay for that as well. Needless to say I received a letter a week later from them to say that they could not proceed as the car was in imminent need of an MOT. By this time I was getting a bit cheesed off, all I wanted was an address where I could drop off my car.
I took my car to the main dealership (BMW) and had the MOT done, whilst it was there I asked them if they would inspect the car and give a written opinion of its condition,they agreed to do this for a small fee.
After filling in yet another form from the finance company they sent me a letter saying I could return my car to a dealership some 10 miles away.
In the mean time they had removed another £303 from my account by direct debit.
When I arrived at the dealership I was greeted by a surly middle aged man who took me through to an office and again reminded me of what a mistake I was making. When he could see he was not getting anywhere he said,” OK then we better inspect the vehicle”. I then produced a photo copy or the letter from BMW stating that in their opinion the car was in good condition with no exterior damage that wouldn't be consistent with a car of its age. He then startled me by ripping the letter up and tossing it in a bin.
Once at the car he commenced to draw small circles on the paintwork when I inquired as to the reason for this he said he was outlining the areas of damage to the car. For the life of me I could not see one single area or damage in any of the white circles. I mentioned this to him and he replied with,”ah well you have to ave the eye for these things” and” I've been in the job for 30 years” and so on. Fortunately I had my mobile phone with me and I photographed each marker.
Then it was back to the office, where after an hour he reappeared with a piece of paper for me to sign listing all the “damage” he had discovered on the car. I of course refused to sign as I had not seen any damage only a number of chalk circles that he had drawn. Our discussion got somewhat heated at this point, and it ended with me walking off with a copy of the unsigned statement.
It occurred to me that I had no physical proof that I delivered the car so I took another photo of it in the car park on the way out.
Two days later I received a bill for just over £1000, £303 for outstanding car payments and £700 for body work repairs. I immediately rang them asking for a breakdown of all work done to the car and to remind them that they had already taken the £303 out of my account which put my in credit at the time of the vehicles return, the latter point the conceded and said they would adjust the bill. Again two days latter I received a bill for £1000 and a copy of the statement I was given when I returned the car, well I say a copy this one had a few items added, for a start after each item of damage there had been inserted a price and apparently I had also to pay for a new windscreen. There was also a signature at the bottom of the bill not mine I might add but it was my name.
At this point I did what I should have done in the first place and got some advice from a solicitor friend of mine.
Together we wrote a letter threatening all sorts of actions: for not adhering to the stipulations of the 74 act, blatant delaying tactics, forgery and finally threatening to have their credit licence removed. We also included a bill for all expenses paid by me due to their delaying tactics.
Two days latter I received a letter saying that on reconsideration of my case they had decided to waive all charges and I now owed them nothing.
Finally I would like to point out that the finance company in question was no little rinky dink operation but one if not the main sources of finance in the UK.
I am just left now with the decision as to whether to pursue my invoice to them or not, I think I will just put the whole thing behind me and move on poorer but wiser person
Peter
I just googled this , i wrote it in 2006 and thought i would try and dig it up after a query about the subject by someone on here, we have all learend a lot since it was penned and there are many things on her that we would not let the hirer get away with now but it still may prove useful to some.
Voluntary Termination Saga
I decided to invoke the VT clause on my Hire Purchase contract.
My first step was to contact the lender and inform them this I followed up by a recorded delivery letter stating my intent. I had paid over half the agreement value and was entitled to terminate with nothing more to pay, in theory.
After hearing nothing for 2 weeks I rang them and they said that I would have to fill in their own paperwork to be able to complete the termination.
A week later the paperwork arrived together with a settlement figure and a glossy leaflet which spelt out the folly of my actions and how much better it would be to get another loan and buy the vehicle.
I duly filed the leaflet in the bin and filled in the form returning it recorded delivery.
After hearing nothing again for a week I rang them and was put through to an answering centre somewhere I think in South Africa, they told me that they could not proceed because there was arrears on the account, baffled I inquired as to the nature or these arrears £202 the man said, but I protested the repayments are £303 and the current one is not due for 10 days when it is paid by direct debit. He then hung up after refusing to let me speak to a representative of the credit company.
Reluctantly i paid the £202 and rang them again for an address that i could deliver the vehicle to, by this time it had been a month since my initial request. They said they would get back to me the next day.
The next day I received another VT request form and another glossy leaflet. I rang them and they said that I would have to fill that one in as the other one had been scrapped because or the arrears on the account, wearily I did as I was told. Whilst on the phone I protested that it was costing me money to insure and tax the vehicle and since I had now purchased another car I had to pay to have it garaged, also stupidly I mentioned that if this took much longer the MOT would be up and I would have to pay for that as well. Needless to say I received a letter a week later from them to say that they could not proceed as the car was in imminent need of an MOT. By this time I was getting a bit cheesed off, all I wanted was an address where I could drop off my car.
I took my car to the main dealership (BMW) and had the MOT done, whilst it was there I asked them if they would inspect the car and give a written opinion of its condition,they agreed to do this for a small fee.
After filling in yet another form from the finance company they sent me a letter saying I could return my car to a dealership some 10 miles away.
In the mean time they had removed another £303 from my account by direct debit.
When I arrived at the dealership I was greeted by a surly middle aged man who took me through to an office and again reminded me of what a mistake I was making. When he could see he was not getting anywhere he said,” OK then we better inspect the vehicle”. I then produced a photo copy or the letter from BMW stating that in their opinion the car was in good condition with no exterior damage that wouldn't be consistent with a car of its age. He then startled me by ripping the letter up and tossing it in a bin.
Once at the car he commenced to draw small circles on the paintwork when I inquired as to the reason for this he said he was outlining the areas of damage to the car. For the life of me I could not see one single area or damage in any of the white circles. I mentioned this to him and he replied with,”ah well you have to ave the eye for these things” and” I've been in the job for 30 years” and so on. Fortunately I had my mobile phone with me and I photographed each marker.
Then it was back to the office, where after an hour he reappeared with a piece of paper for me to sign listing all the “damage” he had discovered on the car. I of course refused to sign as I had not seen any damage only a number of chalk circles that he had drawn. Our discussion got somewhat heated at this point, and it ended with me walking off with a copy of the unsigned statement.
It occurred to me that I had no physical proof that I delivered the car so I took another photo of it in the car park on the way out.
Two days later I received a bill for just over £1000, £303 for outstanding car payments and £700 for body work repairs. I immediately rang them asking for a breakdown of all work done to the car and to remind them that they had already taken the £303 out of my account which put my in credit at the time of the vehicles return, the latter point the conceded and said they would adjust the bill. Again two days latter I received a bill for £1000 and a copy of the statement I was given when I returned the car, well I say a copy this one had a few items added, for a start after each item of damage there had been inserted a price and apparently I had also to pay for a new windscreen. There was also a signature at the bottom of the bill not mine I might add but it was my name.
At this point I did what I should have done in the first place and got some advice from a solicitor friend of mine.
Together we wrote a letter threatening all sorts of actions: for not adhering to the stipulations of the 74 act, blatant delaying tactics, forgery and finally threatening to have their credit licence removed. We also included a bill for all expenses paid by me due to their delaying tactics.
Two days latter I received a letter saying that on reconsideration of my case they had decided to waive all charges and I now owed them nothing.
Finally I would like to point out that the finance company in question was no little rinky dink operation but one if not the main sources of finance in the UK.
I am just left now with the decision as to whether to pursue my invoice to them or not, I think I will just put the whole thing behind me and move on poorer but wiser person
Peter
Comment