BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

**xs2man** · 10th September 2016, 13:55:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

So, From here, the vehicle was collected on the 30th August 2016. The inspection report was fair, to an extent, I guess. It showed up flaws on 3 of the wheels. The 3 wheels I had refurbished. Refurbished by BMW no less, so I'd hope for no issue there. Then the only other issue was a nick on the NSR door. I have not heard anything back from them thus far though. I signed the inspection sheet, took plenty pictures, and the car left me.

The next communication was an invoice for excess mileage, dated 1st September 2016. It was a 10k per annum agreement over 4 year. I had the car for 34 months, although did pay for 37 months usage. Excess mileage was charged at 11.4p per mile. The following was the invoice:

So they are claiming for £1885.33. Clearly I want to be fighting this. I thought that the ppm figure was wrong, but just today I looked out the original contract, and it does, indeed look correct. Anyway, I have every intention of fighting this all the way. So I responded with this letter, which was a slightly modified version of the template letter on here. It was modified as the initial invoice made no mention of the condition of the vehicle being affected by the mileage, so I took that passage out. This letter was dated 03-09-2016.

I am writing further to your letter dated 01/09/2016.

Please note that liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excess mileage is denied.

You have suggested in your letter that I am liable to pay excess mileage under the terms of the agreement, however this is not correct. Section 100(1) confirms that liability is restricted to one half of the total price payable. The CCA defines ‘total price’ as “total sum payable by the debtor under a hire-purchase agreement or a conditional sale agreement, including any sum payable on the exercise of an option to purchase, but excluding any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or damages for a breach of the agreement” (emphasis added).

As you have already alluded to, the excess mileage is a contractual term of the agreement and therefore cannot be included as an amount which is owed. This position is further clarified under section 173 of the Act in that any contractual term which is inconsistent with any rights under the CCA and imposes additional liability, whether direct or indirect, shall be void and unenforceable.

Nonetheless, the excess mileage clause is based on the principle of ascertaining an estimated value of the car, taking into account its age and anticipated mileage at the end of the hire period. The hirer is then offered the option to purchase the vehicle at the suggested price. Mileage which exceeds the stipulated amount under the terms does not however, mean that the vehicle is not in a reasonable condition.

In any event, such sums you are alleging to be owed may only be recovered by a court order only and should you wish to pursue this matter in court, your application will be strongly defended.

Please confirm by return that this matter is now closed.
Yours faithfully,

This brings us up to today. Where I receive another letter, this time making mention of vehicle condition as pertaining to the mileage on the vehicle.

This letter obviously states that the vehicles additional mileage somehow deems the vehicle out of good condition (citing subsection 100 (4) of the CCA . I disagree of course, as the vehicle was in an extremely good condition upon it's return.

Moreover, having gone through the original Hire Purchase Agreement, there is a section regarding my rights of Termination:

You have the right to end this agreement. To do so, you should write to person you make the payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the goods and to half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is £xx,xxx.xx. If you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue installments and have taken reasonable care of the goods, you will not have to pay any more.

Pic (Page 2 of agreement, column 1, section 10, Termination : Your Rights):

So, here is where I am.

I am thinking to respond with the Excess Mileage letter again, leaving in the reference to section 100 (4) about vehicle condition, and referencing their own contract.

Looking for advice before I send it off though. Thanks.

**R0b** · 11th September 2016, 11:41:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Hello @xs2man

You are along the right lines but something else to point out on the last page above, there are two termination clauses specified: "Termination" and "Termination: Your Rights" with the only main difference being that under the "Termination" clause, it says that the maximum liability includes excess mileage whereas the other does not, but merely says that you only need pay half the amount payable and taken reasonable care of the goods.

There is a number of issues with BMW's position here.

1. The contract is ambiguous in relation to your termination rights. One clause says you only need to pay 50% and take reasonable care of the goods, and the other extends your liability. In law, we call this the contra proferentum rule which in plain english means that where there are two clauses which are ambiguou and/or confusing, the courts will construe the interpretation of those clauses against the party who drafted it. In your case, it would mean that the court will follow the clause which favours you and that will be the one which falls under "Termination: Your Rights".

