Motonovo Changed Voluntary Termination To Voluntary Surrender

[cp33c]

Hi All,

About 2 months ago I posted on here that I was considering VT'ing my car as it was uneconomical to repair - the turbo had died. Unfortunately, I can't find that original thread, but at the time I think I was told that if I did, I might be liable for the damage to be repaired which was coming in around £2k.*

After that advice, I decided to VT the car. The car was collected with no damage marked on the report (received an email to say that as well) and it was taken away.* That was about 6/7 weeks ago.* During this time I received a letter from Motonovo confirming that I have VT'd the agreement and would be sent a letter further down the line detailing my liability. Last week I logged into my Motonovo account and saw that the account balance was £0, which was a bit of a shock as it was because I was expecting it to be more to cover the repair costs. Today I logged into the account just to double-check and it had gone up to over £3k!! I contacted Motonovo who has said that my agreement has not been VT'd and they've treated it as a Voluntary Surrender instead because the car was not in a roadworthy condition - not disputing that. I'm just trying to find out what my rights are here. I said to the call hander that I will wait for the final paperwork to come through before making a formal complaint to which the call handler got a bit jittery on the phone, so I kind of have a feeling something isn't right. She broke down the costs and said that I would have to pay for the recovery, which was £175 + VAT, and any amount due that Motonovo was unable to recover - they didn't get the car repaired they just scrapped it with a company called Copart apparently. If this had been a VT, then surely I would now only be liable for the recovery costs, unless they were able to prove that they repaired?

Any advice would be greatly received.

Thanks

[R0b]

They have no right to treat it as a VS instead of a VT just because the car isn't in a roadworthy condition - that is tantamount to refusing your right to VT which does not prevent you from exercising it if the car is not roadworth because the CCA allows for them to recover costs and expenses for that if returned in an unreasonable condition.

Make the formal complaint and make sure you set out the circumstances exactly as described here. Thing is, it's always easy to say something over the phone which is full of lies than put it in writing, so I would be very surprised if Motonovo continue to take the stance that they are treating it as a VS and not VT.

There might be a case of you arguing repudiatory breach and owing nothing to them if they continue to reject or not accept your VT letter. See what their complaint comes out with.

[cp33c]

Many thanks for your advice, Rob.* Interestingly, Motonovo Finance has now revoked my access to my online account.* I have no doubt I'll be receiving a letter shortly.

Thanks

[R0b]

I would simply wait for them to respond to you by letter.

[cp33c]

So I received a letter from Motonovo finance yesterday.* It didn't mention anything about the voluntary termination or surrender, it was just a letter saying that it was being passed onto debt collectors, but if I wanted I could receive a 20% discount for paying within the next 14 days.* Not sure what to do at this point. There isn't even a 'if you dispute it' type thing, its a matter of fact, this is how much your liability is, pay it.* Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[R0b]

I would suggest you make a formal complaint, outlining that the letter is vague but also mention that before you got locked out of your account online, you noticed that it stated voluntary surrender and not voluntary termination. It would appear Motonovo have decided to reject your VT letter and instead are treating it as a VS.

Ask them to clarify the above, as well as itemise the damages and given reasons.

[cp33c]

So following the advice I was given I wrote to Motonovo requesting a breakdown of costs and also reasoning behind why it was now being treated as a Voluntary Surrender. Today I received an email detailing that 'In order to voluntary terminate a vehicle as per the terms and conditions the vehicle needs to be in running and roadworthy condition. Due to the fact that the turbo had gone on the vehicle it means that it was not eligible for voluntary termination and would be a voluntary surrender. We were not made aware by yourself before collecting the vehicle that it was not a running or roadworthy vehicle'. In the same email, they said that the liability now due is the agreement minus the amount they sold the car for.

So can I now treat this as them refusing to let me VT the contract?, They also did not send me a breakdown of costs, as per my request, but also didn't acknowledge that they weren't providing them for a particular reason, they just didn't reply to that part at all.

Thanks

[R0b]

Can you post up the email so we can see it in full?

How far are you prepared to go to defend this?

[cp33c]

Thank you for your reponse, R0b. Here is the email that I received in full,

'Thank you for your email. I hope you are well.

Our apologies for the delay in getting back to you, we are extremely busy at present.

In order to voluntary terminate a vehicle as per the terms and conditions the vehicle needs to be in running and roadworthy condition. Due to the fact that the turbo had gone on the vehicle it means that it was not eligible for voluntary termination and would be a voluntary surrender. We were not made aware by yourself before collecting the vehicle that it was not a running or roadworthy vehicle.

The liability is the outstanding balance after the vehicle had sold.

I hope this clarifies things for you.'

In terms of how far will I go, I suppose that when I handed the car back in the first place, my assumption was that I would have to pay for the repair costs, which at the time of me getting quotes was between £1.8k - £2k. My liability amount according to Motonovo is just over £3k, and when I handed the car back there was £4.5k left to pay. They sold the vehicle for £1.8k at auction. I requested in my initial email that I would like a breakdown of the account, but they did not respond to that request. I'm not sure what I should expect of this. Do you think I have a case? or do you think I should roll over and accept that I will have to pay more? Have I been naive to think that I could get away with just paying the repair costs? Are Motonovo well in their rights to decline my Voluntary Termination in favour of a Voluntary Surrender? If it turns out the wool has been pulled over my eyes, then I would like to take this further. If I'm going to spend more money on trying to get a decision for me, but actually have no chance of winning, then I'd rather go with the liability.

