**Sorted**Finance company threatening to damage credit file

[R0b]

Yes that is what I am saying, but the issue of whether it is a secured or unsecured loan is irrelevant. The fact is that the agreement was governed by the CCA and that prevails over any terms under the contract where they are inconsistent.

If you are really that worried, I would suggest you pay for a solicitor to give you some advice.

[mustard7]

Just a quick update on this thread, and perhaps a little advice too.

Well, I went through the ombudsman as I wasn’t getting anywahere with Barclays direct.
The adjudicator found in my favour, and stated that I owed nothing as far as wear and tear was concerned as I had returned the car in good condition and that Barclays should pay me £250 in compensation.

Result i thought, however Barclays have rejected the adjudicators decision although they have offered £250 as compensation for not hitting their high standards but state that the car was not returned in good condition and I am liable to pay the £1300.
They are stating that it’s been in an accident and that this clause in the contract means I have to pay.

“You must return the vehicle
in a good state of repair and condition. If the vehicle is not in good condition
when you return it, you must pay our costs to bring it into a good condition or
(if we choose) cover the reduction in its value.”

because the car sold for less than the cap value at auction, it is the last part of this clause they are trying to enforce

any thoughts?

[R0b]

Morning,

Well that is a result from the adjudicator and a surprising one I guess. Have you accepted the adjudicator’s decision? If not you should do that because it then becomes legally binding on BPF to pay you that sum.

Little confised about the part where Barclays are saying it has been in an accident, I’ve just skimmed your thread and I don’t see anywhere about it being in an accident? Can you clarify that?

Their terms and conditions can say what they want but your obligation is to take reasonable care. Secondly they have to prove the accident was caused by you, not by Mannheim or their agents. So I am assuming you have the same photographs that you used to bring your complaint to the FOS?

Either way Barclays should pay you and if they think you’ve caused the car to be in an accident but failed to pay then they are going to have to prove that, but if you have the photographs then I can’t see how they will win?

[Amethyst]

And... can you post an redacted copy of the adjudication please ( sounds like a good decision )

[mustard7]

I believe because Barclays have rejected the adjudicators findings then it goes to the next stage, the ombudsman, and dependant on what they say then that becomes the legally binding part.

There was no accident, well not during my ownership anyway. They are staying that the bumpers are misaligned and the paint rippled and therefore it has been in an accident.
I’m no expert, but I couldn’t tell if they were misaligned or not, and hopefully the ombudsman will agree from the photos I took.

I will post up the adjudicators decision when I get home (I’m in Canada at the moment)
it makes for very good reading...

[mustard7]

Ok,
I have attached 2 files.
The first one is the adjudicators findings (apologies for poor layout, it was a PDF document which I had trouble converting
The 2nd is the response from Barclays
Thanks

[R0b]

Well, I must say that is one of the better decisions made by an adjudicator from the FOS that I have seen. Do you know if Barclays disputed this by 23 July and wanted an Ombudsman to make a final decision? IT would be good to get a final decision on this so that others can refer to it as the FOS should really be consistent.

A couple of points:

1. In the adjudicator response on page 2, the bullet points refer to your surname I think you have missed starring this out.

2. In terms of BPF arguing the car must have been in a collision, you should point out that the onus is on BPF to prove that (1) there was in fact a collision and (2) that collision occurred whilst it was in your possession. Given that the car was used and 44,000 miles on the clock before you took possession of it, then it may have been in a collision prior to you obtaining it, but that should not be down to you to fix someone else's problem and any clause of the contract which puts the onus on you to do that is inherently unfair.

3. I see BPF refer to the CAP sale price and that it sold for less than expected and suggesting that the damages are the sole reason why it sold for less but that is not necessarily the case. BPF sold the car at auction and it is common knowledge that a car sold at auction has a high chance of fetching less money than it might valued at. This is because auctions are used for quick sales and had BPF decided to take this to a dealership or sell it privately (no evidence that they have done rather their choice was to auction it) then they would have had a much better chance of fetching more money for it.

Also, the BVRLA has a very restrictive criteria attached to it and the criteria applies to any car whatever the age, so in that respect it would be inappropriate for it to be used against a 5 year old car when you would expect some damage to have occurred. The CAP HPI conditions are more appropriate because it takes into account the age of the car and the fact that the older it is, the more damage likely to have been sustained. If you check the link below you can see how it compares.

https://www.cap.co.uk/media/2354/caphpiconditions.pdf

P.S BPF seem to be suggesting that they will settle the matter by paying £250 hence the question as to whether they are disputing it and want an Ombudsman to make a decision.

[mustard7]

Hi,

Thanks for pointing that out... I have tried to edit the post, but dont seem to be able to delete/replace the attachment??
(If you can let me know how to do it I would appreciate that)

Yes, they replies a day or two before the deadline.
I have rejected their offer so have asked that the ombudsman to make a final decision.

I will of course update this thread as and when I get that decision.

[mustard7]

I have sorted the attachments.... changed.
Thanks

[R0b]

Well, if they are taking it to the Ombudsman for a decision, then you might want to email the adjudicator and add any further points in response to the BPF arguments that you might have missed out on so the Ombudsman can take that into account when making the final decision. It would be good to get a decision that goes in the consumer's favour because they are pretty much zilch these days, particularly around the issue of BPF threatening to damage your credit file if you don't keep up the repayments.

[mustard7]

I had an email from the adjudicator today.

They are sending my comments and photo's to Barclays for one last time to see if they will reconsider before using the Ombudsman.

If they still refuse to accept the adjudicators decision, then it will be approx 3 months before I get a final Ombudsman decision.

Thanks for all the help, it's very much appreciated and of course I will keep you updated on any news.

[mustard7]

**RESULT**

Well, its took a little time in coming, but today I got the final decision by the Ombudsman on my case.

What started as a fight against BPF threatening to damage my credit file has ended up being a fight to stop unreasonable charges being levied against me.
I have attached the Ombudsman's final decision below and I hope many of you can use it to aid any VT you may do in the future.

Thanks to all that have chipped in with support, it has been very much appreciated.

[Amethyst]

There doesn't seem to be mention of the credit file - did they put any markers on in the end ?

That the buyer at auction sold on sold the vehicle on eBay so soon after and for a higher price certainly seems to have helped the case re the condition.

R0b

[mustard7]

Hi,

Yes they did put late payment markers on originally, but they quickly disappeared once the ombudsman was involved.

I agree that the ebay ad I found certainly helped my case (it was worth trawling through adverts to find it)

What I did find interesting though, was that the ombudsman thought it was fair that I should pay collection fees (particularly as most of the advice on here states that it should not be paid)
despite me offering to return it myself to my local branch of Mannheim.

All in all though a great result for me personally, and hopefully some help for others having the same sort of situation happening to them.

[Amethyst]

The ombudsman looks at 'fairness' rather than the legalities specifically. Interesting the markers disappeared once the FOS got involved - was there any threat of an ICO complaint during the preceding comms ?

I have literally just given someone else a link to your thread for help, so thank you for posting the result up sadly many don't as you've noticed which makes it hard to know if the right info is being given and how to adapt things to improve outcomes.