Tweet
I am currently preparing a case to take Direct Auto Finance to court regarding the PPI and warranties that we were forced to take out. They have sent me their refusal letter and, although most of the letter is complete waffle and legal speak there are 2 things that stand out.
Disclosure of Commission
You entered into an agreement with DAFS on..........2002. The agreement is in fact two agreements, sometimes referred to as a multiple agreement. It is treated as two separate agreements by virtue of s. 18(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The first is a Conditional Sale Agreement and the second, a fixed sum credit agreement for the optional insurances.
The fixed sum credit agreement, i.e. the insurance agreement, is a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within sections 11(b) and 12(b) of the Act as the supplier (the insurer) is separatefrom the creditor (DAFS) whereas the conditional sale agreement is within ss.11(a) and 12(a) of the Act as the supplier and creditor are the same (DAFS)
DAFS provided credit to you in respect of the purchase of a vehicle and merely provided finance to you for the purchase of a payment protection policy (PPI) and other insurances under the agreement. To be clear we were not an agent for you, we were agent for the insurance provider.
The supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor(DAFS). The insurance part of the agreement was concluded by us on behalf of the insurer with the insurer’s authority and as such the agency was disclosedto your client (???????)and DAFS had no obligation to disclose any commission payments as it was not youragent.
(This is where I get stuck. I don’t understand this part. Who paid the commission to who, and is it true that they did not have to disclose it? What are they talking about when they say ‘the agency was disclosed to your client?)
Allocation of the Deposit
We refute the suggestion that the agreement has been incorrectly constructed as a result of the deposit being applied to the wrong agreement. We would point out that the deposit of £1001 provided by you was not subject to an express agreement to offset that deposit against the cost of th evehicle rather than the cost of the PPI.
Now it seems to me that the first part about 'multiple agreements' is just designed to try and confuse me. What concerns me is the fact that they say that as they were agents for the insurer and not me they don't have to disclose their commission to me. Is this true?
Also the deposit. Should this not have been taken from the cost of the car? What do they mean that it was not subject to an express agreement to offset it against the car and not the PPI. Are they saying that because I didn't tell them it had to be taken from the car that they could allocate it where they liked?!!
Disclosure of Commission
You entered into an agreement with DAFS on..........2002. The agreement is in fact two agreements, sometimes referred to as a multiple agreement. It is treated as two separate agreements by virtue of s. 18(2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The first is a Conditional Sale Agreement and the second, a fixed sum credit agreement for the optional insurances.
The fixed sum credit agreement, i.e. the insurance agreement, is a restricted-use debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within sections 11(b) and 12(b) of the Act as the supplier (the insurer) is separatefrom the creditor (DAFS) whereas the conditional sale agreement is within ss.11(a) and 12(a) of the Act as the supplier and creditor are the same (DAFS)
DAFS provided credit to you in respect of the purchase of a vehicle and merely provided finance to you for the purchase of a payment protection policy (PPI) and other insurances under the agreement. To be clear we were not an agent for you, we were agent for the insurance provider.
The supplier (the insurer) is separate from the creditor(DAFS). The insurance part of the agreement was concluded by us on behalf of the insurer with the insurer’s authority and as such the agency was disclosedto your client (???????)and DAFS had no obligation to disclose any commission payments as it was not youragent.
(This is where I get stuck. I don’t understand this part. Who paid the commission to who, and is it true that they did not have to disclose it? What are they talking about when they say ‘the agency was disclosed to your client?)
Allocation of the Deposit
We refute the suggestion that the agreement has been incorrectly constructed as a result of the deposit being applied to the wrong agreement. We would point out that the deposit of £1001 provided by you was not subject to an express agreement to offset that deposit against the cost of th evehicle rather than the cost of the PPI.
Now it seems to me that the first part about 'multiple agreements' is just designed to try and confuse me. What concerns me is the fact that they say that as they were agents for the insurer and not me they don't have to disclose their commission to me. Is this true?
Also the deposit. Should this not have been taken from the cost of the car? What do they mean that it was not subject to an express agreement to offset it against the car and not the PPI. Are they saying that because I didn't tell them it had to be taken from the car that they could allocate it where they liked?!!
Comment