2. You may wish to read in your own time the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010 (LINK HERE, assuming it was taken out after 2010) which sets out the legal requirements of what is to be included in consumer credit agreements. Under Schedule 1 (para. 30), BMW is required to provide a statement explaining how they can terminate the agreement under section 99 and the maximum liability under section 100. This coincides with Schedule 2 (para. 9) which are statements that must be included in the credit agreement. You will see that the statement in Schedule 2 mirrors the exact statement in your BMW agreement "Termination: Your Rights" which sets out your right to terminate under section 99, and your maximum liability under section 100 (being 50% of the total amount payable, any oustanding instalments and taking reasonable care of the goods). Therefore, the other termination clause which tries to claim you owe excess mileage is invalid.

3. Technically, you could argue that BMW are (a) creating a false misrepresentation as to the law and (b) doing this fraudulently to obtain monies which they are not actually entitled to.

In relation to their claim that the excess mileage puts the vehicle in a less than reasonable condition, they need to provide evidence that this is the case. They cannot just state that they consider it to fall outside the remit of a reasonable condition and expect to rely on it. They would need to provide an independent expert report on it and that there was a direct causal link between the additional mileage and the condition of the car being less than reasonable.

Two problems arise if they insist this claim: If the car was doing more mileage on a motorway than city driving, there is going to be less wear and tear on certain components of the vehicle like the clutch or brakes because you are using them less and not stop/starting all the time. The second thing to mention is that if you regularly service the car in line with the servicing guidelines it would be difficult to argue that the additional mileage has put the car in an unreasonable condition. This is because the car would need servicing and repairs at certain intervals anyway so just because they were done sooner than anticipated does not mean that it is in an unreasonable condition.

Finally, a quote from a Court of Appeal case in relation to reaosnable conditions and cars on HP., Brady v St Margaret's Trust 1963:

"There should be evidence by the hire-purchase company to show the condition of the goods at the time the agreement was made and to show how far the hirer has defaulted under it. As I read this clause, the hirer's duty is to keep the car in the condition in which it might reasonably be expected to be if he had looked after it properly. He need not put it in a better condition than it was when he hired it. He need only keep it in the condition in which a reasonably minded hirer would keep it."

So unless the car was brand new, BMW would need to have evidence of the condition of car when you first took possession and compare that with the condition it is in now. As we all know, finance companies do not carry out initial inspection checks at the time of the agreement so it would be dififcult for them to argue otherwise.

Hope that helps

**xs2man** · 11th September 2016, 13:35:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

[MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

The problem with that last point then might be that the car was bought new. So there would be little to argue about it's condition at the start of the agreement.

The car was serviced in accordance with the service schedule though. It was under a service pack since new, so there was no reason to let this slip at any point. So much so that it was serviced slightly ahead of the schedule. So there should be no issues there. It was an automatic, so there should be no issue with the clutch side of things either. And as for the brakes, well they did show up on the iDrive as needing done in 3200 miles, but in all fairness, they have sat at that mileage for the last 10,000 miles too. I suspect that they have a mileage limit in the computer which, once it gets close to it, it reverts to sensors on the pads. Certainly the pads had plenty life left in them.

And yes, the car was used a lot on motorways and such. We live in the country, so there was little in the way of town driving, so it is conceivable that the condition of this car was better than that of one within the agreed mileage, that had been used solely for town driving.

I'll have a read of the CCA as you mentioned (the agreement was taken out in late 2013, so should be good), before drafting my response. I will post it in here before sending to make sure it is okay though. Probably sometime in the next couple of days. Do I respond simply by going to the ombudsman, as they advise that they are finished with the discussion? Or do I respond to them first?

**R0b** · 11th September 2016, 13:47:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Even if the car was brand new, they would still need to show that the overall condition of the car is in a less than reasonable condition. Finance companies are not likely to commission an indepedent report because that will cost them money to do so and in turn eats into the amount of money they are wanting to claim by way of excess mileage.

