Tweet
Hi I wondered if anyone out there could help me clarify something that's been perplexing me for a while now.
When I purchased my current car, I was pressured into taking out a gap insurance deal despite having told the salesman that I had found a good independent deal myself. Anyway to cut a long story short he told me that it wouldn't end up costing me anymore than we had already agreed on the car payments, so really in his words, 'It was a no brainer'. This conversation was held at the time over the phone, so I didn't see any supplementary paperwork.
We are now 3 years down the line and i've just had a letter to say my Gap insurance is now due to expire and should I wish to renew would cost me £700+, which set me thinking that maybe I should look over my original paperwork, which I had only given a cursory glance to when I picked up the car.
Here's where things now get confusing. Originally I agreed a £3500 cash deposit. When I have checked the original order form, it shows as £3500 deposit but underneath is a figure listed as 'Cash Back' of £724. Now I always assumed that a 'cash back' is usually deducted from the original price less deposit, but on my papers it shows that this has actually been added on and increased the sub total of the car.
After further investigation looking at my finance agreement, it then appears that a deposit of £2776 was paid on the car (a difference of £724 - which was the price of the gap insurance) and a separate invoice was issued for the gap insurance afterwards. I had always assumed that I had paid a £3500 deposit on the car and not £2776. I was never told that they had taken £724 from my original deposit to pay for a gap insurance product because had I have known it was going to be such an extortionate amount, there's no way I would ever have agreed to it.
So my question is, why would they use the term 'cash back' and not list it as gap insurance if this is what it was and does it look like they have deliberately mislead me into buying a product by manipulating my paperwork to make it appear to be something it clearly isn't - would this fall under mis selling.
Any thoughts?
Thank you
When I purchased my current car, I was pressured into taking out a gap insurance deal despite having told the salesman that I had found a good independent deal myself. Anyway to cut a long story short he told me that it wouldn't end up costing me anymore than we had already agreed on the car payments, so really in his words, 'It was a no brainer'. This conversation was held at the time over the phone, so I didn't see any supplementary paperwork.
We are now 3 years down the line and i've just had a letter to say my Gap insurance is now due to expire and should I wish to renew would cost me £700+, which set me thinking that maybe I should look over my original paperwork, which I had only given a cursory glance to when I picked up the car.
Here's where things now get confusing. Originally I agreed a £3500 cash deposit. When I have checked the original order form, it shows as £3500 deposit but underneath is a figure listed as 'Cash Back' of £724. Now I always assumed that a 'cash back' is usually deducted from the original price less deposit, but on my papers it shows that this has actually been added on and increased the sub total of the car.
After further investigation looking at my finance agreement, it then appears that a deposit of £2776 was paid on the car (a difference of £724 - which was the price of the gap insurance) and a separate invoice was issued for the gap insurance afterwards. I had always assumed that I had paid a £3500 deposit on the car and not £2776. I was never told that they had taken £724 from my original deposit to pay for a gap insurance product because had I have known it was going to be such an extortionate amount, there's no way I would ever have agreed to it.
So my question is, why would they use the term 'cash back' and not list it as gap insurance if this is what it was and does it look like they have deliberately mislead me into buying a product by manipulating my paperwork to make it appear to be something it clearly isn't - would this fall under mis selling.
Any thoughts?
Thank you
