Tweet
Hi there ... in November 2012 I bought a new Toyota car through the dealership on a PCP contract. Having recently been approached by email regarding a potential 'mis-sold' deal, and despite being a tad cynical, I read through all of my purchase documentation. On this purchase, I part exchanged me car that was originally a local government leased car and I decided to buy it for cash ( price agreed with the lease company at the time ) as my local government employer was cancelling all leased car availability as a cost cutting measure and I had the choice of buying my lease car outright or handing it back and buying another car. On studying my sales invoice for my new car, there is an amount of £1200 added onto my bill and described as 'HP Settlement'. Hand on heart, I wasn't aware of this figure and as the part exchanged car was actually owned outright there simply was no outstanding HP to settle. I queried this by email with the dealership general manager and he simply said it must have been an HP settlement on my part exchange. He also said that as they keep no 'deal files' over seven years, he was unable to help me further. I have since gone back and provided my lease car purchase receipt and their own 'part exchange' form, signed by me, where I confirmed that the part exchange vehicle was 'unencumbered' with any finance. I am waiting to hear his response. I still own the car.
My questions really are why have they charged me 'HP settlement' when there was none? Can they deny any liability as they no longer keep 'deal files' over seven years? Are there any motor trade situations where adding 'HP settlement' , where there clearly was none, may have been done? And if they continue to negate my enquiry, who should I turn to for advice? Sadly the 'sales executive' concerned left the dealership about a month after my purchase.
I would just add that advice on another site that has said ... "The statutory limitation can start from the date a mistake is realised, you'd get 3 years from that time, if it could not reasonably have been found before but in this case i don't think that can apply, you've seen the mistake now after someone contacted you about a 'mis sale' brings the question about why did you not check the same paperwork in 2012". That was because my wife had died after a long and stressful fight with MS and I was working twelve hours a day to keep my head above water. Plus I have a signed dealership form that states the part exchange vehicle is unencumbered with any finance. So why did the salesman not point out the need to reclaim £1200 'HP Settlement' as there would have clearly been a lot to say from me. Plus I fully trusted the dealership having dealt with them for some five years. But is that good enough argument?
My questions really are why have they charged me 'HP settlement' when there was none? Can they deny any liability as they no longer keep 'deal files' over seven years? Are there any motor trade situations where adding 'HP settlement' , where there clearly was none, may have been done? And if they continue to negate my enquiry, who should I turn to for advice? Sadly the 'sales executive' concerned left the dealership about a month after my purchase.
I would just add that advice on another site that has said ... "The statutory limitation can start from the date a mistake is realised, you'd get 3 years from that time, if it could not reasonably have been found before but in this case i don't think that can apply, you've seen the mistake now after someone contacted you about a 'mis sale' brings the question about why did you not check the same paperwork in 2012". That was because my wife had died after a long and stressful fight with MS and I was working twelve hours a day to keep my head above water. Plus I have a signed dealership form that states the part exchange vehicle is unencumbered with any finance. So why did the salesman not point out the need to reclaim £1200 'HP Settlement' as there would have clearly been a lot to say from me. Plus I fully trusted the dealership having dealt with them for some five years. But is that good enough argument?
Comment