You could go to the Ombudsman but there is no harm in responding to their letter and addressing their points, then you can include it in the correspondence for the Ombudsman to look at. The Ombudsman will look at the facts and any relevant law but may also consider what is fair and reasonable. It is not their job to decide the law and may depart from it if they wish to do so, hence your option to accept their decision but if you do accept it, then it becomes legally binding on both parties.

The fact is, there is two termination clauses in the agreement which therefore creates confusion and ambiguity as to what takes precedence. It you do go down the Ombudsman route it is well worth pointing this out and because there is confusion, BMW should not be entitled to rely on the cluse which allows recovery of the excess mileage.

**xs2man** · 13th September 2016, 15:17:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Ok, so I have drafted this letter as a response. Does this look ok? Am I missing anything? Should I make mention of the multiple termination clauses at this stage?

Thank you for your letter dated 08 September 2016 regarding the excess mileage invoice and my concerns about it.

You are, of course, correct that I exercised my right to voluntary terminate the agreement. I would like to direct you to the original Hire Purchase Agreement, where it clearly states (Page 2 of agreement, column 1, section 10, Termination : Your Rights):

“You have the right to end this agreement. To do so, you should write to person you make the payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the goods and to half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is £22,779.25. If you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue instalments and have taken reasonable care of the goods, you will not have to pay any more.”

As such, I think you will find I have already paid the required amount, as per your own HP Agreement, that I did sign.

I note that your letter also refers to s.100 of the Consumer Credit Act insofar as the vehicle is not in a reasonable condition as a result of the excess mileage. Despite this claim, you have not provided any evidence outlining specifically the damage caused to the vehicle due to the excess mileage. I am of the opinion that the vehicle was maintained in a reasonable condition throughout the period of the agreement. Therefore, such damage charges you are claiming would amount to fair wear and tear and the vehicle does not need to be returned to you in any better condition other than a reasonable one.

Nonetheless, the excess mileage clause is based on the principle of ascertaining an estimated value of the car, taking into account its age and anticipated mileage at the end of the hire period. The hirer is then offered the option to purchase the vehicle at the suggested price. Mileage which exceeds the stipulated amount under the terms does not however, mean that the vehicle is not in a reasonable condition.

In any event, such sums you are alleging to be owed may only be recovered by a court order only and should you wish to pursue this matter in court, your application will be strongly defended.

Please confirm by return that this matter is now closed.

Yours faithfully,

**jor76** · 23rd September 2016, 14:09:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Hi there, i am in pretty much the same position as you, i have just started the VT and i guess i will be getting a letter like yours soon, so very interested in any updates you have
Thanks

**xs2man** · 23rd September 2016, 16:01:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Well, I waited a week, just to see if there was any response here to the letter above. There was not, so I sent it the other day. We'll see if anything comes back. If not, I'll give it a fortnight (I go offshore on Monday anyway), then go to the Ombudsman.

**xs2man** · 24th September 2016, 10:50:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Ok. So as I anticipated, this morning I received a letter basically ignoring the points made in my last reply, and confirming their final letter on the matter is dated 08-09-2016, and that I should take my complaint to the Ombudsman.

So I have filled out the form this morning. The box in which to write the complaint is not very large, so I have stated that I have supplied the information on another page.

In the box asking what I would like to happen, I have written:

I would like BMWFS to honour both the terms of their agreement, and that set out in the Consumer Credit Act, and confirm that, having paid 50% of the total amount payable on the agreement, I have fulfulled, in full, my liability on the agreement.

I feel that is about as concise as I can put it.

I shall also include this letter, stating the run-down of events:

On the 18^th August 2016 I started the process for Voluntary Termination of the HP agreement, exercising my right to terminate under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (hereafter referred to as CCA). I was aware I would be liable for the amount calculated under the formula in section 100 of the CCA, which amounted to £xxxx.xx, which was paid, in full, on 30/08/2016, after the collection of the vehicle on that date. At this point, according to both myself and the collection agent, the vehicle was in excellent condition (Photographs from the day of collection enclosed).