Any advice, is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[R0b]

Based on that, I think they're in the wrong, completely without a doubt. They cannot decide unilaterally to reject your VT letter and then treat it as a voluntary surrender - for starters a voluntary surrender requires consent, something which you haven't given here. As far as I can see there's a few options that might be available to you:

1. Treat the contract as a repudiation by Motonovo.
The right to terminate the contract is a statutory right and cannot be refused. By refusing to accept your VT notice which you are entitled to exercise, would amount to a material breach entitling you to terminate the contract - all future obligations at the date of termination are discharged, but liabilities prior to that may still be liable to pay. This may include the cost of repair to the vehicle for the turbo unless you can argue that you took reasonable care and it was fair wear and tear.

In addition, due to Motonovo's breach, you are entitled to damages as if the contract had been performed. If a lender was claiming damages, this would probably be the remaining amount due under the contract, but in the case of a hirer, I would argue that this would be an amount equal to the remaining instalments under the contract and (ii) the market value of the vehicle at the time of termination, based on the assumption that the right to purchase was exercised. That value could be argued as the amount based on the sale at auction.

2. Wrongful interference with goods by conversion or breach of s.90 CCA
This one is probably an afterthought and might not be your strongest argument, but could be an alternative one if you decided to issue legal proceedings or as a counterclaim to any proceedings against you. The argument goes like this: If, after collecting the car Motonovo decided to reject the VT notice, then the agreement should still remain alive and in force. Therefore they should have returned the car to you as you have a right to possession under the agreement. By not doing that and then going on to sell it and/or treating it as a voluntary surrender (without your consent), they have interfered with your rights and that is called the tort of conversion. There is some court cases that have awarded a proportion of the instalments paid without the interest added e.g. your monthly instalment inc. interest is £450 but less interest is £420, then its £420 multiplied by the number of months you've paid, which is what you would get back. The other argument is that they have taken possession of the car which is deemed as protected goods once you've paid 1/3 of the total price. Again, by refusing to hand it back to you and going on to sell it, they're in breach of this provision. It means you are entitled to all repayments that you've made under the contract.

3. Complain to the Financial Ombudsman
This is another option but bear in mind they only look at what's fair and reasonable and they very rarely take into account what the law says, despite having an obligation to do so. You'd have to submit a formal complaint to Motonovo first, then wait up to 8 weeks for a final response, then complain to the Ombudsman who are stretched as it is and could very well take several more months up to 6 months or maybe even longer.

4. Do nothing and see what Motonovo do.
As the title suggests, send Motonovo a response and tell them where to go, invite them to commence legal proceedings and defend on the basis that you exercised your VT right or counterclaim for any of the above points.


Aside from option 1 which I'm confident you could rely on, are just other potential remedies and it goes wihtout saying that there is no guarantee that you could win on them but have several arguments is likely better than putting your eggs into one backest.

[cp33c]

Thank you so much for your help with this matter R0b. I have replied back to Motonovo explaining that by refusing my VT they have refused my statutory right under the CCA, and told them that I will not be paying any liability due, due to this. I will let you know when I hear anything back from them. Many thanks again for your help and assistance.

[cp33c]

Today I received a letter from a debt collection agency demanding I pay up the liability. Is that allowed if this is in dispute? Should I just ignore the letters or attempt to talk to the debt collection agency to tell them whats going on?

[cp33c]

Hi,

Over the weekend, I received a new email from MotoNovo holding their position. Below is the email:

'As my colleague stated bellow due to the condition of the vehicle you have lost the ability to voluntary terminated the vehicle as it needs be in a fully working road worthy condition. When you contacted us and advised that the vehicle had broken down and the repair bill was over £2,000 on the 14/01/20 you were advised on the phone call with us that if the vehicle was in such a condition that you would not be able to voluntary terminate the account it would then be a voluntary surrender and as such you would be liable for the full balance after sale.

As such you were made fully aware of what would happen should the vehicle be given back to us in this condition and had the option to repair the vehicle yourself before handing the vehicle back to us. You decided to continue with handing the vehicle back to us despite the condition of the vehicle so you are and will remain liable for the full balance after sale.

If the balance is not cleared then the agreement will be defaulted and passed to a debt collection agency to collect on our behalf'

I have replied back asking why my email asking about them refusing my right to VT, hasn't been answered. They appear to be using their T&C's instead and pointing me to them instead of the CCA, as far as I can tell.

Thanks

[R0b]

They can do what they want, pass it to a debt collector, sell the alleged debt to a third party or anything else, that's why it's called a dispute.

Their emails, in my view are utter rubbish and I've already set out my thoughts on the matter. Still not clear whether you've actually claimed repudiatory breach or you are still ping-ponging back and forth with them which is unlikely to get you very far.

Either way, I don't have anything else to add and would refer you back to my previous post on your possible options. If you're still unsure, I suggest you get some independent legal advice.

Worst case, they mark your credit file and then the ball is in your court, or they issue legal proceedings and you defend/counterclaim. We are no where near that stage yet and I'd be surpirsed if Motonovo did that because I think deep down, they know they're on sticky grounds.

[cp33c]

I received an email from MotoNovo Finance today, in response to my complaint I made with regards to their breach of contract. They have confirmed that they were in the wrong and have now revised their stance and they have accepted my VT. As a result they have compensated me £200, and forwarded me an invoice to pay the new liability due, which they have basically managed to get it up to £2700, which they have claimed requires a reconditioned engine, which wasn't the issue with the vehicle, but was in the region of the same price. Obviously I have got the result I was initially looking for with regards to them treating it as a VT, however I'm quite underwhelmed with the compensation offered and wondered if I should be claiming for further damages, or should I be happy with this result and moving on.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance