• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Returned clocked car on HP but only returned 25% of what I paid.

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Returned clocked car on HP but only returned 25% of what I paid.

    Evening All,

    I am looking on advice on the below as the figures to me don’t add up.

    I purchased a car for 43.5k on HP last Oct with Mann Island and my 1st payment of £893.53 started on a monthly basis on 19th of Nov. I paid no deposit when purchasing the car. My annual APR was 8.4%. At the beginning of July, I discovered my car had been clocked to the tune off 33k miles so when I bought the car, even though the dash stated 35k the car had actually done 68k.

    I phoned the finance company as car not sold as described and they made dealership take the car back. They made the dealership hand them back 37.5k and they are keeping 6k of the just over 8k I paid them.

    I asked them how much of my monthly charge was hire against the purchase aspect but no one at the company can tell me this. I find it odd that they are keeping ¾ of what I paid them for usage.

    I did 10k miles on the car during this time. From my perspective the dealership where given 43.5k by the finance company during the initial purchase and only had to give the finance company back 37.5k so even though they will have to correct the mileage which will affect the resale they made 6k on this sale. The finance company got their initial 43.5k between my money and the dealership so even though I am the aggrieved party I have lost the most.

    Do these figures seem correct?

    Any advice welcome.

    Thanks,

    Callum
    Tags: None

  • #2


    If you had rejected the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as they were not as described, the usage rate is normally around the 10p per mile.
    I wouldn't be trying to guess how they worked out their figures, but just tell them what I required.
    The amount they settled with the dealer has no effect on what is due to you. That is a matter solely between the finance house and dealer
    I would be raising a formal complaint with the finance house, and if that failed I would consider a complaint to FOS, or perhaps preferably initiating a county court claim

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi DES8 and thank you for your reply,
      I told them I was rejecting the vehicle as it was clocked and not as described when purchased. I instantly complained to the lady that the figure was too low yesterday and she told me to wait until the documents came in the post for a breakdown on how they had come to the 6k figure. I waited before replying today encase something did arrive in the post. Nearly every step of the way I had to chase them up as they were not keeping me in the loop on what was going on. The worst part was that Mann Island brought back into the loop the finance broker who connected us which was Finset. This meant that there where 4 parties involved. The guy there insisted that all communications went through him but the dealer got in touch with me directly when he was going to come and pickup the car. I was lied to, as was the dealership.

      I was lied to into handing over the car as the guy at Finset said the dealership wanted to put the car into a local approved Audi dealer in the Midlands to satisfy the dealership that the car had indeed been clocked. I was told to hand the car back with the V5C plus both keys which I found highly suspicious. I was told beforehand that the car would be with them 3-4 days but I never saw the car again. Finset also told the dealership to hand back money stating that the customer as in myself was going of my nut demanding my money which was untrue so they where lying to both of us. I will give them a call on Monday and quote the law to them and the industry standard charge per mile and demand the rest of my money bar mileage. Failing that I will raise a complaint by email so it will be a written form of communication. I will also state if it is not resolved in a satisfactory manner that I will be going to a lawyer to raise a case against them and raising a case with the financial ombudsman as I now think they are just chancing their luck.

      Thank once again for putting me on the right track

      Cheers

      Callum

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't bother with threatening with a solicitor.
        A solicitor has no more persuasive power than you, and it will cost you money you will not recover.

        If it comes to court the matter will be allocated to small claims track where recovery of costs is limited.
        A solicitor will cost you more than you will ever recover

        You only need to deal with the finance house, don't waste time and effort being distracted by the dealer or broker

        Bear in mind that the FoS are extremely slow (currently about 6 month delay before a submission is even looked at) and then they do not necessarily rule according to the law , but what they think is fair.
        Courts too have a large backlog.
        Often negotiation, not confrontation, is the best way to a resolution

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi DES8,
          Thanks once again and very sound advice. After reading your initial advice I read through their Google reviews which is mediocre at best with only 3.2 stars out of 5. One reviewer went to the Ombudsman and won his case and stated that you can actually read all of the Ombudsman cases online and filter cases by company. MI Vehicle Finance have had 200 complaints against them, 86 of which have been upheld towards the complainant.

          I will raise a grievance complaint through their complaints procedure this week by email and see how it goes.

          Thanks

          Callum

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the update, and please keep the thread updated as it may help others in a similar position

            Comment


            • #7
              Morning All,
              I spoke to MI Vehicle Finance customer complaints today and mentioned the Consumer Goods Act 2015 to her and that I should have a full refund bar mileage tariff. She said as I had usage of the car over the last 9 months and that there is nothing specified in the Consumer Goods Act 2015 about a mileage tariff they have deducted the £6,000 for this. As I am still waiting on the documentation relating to all this she told me she would email it over to me later in the day.

              I have browsed on the internet and cannot find anything relating to the mileage tariff either.

              From a legal standpoint what are my options now?

              Thanks

              Callum

              Comment


              • #8
                Wait and see what they say.
                An argument can then be raised.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi All,
                  I thought I would come and update this thread as in the end I went to the ombudsman who did not uphold my complaint. I will be appealing this as I have read my Terms & Conditions and my Finance agreement thoroughly and I still think I have a strong argument. I have until the 9th of March to appeal.
                  Motonovo Finance, who the AA use, who I phoned for an impartial view also thought that my refund is quite low. Attached below is the ombudsman's decision letter and my finance agreement which also states the delivered mileage. I think that as the mileage is stated in my agreement, and was incorrect this could also void my agreement. What do you guys think? I will upload the T's & C's in a future post.

                  Thanks,

                  Callum




                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not unduly surprised by the Ombudsman's initial response.
                    As I wrote earlier post 4 "Bear in mind that the FoS are extremely slow (currently about 6 month delay before a submission is even looked at) and then they do not necessarily rule according to the law , but what they think is fair"

                    IMO that response is not fair to you the consumer.
                    I take it that this response is from an adjudicator, and I would certainly ask for it to be reviewed by an ombudsman.

                    You should point out that Consumer Rights Act 2015 sec 11 states that goods must be as described.
                    If the goods do not conform the consumer has a right to reject Sec 19 (3) (a) and receive a refund (sec 20 & 22)
                    There are also other additional remedies available Sec 19 (10) & (11)

                    You could also point out that you could also take action under the Misrepresentation Act 1967

                    I would also be commenting that altho' I realised they didn't necessarily make a finding on a legal basis, but on what they felt was fair you do not understand how their decision can be classed as fair.
                    Basically they are saying it is fair for you to be charged £6,000 odd for the hire of the vehicle for X months.
                    If you were to purchase a vehicle for £6,000, after X months you would have an asset worth £5500 (?) so how is their decision fair to you

                    IMO you should be getting back all you had paid less an allowance for the mileage.
                    Good luck

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi DES8,
                      Once again thanks for your advice.
                      I have already replied back to the ombudsman asking for a second opinion from the investigator.
                      I think you are 100% right from a legal standpoint especially having seen the mileage also written in black and white on my finance agreement.

                      Hopefully it won't come to it but failing the Ombudsman, I will proceed through the small claims court.

                      Thanks once again,

                      Callum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Evening All,
                        Could anyone point me to the regulations where it states that I should only pay a mileage tariff on the usage of my old car, which was rejected for a genuine reason, which was not contested as I have had the reply from the Ombudsman's investigator below and am unsure on how to proceed?

                        Again they have not answered how they answered how they calculated the usage charge.

                        Thanks,

                        Callum


                        I sent my first view on Mr ******* (C) complaint about MI Vehicle Finance (B) on 23 February 2023. I explained that B had had resolved the situation as our service would expect after it came to light that C was sold a vehicle which wasn’t as described. However, I explained the way in which B should conduct a calculation to establish if any further refund was due back to C.

                        B responded and accepted my findings. It carried out a calculation in the way I suggested and found that a further £88.66 is due back to C. B said it would be happy to pay this amount to C.

                        However, C disagreed with my view. I’ve attached C’s response for B’s perusal.

                        My response:


                        C suggests that B should refund what he paid for a service as well as two new tires. However, B isn’t responsible for refunding these expenses. C ultimately had use of the vehicle and any maintenance costs whilst the vehicle was in his possession were C’s responsibility.

                        There’s no dispute that the vehicle sold to C wasn’t as described – there was a misrepresentation regarding the vehicle’s mileage. The usual remedy for a misrepresentation is to put the consumer in the position they would’ve been in had the misrepresentation not been made. In this case, it’s likely that C wouldn’t have bought the car had he been aware of the vehicle’s actual mileage. Where a material misrepresentation has taken place, a business should remedy the situation in the following way:
                        • cancel the agreement with nothing further to pay
                        • collect the car at no further cost to the customer
                        • refund monthly payments, less any deduction for usage
                        • refund the deposit
                        • pay 8% simple interest per year on any refunded amount from the date of payment until the date of settlement; and
                        • remove any information from the customer’s credit file if applicable

                        As I understand it, B did most of the above. But, as per my first view, I needed B to do a bit more to ensure the situation was fairly resolved for C.

                        C had use of the vehicle for the majority of the time he had possession of it. Whilst he may not have bought the vehicle if he was aware of the true mileage, that doesn’t change the fact that he still had use of the vehicle and benefitted from it during the period he had possession of it. Therefore, C wasn’t due a full refund of everything he paid. He was only due a refund as he should have been paying less each month for the reasons I outlined in my first view.

                        It was unclear why B had refunded two rentals given there wasn’t a period of two months where C didn’t have use of the vehicle. However, B’s refund appeared to be roughly the amount due back to C based on my calculations. But as stated earlier, there is an amount of £88.66 due back to C after B carried out a calculation and added the 8% simple interest.

                        I’m satisfied that B has resolved this correctly and now that B has carried out a more detailed calculation, C’s refund is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It’s not correct that C should have only paid for the miles he used as he’s suggested. Under certain agreements consumers are required to pay an excess mileage charge where, when returning the vehicle, they have covered more miles than the agreement permitted. But that’s a charge for a specific reason and can’t be applied in the way C suggests here.

                        Again, there’s no dispute here that the vehicle sold to C wasn’t as described. However, I’m satisfied that B has fairly and reasonably resolved the situation in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. B should refund C the outstanding £88.66 but other than that, I can’t tell B to do anything else. I realise this isn’t the outcome that C was looking for but I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

                        Next steps

                        I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I’ve explained. If you don’t want to take things further, there’s no need to do anything and we’ll close your case on 23 March 2023.

                        But if you decide that you don't accept what I’ve said – and want an Ombudsman to make a final decision on your complaint – you must provide any further evidence or representations by 23 March 2023. Requests for more time must also be made by that date.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So you now need to reject their finding and request the matter be referred to the ombudsman.

                          He is correct that a deduction can be made for usage, but there is no where stated how that deduction should be calculated
                          However in every case I've seen that deduction has been made on a mileage basis.

                          You could point out there own website states:." Remember, for rejection outside of the first 30 days, the seller is entitled to deduct the mileage you have added onto the car".
                          https://www.themotorombudsman.org/kn...n-buying-a-car

                          This earlier thread on Legal Beagles might help: https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...xpect-a-refund

                          Lawgistics (a motor traders help site we often cross swords with has an interesting article here :https://www.lawgistics.co.uk/blog/le...ction-charges/

                          And finally a heavy going government pdf you might like to read
                          https://assets.publishing.service.go...und-impact.pdf


                          Just write, rewrite and rewrite again your response to the ombudsman to ensure your arguments are made clearly and forcibly.

                          and good luck

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi All,
                            I thought I had better update this thread to keep anyone looking at it in the loop. I have attached the final decision from the Ombudsman which went against me below. I still think I will pursue this in the courts but will check with a lawyer first on what my chances would be as I believe I get a free hour non grata. I would prefer the lawyers to get this money over the finance company as decisions like this just encourage them to treat their customers like dirt. The Ombudsman himself stated that there was no set method on how they calculated the fair usage payment so I think I may still have a chance. What do you guys think?

                            Regards,

                            Callum
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IMO the Ombudsman has used an incorrect basis for calculating the refund.

                              CRA 2015 clearly states that the goods have to be as described(CRA 2015 sec11), but
                              If they are not the consumer has the right to reject the goods (CRA 2015 sec 19) for a refund
                              The right to a refund is for anything already paid less a deduction for use in the case of motor vehicles (CRA Sec 24)

                              Extract from https://www.themotorombudsman.org/kn...mer-rights-act
                              [When you] exercise your final right of rejection – where you will be entitled to a refund of what you paid for the car minus a deduction for any usage you’ve had. This is usually calculated by looking at how many miles you’ve added to the vehicle, and charging a certain amount of pence for each mile driven.

                              The ombudsman in this decision seems to have based his decision on the idea that your refund is the difference between what you paid and what you would have paid if your vehicle had been priced taking into account its actual mileage.
                              He thinks that's fair, which doesn't mean it's correct.

                              Viewing the amount at stake I would seriously consider making a claim. but not using a solicitor

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X