Help with Charges

[Confuzzled18]

Hi, I'm looking for some help with charges the fiance company are making on my old vehicle - could someone help? I have already emailed them arguing the charges and they have dropped three of them so far. The rest they are arguing or ignoring.

Existing scratches
I've provided images showing the scratches were there when I purchased the car. They have advised I speak to the dealership to obtain further proof. They are well aware that the dealership no longer exists. Any ideas how I can fight this?

Collection charge
I said several times that they had to collect the vehicle as the drop off centre was too far away and only open for two hours twice a week (during working hours). They are saying that as it is 45 minutes away, I had to pay it unless I could prove it was 'unfair'. I've read that I'm not responsible for the collection of the vehicle as part of the VT but am unsure now.

Value added product
They are charging for a value added product that isn't covered by the VT so I have to pay in full. I did not agree to any product. They have a form that shows my car details that is not signed by me or the sales rep. They are saying that, because it is on my contract (under "tax" - yes I should have spotted it) that I have agreed to it. My argument is clearly I didn't agree to it or I would have signed the form that goes to the company who looks after that product. Given the fact that the product is for alloy scuffs and they're charging me for having scuffed alloys - if I knew I had a product, I'd have clearly used it.

Scuffed alloys
They're saying the scuffs fall outside "BVRLA fair wear and tear standards". Judging from the BVRLA they only just fall out - what is the deal with these standards? I can't seem to find anything saying that, if returned, my car would be measured by them. No doubt it's all above board but I just wanted to check.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. I've learnt a lot from this process and am hoping to learn a bit more

[R0b]

Hi,

I've recently updated the VT Guide if you haven't already seen it (click here) and suggest you have a read of page 9 for refurbishment charges. There is only so much you can do before you reach stalemate, and it seems like you have hit that point. In which case, unless you are prepared to accept their demands, your only option is to tell them that neither party seems to be budging and it is no longer worth engaging in further correspondence. If they believe their demands are valid, then invite them to issue legal proceedings so the matter can be finally determined. Otherwise, quit bothering you.

If the vehicle is second hand and you never had it from brand new, then the finance co would have some difficulty in proving their case. It's not up to you to get additional proof especially as you say the dealership no longer exists. They are being absolutely unreasonable here and if they disagree with your photos, they need to provide evidence which contradicts your position.

Again, same with the scuffed alloys. The BVRLA requirements will likely be listed in your contract terms somewhere where it refers to vehicle damage, but there is a decision made by the Financial Ombudsman who received confirmation that the BVRLA guidelines are used for vehicles up to 3 years old. There are also other decisions where the Ombudsman has akcnowledged those guidelines are not appropriate where a car is old and has had multiple drivers.

Collection charges again are just a non-starter, there is also a template letter for this in the guide. You may also want to use the letter called Letter to finance company giving notice of intention to sell the vehicle which consists of two pages and integrate that into your response. If they refuse to collect, then you have a legal right to sell the car and deduct your costs - suggest you include a daily charge for storage and looking after it until it is collected or sold - a reasonable amount of £10 or £15 would suffice.

As for the insurance product, it would seem odd that this is listed under the Tax section, it would normally be properly set out in the breakdown of the total price payable. If you never received it as part of your pre-contract information together with the unsigned document, there might be some force in arguing that the dealership included this without your consent - that would be a fact finding matter of a court to decide. The burden of proof rests with the finance company to show that you agreed with it. I should expect you have been paying for the product and you could if you wanted to bring legal proceedings for the recovery of it but then that might trigger the finance co. to counterclaim for the other points they've listed, though I think they would find it difficult to prove against a second hand vehicle.

The summary point is that the ball is in the court of the finance co. I've yet to see any finance co. issue legal proceedings around vehicle damage whether because they know they are pushing their luck or, it's not commercially viable.

I think your next steps is to make a formal complaint to the finance co. setting out your position, they will probably not uphold your complaint so you then take it to the Ombudsman since it's free of charge. If you don't agree with their decision, you can reject it and you are back to square one - the finance co. would need to take legal action to recover the monies demanded.

[Confuzzled18]

Thanks Rob, I appreciate your help and will read through that information.

The VT letter I sent was copied from the information you’ve provided and, in subsequent emails, I stated several times that I would not pay for collection. Am beginning to wish I’d just left it outside my house.

The car is eight years old and has had three/four previous keepers. It wasn’t in the best cosmetic condition but they took money off so I didn’t mind. I know it wasn’t the smartest thing to do but I’d just passed my test and really wanted the car.

It does look like I have been paying for this product. Of it all, this is the bit that really frustrates me, not that I’ve been paying for something I shouldn’t, but they want me to pay for repairs and for a product that sounds like it would have made the repairs.

I'll have a look through the site and see if I can find anyone who has also gone to the FO.

[R0b]

I've attached an Ombudsman decision that might assist you, particularly page 2 of the decision:

I issued a provisional decision in March 2019 upholding this complaint. And I said the
following:

"There's no dispute that the terms of the agreement allows Clydesdale to charge Mr M for damage to the car that would be considered more than fair wear and tear. Clydesdale has assessed the damage against guidelines set by the BVRLA.

But I think this guidance is intended for new cars that are returned before or at the end of their first finance agreement. I also note that they also specifically say that when the members review deterioration to the vehicle's condition at the end of a contract or a finance agreement, the age, mileage and use of the vehicle are taken into account. So they do say the car's age and mileage needs to be taken into account. Further to this, the BVRLA has also confirmed to us that the guide is intended for cars around three years old coming to the end of their first agreement.

Given this, it would be unfair to apply a similar test to older cars such as Mr M's car. In this case, Mr M's car was around seven years old and had travelled over 72,000 miles. And I think any damage needs to be assessed in line whether it's reasonable to expect this type of damage, given its age and mileage.

However, I disagree with the investigator that the majority of the damage is what's reasonably expected given the car's age and mileage. I need to think whether a reasonable person would take the specific damage into account when deciding whether to buy a car or not. And I think the photos Clydesdale has given us shows that the majority of the damage that it's charged for is more than fair wear and tear for a car of this age and mileage."

[Confuzzled18]

Hi Rob

I can't seem to download the FO decision in your last post. Could you post again?

Thank you

[Confuzzled18]

Ignore me, it downloaded the moment I posted