VTR - A new issue

[bobsa31]

Hi,

I posted recently about our issue with RMS receivable and VTR, we agreed to pay them £85 and did so that same day. Today we have received a letter from the finance company this time, they are claiming a default sum under S86e of the consumer credit act of £518.60 for auction costs.

can they charge us for selling a car that belongs to them?

[R0b]

Re: VTR - A new issue

Hi,

I posted recently about our issue with RMS receivable and VTR, we agreed to pay them £85 and did so that same day. Today we have received a letter from the finance company this time, they are claiming a default sum under S86e of the consumer credit act of £518.60 for auction costs.

can they charge us for selling a car that belongs to them?

Can you remind me of your issue or a link to your other thread? it's best to try keep everything in one thread so we can all understand what's going on.

who are RMS Receivable are they not the finance company? why did you pay £85 to them and not the Finance co?

I am assuming the finance co own the car?

In short if you VT'd then the answer is no tell them where to go.

[Kati]

Re: VTR - A new issue

Can you remind me of your issue or a link to your other thread?

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...RMS-Receivable xx

[bobsa31]

Re: VTR - A new issue

sorry Rob, should have done that. link is correct as above

[R0b]

Re: VTR - A new issue

Alright so, you sent that template letter last time, you negotiated and paid £85 for the cost of the seat cover and now the finance co want more money from you.

It seems to me RMS receivables are a debt collection co which is strange why they would have been instructed because you VT'd your car :dizzy: i suspect if they found out you paid money to RMS then they also want a slice of the pie to try and extract money from you.

Anyway, the general effect of s.100 CCA 1974 is that it prescribes the maximum liability of the debtor where the debtor VT's the agreement. That maximum amount is half of the total amount payable plus any arrears.

s.173 CCA 1974 effectively means that any term which imposes further liability beyond the 50% is void.

You VT'd the car, the car is vested back in the finance co and so they can do what they want with it. If they want to auction the car off then that is their prerogative but they bear the costs of anything they do past the point of VT.