VT on Barclays finance HP car

[sunflower03]

R0b Hello,

After having done extensive research on various forums on this site and elsewhere, I think I have a somewhat good understanding of my rights in terms of ending my HP contract with Barclays Finance.
A little background information, I have already paid back 50% of my agreed amount, my car is in great condition and I’m wanting to hopefully send my VT notice within the next two weeks. However after reading a lot on your previous posts, I have one uncertainty in relation to some terms and conditions within my agreement. This is as follows:

[[ Payments you must make if you or we end this agreement and return the vehicle

If you or we terminate (end) this agreement for any of the reasons set out in this agreement you must pay us the following.
 All repayments, interest and other amounts you owe on the date the agreement ends. We will tell you how much you must pay.
 The cost of all repairs that are needed to bring the vehicle to a good state of repair.
 Compensation or damages if you break this agreement. This will be the amount you still owe under the agreement (the outstanding balance), less the money made from selling the vehicle, after deducting the reasonable costs and expenses (including VAT) of repossessing, insuring and selling the vehicle.
 Damages if you break this agreement before it ends.
 All reasonable costs we must pay in repossessing, storing, insuring and
selling the vehicle and delivering it to a buyer and any sales commission we must pay. ]]

The section in particular which I am a little unsure about is the second bullet point regarding paying 'the cost of all repairs that are needed to bring the vehicle back to a good state of repair.' My question is, is this specifically in relation to if my vehicle would not meet the standards of general wear and tear? My vehicle is in more than reasonable condition for its ages and for the length of time that I have had the agreement and I am somewhat confident that no damage charges will be found. I am fully aware that signing the VT agreement they usually send out will basically mean me agreeing to paying for any damages etc when the car is given back whereby I understand that under Section 99 of the CCA, I do not have to do so. So, although I feel pretty confident that my car would come under normal wear and tear, after reading up on your posts and our legal rights, I still don't really want to sign the contract because as you said, it's not legal to do so.

I read from another post that Barclays quoted back that specific condition within the agreement and wondered what would my response be? Would I simply say that I believe the car will not require any repairs and that it is not stated within my initial agreement that I have to further sign a VT agreement when I choose to terminate? I am weary of how much stress this is going to be through reading similar stories and wondered if I am quite confident that no damage charges should be found, would it be worth just signing the agreement? I really don't want to given our legal rights but just seeing if there's alternative way around it...


Thanks in advance, your advice to others has really shaped my understanding of how this process works.


A

[R0b]

Hello

It's a bit of a technical argument, but it comes down to what I the standard of care. Section 100(4) requires you to take reasonable care of the goods whereas the contract stipulates that the car must be in a state of good repair.
The contractual clause would appear to impose a higher standard of care on you than that required under section 100(4).

I did make a post yesterday on another thread with some reference to your situation and there is some legal authority which confirms that if there is a duty that is independent of a contract then it would be considered a breach of duty under tort law i.e. common law of negligence and not a breach of contract. I also referenced another case that made a point of saying that a party who assumes a duty of care under contract does not automatically assume the same duty of care in tort.

That sounds like a perfectly plausible and sound decision. Parties to a contract can agree and negotiate specific contractual obligations which may restrict or may impose wider obligations than what is required under a duty of care in tort whereas a duty of care is imposed by law generally for each person. In HP cases, the duty of care in the contract would set a higher standard of care in tort, which is reasonable care.

If you want to know the relevant cases then I would suggest you click on this link (see last couple posts).

You are right to be concerned about Barclays because they seem to have a habit at the moment of issuing adverse entries to your credit file after the agreement has terminated. If I recall, they only decided to remove those markers once someone challenged them through complaining to the Financial Ombudsman but not always the case.

So there is a risk to you and it is up to you whether you want to take on that risk. The only real way of getting justice if that were to happen to you, would be issue legal proceedings. I would expect either Barclays to fully defend the claim or fold and make an offer of settlement.

You should also bear in mind that you are talking to someone on the other end who most likely has had no legal training or knowledge of the intricate details of the Consumer Credit Act and even if they did, their job would be to ensure as much money is recovered as possible - which will be a policy of Barclays. In other words, you probably aren't going to get very far with first line customer service.

[sunflower03]

Hi R0b

Thank you so much for getting back to me so quickly - it is appreciated. I completely understand what you're saying and as I have thought previously from reading up on so much about these types of issues, it isn't going to be plain sailing due to how difficult Barclay's seem to be making this situation. I'm aware that it is a big risk signing the additional agreement, which I don't really want to stress over more and as you said yourself, the only way I could get justice is through legal proceedings which is something I most certainly want to avoid.

I will have a read of the link for the post you have sent and get together a list of arguments/points that I will put forward from the posts where you have advised other people. I'm hoping to send off my VT in the next couple of weeks so will take into consideration everything you have said and come back if I come to a dead end!

Thanks again,


A

[mikeg9]

Hello there,

I hope you don't mind me jumping on this thread but I have the same query regarding what is also stated within the contract I signed.

I have also done some reading on the VT process but there are bits I'm struggling to get my head around because so many people seem to be having different issues with their finance company. R0b, could you please clarify on the following?

In more simpler terms, are you advising the person above that if they were to sign the agreement but they then didn't agree with the charges, the only way to resolve this would be through legal proceedings?

In terms of the contractual points above, I have the exact same ones within my contract. You said above that the contractual clause would appear to impose a higher standard of care on you (us) than that required under section 100. Does that mean we have to follow what is within our agreement or under section 100? And does that point being stated within our contract mean we are to sign the VT agreement?

My car is in exceptional condition and I was willing to sign the agreement but now knowing that we are not legally obliged to sign the contract, is making me question what Barclays could do afterwards after hearing some stunts they are trying to pull and charge people for. I am just really unsure on how to proceed and whether I am able to fight it.


Clarification would be really appreciated, thank you in advance.


Mike