Voluntary Termination - Abort Fee, Additional product liability and damage charges.

[misterdall]

Hello,

I recently voluntary terminated my 16 plate Vauxhall corsa with GMAC.

I had sent essentially all the templates from this forum regarding collection fee's etc. They were trying to insist that I pay for vehicle warranty which wasn't part of the agreement stated in my credit agreement however I paid half in that what I owed and to this day they still insist that I owe "Additional product liability" which isn't part of the agreement however I am totally unaware of it and it is also invoiced on my credit agreement and paid out the same direct debit so I assume it is. I've paid half of the agreement regardless.

Due to me being in the military I was unable to be there to inspect my car however I entrusted my mother to sign for it etc.

Theyre also trying to charge me for an "Abort fee" of £120.96

Initially Mannheim came to inspect the car however due to slight damage to the tire wall in my car tyre (it had been through two services since the damage and there were no wire bodies underlying the issue, the tyre was fine) however they deemed it illegal to take it and would need a flatbed.

During this time I had an automatic letter from GMAC saying I'd missed a payment since the voluntary termination and I owe them more money.

I sent the "threat" email and insisted it was collected offering another 7 days notice in good faith and sure as hell they came. My mother had called up vauxhall and after some chat they had said they will collect the car free of charge and that I need not worry about the letter as its an automatic fee.

When they picked the car up they've written on the report the cars in good condition and the only damage is the tyre(Which they're trying to bill me £260) for a continental eco tyre.

I'm now being pursued by "Shoosmiths" in amounts of:

Abort fee: £120.96

Account charges: £87.62 - Ambiguous sum of money

Additional product liability: £275.36 - PSA

repairs required: £239.28 - the report says the only issue is a tyre.

Also the person on the phone had informed my mother that the flatbed was free yet I am unaware of a continental tyre which is £60 being £240

Anyhoo, I'm unsure of what course of action to take. I haven't yet sent the letter about damages.

[R0b]

Hello

GMAC have a habit of using Shoosmiths to collect the debt on their behalf, because they're a firm of solicitors and so people will just panic and pay up - a tactic that probably doesn't work 100% but works nonetheless.

First of all, what exactly did your mother sign? If you read my guide you will know that I always recommend not to sign any documentation because whatever you tend to sign says you accept any damages resulting from the inspection. It's not fatal if that's what your mother signed, but certainly doesn't help your case at all.

As for the tyre wall, I cannot comment on that because what might be slight to you, could be substantial to another. I can understand why the agent would be concerned but that's something you will have to argue if you strongly feel against it. If a continental tyre for that car is only £60 then you should challenge them as to why GMAC are charging you 4 times more than the cost, even if you factor in fitting and replacing, it shouldn't come to that. If a court were to find that the car was not in a reasonable condition due to the damage to the tyre, then it would follow that the abort fees are a recoverable fee providing that GMAC can prove that was the cost of sending an agent to collect it.

The product liability is not as easy to give an answer for because you would need to determine if the agreement was either one agreement as a whole or that the document comprised two separate agreements i.e. the hire purchase and then the additional products. Usually I argue that the hire purchase credit and additional product credit fall within the same category and are therefore on agreement. The problem is that even for lawyers, it is difficult to understand if an agreement is a single or multiple agreement. If it was a multiple agreement then they would have had to provide you with separate documentation specifically for the additional products and if GMAC did not do this, then it is unenforceable unless a court order's otherwise.

There's really only a few options you can take, but that decision is up to you and I can't answer that for you: dispute all of the charges, pay the charges or dispute some charges but agree to pay for others.

[misterdall]

Hello

GMAC have a habit of using Shoosmiths to collect the debt on their behalf, because they're a firm of solicitors and so people will just panic and pay up - a tactic that probably doesn't work 100% but works nonetheless.

First of all, what exactly did your mother sign? If you read my guide you will know that I always recommend not to sign any documentation because whatever you tend to sign says you accept any damages resulting from the inspection. It's not fatal if that's what your mother signed, but certainly doesn't help your case at all.

As for the tyre wall, I cannot comment on that because what might be slight to you, could be substantial to another. I can understand why the agent would be concerned but that's something you will have to argue if you strongly feel against it. If a continental tyre for that car is only £60 then you should challenge them as to why GMAC are charging you 4 times more than the cost, even if you factor in fitting and replacing, it shouldn't come to that. If a court were to find that the car was not in a reasonable condition due to the damage to the tyre, then it would follow that the abort fees are a recoverable fee providing that GMAC can prove that was the cost of sending an agent to collect it.

The product liability is not as easy to give an answer for because you would need to determine if the agreement was either one agreement as a whole or that the document comprised two separate agreements i.e. the hire purchase and then the additional products. Usually I argue that the hire purchase credit and additional product credit fall within the same category and are therefore on agreement. The problem is that even for lawyers, it is difficult to understand if an agreement is a single or multiple agreement. If it was a multiple agreement then they would have had to provide you with separate documentation specifically for the additional products and if GMAC did not do this, then it is unenforceable unless a court order's otherwise.

There's really only a few options you can take, but that decision is up to you and I can't answer that for you: dispute all of the charges, pay the charges or dispute some charges but agree to pay for others.

Thanks a lot for your reply Rob,

She signed collection of the vehicle and a total of one damage showing a nick on the wrong tyre.

Would it not be any worth that the tyre nick has been there whilst going through two services, I'm sure that a check of the tyre's are involved and a tyre is only illegal if the carcass wiring is shown underneath. Regardless, I intend to challenge the charge, Also under the breakdown it shows that they have charged an "Abort fee" as well as a collection fee, so would the court not rule an abort fee in that case?

It's all under one part of the agreement, the warranty and such, I was never given any other paperwork in that sense. As it is even included in the breakdown of the costs on my contract.

Best regards,

[R0b]

I understand your point but ultimately its a question that could result in two very different answers. If the car is still road legal despite the damage to the tyre then that's your argument and get them to prove it wasn't road legal. At the same time you have a duty to take reasonable care and it could be seen that damage to the tyre tread itself whilst in your possession and you failing to replace it, could be deemed unreasonable. Only a court of law would be able to determine that.

As I mentioned above, whether she chooses to defend it is entirely up to her. One advantage is that I have yet to see GMAC take anyone to court, though that isn't to say they wouldn't do that in this case - it's more likely if correspondence is ignored.