I considered this to be the end of the agreement, as according to the CCA section 100, that my liability is restricted to half the total price payable, which is defined, in the CCA as:

"total sum payable by the debtor under a hire-purchase agreement or a conditional sale agreement, including any sum payable on the exercise of an option to purchase, but excluding any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or damages for a breach of the agreement"

My payment of £xxxx.xx brought my total payment up to the value of £xxxx.xx which was 50% of the total amount payable, as defined by the original HP agreement. This can be found on page 2, column 1, section 10, Termination: Your Rights of the original BMWFS agreement, where it clearly states:

"You have the right to end this agreement. To do so, you should write to person you make the payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the goods and to half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is £xx,xxx.xx. If you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue installments and have taken reasonable care of the goods, you will not have to pay any more.”

This is exactly in line with The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010, Schedule 2, Paragraph 9. Which states:

“TERMINATION: YOUR RIGHTS
Until the title to the land has passed to you, you have a right to end this agreement. To do so write to the person you make your payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the land and to [half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is]* [£[—**] If at the time you end this agreement, you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue installments and you have taken reasonable care of the land, you will not have to pay any more.
*Creditor to insert the passage in square brackets where the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Act applies. If the agreement provides for a sum below the minimum prescribed in the Act, the passage in square brackets is to be omitted.
** Creditor to insert the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Act or such lesser sum as the agreement may provide.
“

And so I feel that, as the vehicle was assessed to be in good condition upon collection, by an agent commissioned by BMWFS, and there were no further payments to be made, I considered this to be the conclusion of the agreement, as defined by the CCA 1974.

However, on 01/09/2016 BMWFS sent out a letter with an invoice for £xxxx.xx for excess mileage charges. I queried BMWFS about this, as there is no further liability to myself as defined by the CCA Section 100 (1), whereby my liability is restricted to one half of the total price payable, which had already been paid, defined in the CCA as stated previously.

BMWFS then responded, on 08/09/2016, by claiming that the vehicle condition was in a less than reasonable condition. I would disagree with this statement. The vehicle was regularly serviced in line with the servicing guidelines, and at BMW dealership. And wear & tear items were replaced as and when required (for example, the vehicle was returned with 3 almost new tyres, at a cost of nearly £900). So any such degradation in condition, from the new vehicle state in which I received it, should be considered as fair wear and tear. Certainly their collection agent agreed, in any case, that the vehicle was picked up in a good condition. I asked BMWFS for evidence that the vehicle was in an unacceptable overall condition, for which there was no evidence supplied.

Nonetheless, the excess mileage clause is based on the principle of ascertaining an estimated value of the car, taking into account its age and anticipated mileage at the end of the hire period. The hirer is then offered the option to purchase the vehicle at the suggested price. Mileage which exceeds the stipulated amount under the terms does not however, mean that the vehicle is not in a reasonable condition.

This letter, dated 08/09/2016 was considered, by BMWFS, to be their final response on the matter. And should I have any further issues, to refer to yourselves, the Financial Ombudsman.

Hopefully that will be enough information for them.

Has anyone had any success with the Ombudsman, against BMWFS in this regard? I'd be curious to know.

**BarryPeas** · 25th September 2016, 22:04:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

While I can't offer any experience or advice I just wanted to say thank you for posting this information, as someone else who will shortly be going through a VT with BMW FS this thread has been an absolute wealth of information for me.

Once again, thank you

**R0b** · 26th September 2016, 07:16:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

The Ombudsman seem to be sticking to the fact that because the contract has an excess mileage term in it then they should be entitled to it. They don't seem to think that this affects what the CCa says but this is incorrect, as the CCA specifically carves out any liability for breach of the agreement.

I did read in another thread the Ombudsman (though not a final decision) said that despite the clause above on termination, the finance co. was still entitled to the excess mileage despite the conflict of clauses. This is because the finance co. was not claiming that the car was in an unreasonable condition but if they were, then they thought excess mileage would have come into this category.

