VT tale of disbelief

[malimner]

Hi all...

my story - let me know any thoughts / advice. I will be a bit vague in places in case the eyes are watching!

VT'd my car recently - 10 year old car, fsh, i think good condition for age and mileage (100k+).

Took car myself to manheim (to avoid the faff of an argument over costs). The inspection charges came to over £4k! This was mostly due to 'dirty paint repair job' on every panel - I have never had the car resprayed or anything, so not my issue at all (car has had over 4 owners). The inspector was clear that they have to list all the issues in the car to make it NEW.

I took lots of pictures.

I refused to sign the inspection document, and wrote my own VT letter- not theirs which mentioned charges.

They have sent me the charge - the same amount of over £4k - I queried it and they say it is correct. I have now sent in the template letter provided here.

It is incredible they are trying to charge me over £4k for a 10 year old car. In the document they sent me, the below avg price was around £600, the average was £1300 - 700 difference - how the hell do they think they can get away with £4000+??? Surely this has to be illegal?

Any help really appreciated.

[malimner]

rob - any thoughts on this?

No response as yet following the letter disputing the charges I sent

[malimner]

Anybody?

[Amethyst]

R0b

he has a 0 instead of an o

[R0b]

From a legal perspective, I would astonished if they could reclaim £4,000 when the value of the vehicle is only considered to be valued at £1,300. That would effectively mean they would be bettering themselves and the standard position is that betterment is not allowed.

If the finance company can establish that the vehicle was not returned in a reasonable condition and it didn't sell for what it expect to fetch, then it would have a claim for the difference in value between the amount sold and the expected value which in this case would be £1,300 if in average condition.

Thing is, selling at auction is going to fetch the lowest price and it's difficult to prove that if the vehicle did not sell as well as it was hoped, that it was specifically down to the vehicle's condition. There could be other factors such as lack of interest on the day, or if a vehicle is known to have mechanical defects that could be another reason for it not being as expected.

Still, the onus is on them to prove that all damage was caused by you whilst in your possession - pretty difficult task considering the age and mileage of it. It is interesting to note that the inspector says that he was instructed to mark all damage and costs of repair as if it was new. That again points towards a case of betterment which the finance company would not be entitled to. I would be using that statement as part of any response to them.

[malimner]

Many thanks for the reply. It is up for auction this week so will be interesting to see what it fetches .
im confident they don't really have a leg to stand on, but the cheek of trying for this much money is astounding .I'll update as it happens .thanks

[R0b]

Who is the lender?

[malimner]

S*****ine

[malimner]

it seems this lender has a track record for doing this... has anyone considered trying to set up a class action or something? A group formal complaint to the ombudsman? It shouldnt be allowed.

[R0b]

There's no harm in naming and shaming the finance company, no doubt they all browse forums such as these but the your not really giving anything away at this stage other than them being aware what you are going to be saying to them - that's assuming they know who you are.

But your right, lenders like them and other lenders have a habit of doing this, it's in their nature and business

[malimner]

I'm assuming u worked out who I meant!

[malimner]

Hi R0b

an update, that looks very much like another thread on here.

We called up today to query a late payment letter. A very nice lady said we should ignore the letter, it is just a system letter, they know the car has been vt'd and all is well. She then said she had other information for us - the £4300+ damage charges was now........ £280. She was unable to tell me what the charges were actually for though. The reason? 'the car fetched a better price at auction than expected'. By £4000? It is a 10 year old french car!! They are clearly making it up as they go along.

I still dispute i owe anything - the car was in good, well maintained condition.

What is the best way of challenging this?

I feel sorry for people who have sleepless nights over this kind of thing - it should not be allowed, Im going to take up this fight using media!

many thanks for your support thus far

[R0b]

Why don't you make a subject access request for all relevant information they currently hold about you and in particular, copies of the call recordings if you are able to give them estimate dates and times.

That way, you can challenge their actions so much so that you could file a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority about their conduct and potentially aggressive commercial practices. The FCA doesn't take on individual complaints but if enough people shout about it, they may well investigate Startline.

This is quite clearly a policy and practice of many financial companies and it's only when they get challenged they fail to provide a reasonable answer or simply put it down to an error or training issue. The fact that its happening on a regular basis needs to be looked at higher up and its unfair on those being pressured into paying monies that they legally are not required to or the lack of evidence to back up the allegations.

[malimner]

Ok thanks...what would be the basis for the access request? What am I hoping to find?

[R0b]

Recorded calls and evidence (if challenged) that they had no reason to charge you the £4,000 in damages if denied. Also could be passed on to the FCA? Up to you, it's your dispute.