Westfield

[Westfield]

It appears as though I have a 3 year new car PCP agreement whereby i will not be able to exercise my right of VT at any point during the term. This appears to be due to the fact that 50% of the total amount payable is more than the deposit paid plus acceptance fee, plus 36 monthly payments including interest and therefore could never be reached? Is this just down to the structure of the deal and capital cost of the new car? As a side note the GMFV appears to have been significantly inflated by the manufacturer as the car is now 26 months old, has covered its agreed mileage and is in excellent condition but on researching the value on line it falls considerably short of its GMFV which has been set at 36 months?
Any feedback will be most welcome.

[EXC]

Re: Westfield

Thread moved to appropriate forum so [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] sees it.

[R0b]

Re: Westfield

Hi Westfield,

I think the starting point might be provide a copy of the contract and the terms and conditions. Each PCP might be calculated different so rather than taking a stab in the dark it will be better to see what we are working with. You can upload photos by clicking on 'go advanced' and then on the paperclip option. Make sure to remove any personal information on there too.

if the GMFV is considerably shorter than the online valuations then there is potentially misrepresentation.

Usually the way the PCP is calculated you are more likely to be able to terminate the agreement closer to the 36 month period than what you would if you were under a HP which would be more closer to 50% of the term. However, if the PCP does not allow for you to VT because the term is shorter then there could be an argument there too as it would deprive you of terminating the agreement early (which you have a right to do) and forces you to complete the whole term of the PCP agreement. It could be considered potentially unfair.

[Westfield]

Re: Westfield

Hi R0b,
I think you are correct in assuming I have been deprived the right to VT due to the fact the whole term of the agreement would need to be completed. I've attached a copy of the contract (2 pages) with all personal information deleted for your reference. Many thanks, Westfield.

[R0b]

Re: Westfield

I probably need to have a think on it as under the CCA it says that you can VT by paying 50% of the total amount payable, but does not state this has to be within the term of the agreement. I calculate 36 x 430 as being in the £15k region whereas the right to VT is £18k. Whether there is an argument in that, possibly as I have said it forces you to pay the full term of the agreement otherwise you would be out of pocket.

PCP Agreements generally have lower monthly instalments with a much higher optional payment at the end, but usually you would hit the 50% mark around 4-5 months before the end of the Term. From what I can see there is no real option for you to VT and therefore no real protection from terminating the agreement early. Don't think this kind of argument has been tested before but its something something to think about.

You may have a better option arguing the GMFV as a misrepresentation if it has been inflated higher than it should be. Obviously that amount will based on the condition of the vehicle and the mileage at the end of the term etc. Perhaps it might be worth taking it to a couple of dealers and getting their opinion of what the car is worth and what condition they would deem it as.

I don't think I seen anything on how the GMFV is calculated and whether that is based on excellent condition or reasonable condition etc.


I'll take a proper look in the next day or so as I have a few other things to sort out

[Westfield]

Re: Westfield

Many thanks R0b, i look forward to your thoughts in the next few days. Cheers, Westfield

[R0b]

Re: Westfield

Many thanks R0b, i look forward to your thoughts in the next few days. Cheers, Westfield

Hi Westfield,

I've had a think about your problem here and i do think there could be a cause for arguing that the way in which the contract is structured might be deemed unfair, in particular as suggested above with regards to really having no option to VT. You would probably have to argue that it is unfair and the way that the finance has been calculated has effectively restricted your right to VT and you are forced to complete the whole term of the contract.

Whilst you can technically VT the agreement, you can do so for an extra £3,000 for the privilege. The other issue that you have is that under the right to VT your liability is restricted which means that you do not have to pay excessive mileage fees or collection fees. By seeing the contract through to the end, you will be liable for these costs and ultimately if those costs outweigh the cost of VT'ing the agreement then either way they are still making some money out of it.

The other point to make is misrepresentation as suggested above, if you are able to verify the estimate of what a dealer would pay for the car and that is below the GFMV then you might have an argument of misrepresentation.

Did you pay any deposit for the car over £100 on credit card?

[Westfield]

Re: Westfield

Hi R0b
Thanks for your opinion, I will gather a couple of valuations from dealers over the next few days and report back. In answer to your question about deposit, no I used my debit card for the initial £500 deposit at time of order and then again for the deposit balance of £1095 at time of collection.
I assume my complaint in relation to the VT issue should be directed in writing to the Finance Company and not the supplying dealer?

[R0b]

Re: Westfield

Yes it would go to the finance company, it should be headed complaint or make reference to a complaint so that they are aware and then once you have received their final decision you should be able to go to the Financial Ombudsman if they do not uphold your complaint.

It is always worth paying a deposit £100 or more on credit credit because then you can rely on section 75 of the CCA. The credit card company will be liable jointly with the finance company and you can claim from them instead provided you have an arguable case. That way it would save you from going to court and spending alot of money, if the Ombudsman agreed that you were misrepresented and you accepted their decision, it becomes legally binding and the credit card company would have to refund you the whole amount back and then claim it back from the finance company.

The same applies to any goods really.

EDIT: Just realised the finance was £37k, so section 75 does not apply in this case as it is limited to £30k, but still worth remembering.