The problem from the Ombudsman's views is that both clauses are in direct conflict with one another - one clause says if you terminate early you must pay excess mileage whereas the other clause says that you are entitled to terminated provided you've take care of the goods and paid 50% of the total amount payable and if both is satisfied then you pay no more.

So where there is a conflict of clauses, the consumer should have the benefit of the doubt, not the finance co. and if they want to claim that the car was in an unreasonable condition then an independent report must be provided which supports that position.

**xs2man** · 26th September 2016, 08:50:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Ok, so I have slightly re-drafted the letter as follows (I have added emphasis on the edited portion):

Run down of events regarding Voluntary Termination of HP agreement 6369134.

On the 18^th August 2016 I started the process for Voluntary Termination of the HP agreement, excercising my right to terminate under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (hereafter referred to as CCA). I was aware I would be liable for the amount calculated under the formula in section 100 of the CCA, which amounted to £1985.06, which was paid, in full, on 30/08/2016, after the collection of the vehicle on that date. At this point, according to both myself and the collection agent, the vehicle was in excellent condition (Photographs from the day of collection enclosed).

I considered this to be the end of the agreement, as according to the CCA section 100, that my liability is restricted to half the total price payable, which is defined, in the CCA as:

"total sum payable by the debtor under a hire-purchase agreement or a conditional sale agreement, including any sum payable on the exercise of an option to purchase, but excluding any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or damages for a breach of the agreement"

My payment of £1985.06 brought my total payment up to the value of £22,779.25 which was 50% of the total amount payable, as defined by the original HP agreement. This can be found on page 2, column 1, section 10, Termination: Your Rights of the original BMW Financial Services (hereafter referred to as BMWFS) agreement, where it clearly states:

"You have the right to end this agreement. To do so, you should write to person you make the payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the goods and to half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is £22,795.25. If you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue installments and have taken reasonable care of the goods, you will not have to pay any more.”

This is exactly in line with The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010, Schedule 2, Paragraph 9. Which states:

“TERMINATION: YOUR RIGHTS
Until the title to the land has passed to you, you have a right to end this agreement. To do so write to the person you make your payments to. They will then be entitled to the return of the land and to [half the total amount payable under this agreement, that is]* [£[—**] If at the time you end this agreement, you have already paid at least this amount plus any overdue instalments and you have taken reasonable care of the land, you will not have to pay any more.
*Creditor to insert the passage in square brackets where the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Act applies. If the agreement provides for a sum below the minimum prescribed in the Act, the passage in square brackets is to be omitted.
** Creditor to insert the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Act or such lesser sum as the agreement may provide.
“

There is another clause in the original HP Agreement, which reads as follows:

“Termination

You can terminate this agreement at any time before your final repayment falls due by giving us written notice. You will have to return the Vehicle and pay (i) any arrears and any other sums which have become payable under the agreement before the termination (including any Excess Mileage Charge), plus (ii) the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total amount payable exceeds the aggregate of the balance of the advance payment and repayments you have made, plus (iii) if you do not return the vehicle in good repair and condition, the sum required to compensate us for this. This will be your maximum liability if you comply with these requirements.”

This termination clause is in conflict with the previously mentioned termination clause, as required by the CCA, which gives no liability to the consumer over and above 50% of the total amount payable, assuming that the consumer has taken reasonable care of the goods. So where there is a conflict of clauses, the consumer should have the benefit of the doubt, not the finance company and if they want to claim that the car was in an unreasonable condition then an independent report should be provided which supports that position.

The contract is ambiguous in relation to my termination rights. One clause says I only need to pay 50% and take reasonable care of the goods, and the other extends my liability. In law, this is called the contra proferentum rule which basically means that where there are two clauses which are ambiguous and/or confusing, the courts will construe the interpretation of these clauses against the party who drafted it. In this case, it would mean that the court will follow the clause which favours the consumer and that will be the one which falls under "Termination: Your Rights".

And so I feel that, as the vehicle was assessed to be in good condition upon collection, by an agent comissioned by BMWFS, and there were no further payments to be made, I considered this to be the conclusion of the agreement, as defined by the CCA 1974, and the HP agreement signed by both parties at the start of the agreement.

However, on 01/09/2016 BMWFS sent out a letter with an invoice for £1885.33 for excess mileage charges. I queried BMWFS about this, as there is no further liability to myself as defined by the CCA Section 100 (1), whereby my liability is restricted to one half of the total price payable, which had already been paid, defined in the CCA as stated previously.

BMWFS then responded, on 08/09/2016, by claiming that the vehicle condition was in a less than reasonable condition. I would disagree with this statement. The vehicle was regularly serviced in line with the servicing guidelines, and at BMW dealership. And wear & tear items were replaced as and when required (for example, the vehicle was returned with 3 almost new tyres, at a cost of nearly £900). So any such degredation in condition, from the new vehicle state in which I received it, should be considered as fair wear and tear. Certainly their collection agent agreed, in any case, that the vehicle was picked up in a good condition. I asked BMWFS for evidence that the vehicle was in an unacceptable overall condition, for which there was no evidence supplied.

Nonetheless, the excess mileage clause is based on the principle of ascertaining an estimated value of the car, taking into account its age and anticipated mileage at the end of the hire period. The hirer is then offered the option to purchase the vehicle at the suggested price. Mileage which exceeds the stipulated amount under the terms does not however, mean that the vehicle is not in a reasonable condition.

This letter, dated 08/09/2016 was considered, by BMWFS, to be their final response on the matter. And should I have any further issues, to refer to yourselves, the Financial Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully,

How does that sound? I would prefer it, obviously, if the Ombudsman decides in my favour, however, I feel as the amount is so high, they may not, so would like to make my best presentation to them initially.

**xs2man** · 26th September 2016, 10:15:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Ok. So I just had a call from BMWFS. I have my phone set-up to record every conversation, so it was relatively easy to get a transcript of the entire conversation. So here is how that went (after all the introductions, and security questions):

BMW person : Connor

Connor: The call today is regarding the outstanding balance of £1884.33 for excess mileage. Did you receive the letter we sent you not long ago?

Me: I did.

Connor: You did, brilliant, so what would you like to do in terms of the outstanding balance in which case Mr. Macdonald?

Me: Erm. You can take me to court for it.

Connor: Ok, erm, so obviously you are not looking to making a payment on the account on this day.

Me: No

Connor: Ok, that’s fine. Obviously your just sort of staying with the same point you had when you originally wrote the letter into us?

Me: Yeah, absolutely

Connor: Ok, fair enough, that’s absolutely fine. It’s just part of my job then, just to make you aware, obviously that any payments outstanding longer than the threshold of 28 days may start to have an adverse affect on your, sort of, credit file as, obviously, it’s going down as non-payment the account is actually due to be passed over to recovery at some point. Which then means it can be outsourced for 3^rd party debt collection agency, and they’ll be in contact to deal with that for you aswell. Is that OK?

Me: Well, yeah, sure. But it is only an alleged debt at the moment, you will have to take me to court to establish it is a real debt. It not against the credit agreement, so, it can’t go down as a default, for example, and as such, it needs to go to court, before you can legally get the money off me.

Connor: Ok, well the recovery department will do that for you Mr. Macdonald, so is there anything else I might be able to help you with today at all?

Me: Errr, well, unless you are going to wipe it off, then no.

Connor: Ha ha ha, In an ideal world, yeah, ha ha ha. You have a nice day Mr. Macdonald. Thanks for your time. You’ve been speaking with Connor.

Me: OK. Thank You.

Connor: Thank you, bye bye.

Me: Bye.

END…

At this point, while I am obviously looking for advice on how best to proceed at certain points, I feel it may be useful for others in a similar situation to get an idea of the entire process. So I will try to keep the thread updated as far as possible with communications and such.

**R0b** · 26th September 2016, 10:21:AM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Keep an eye on your credit report in case they mark it as a default for non payment and at that point the ball is in your court as to whether you want to take BMW to court for breach of data protection relating to inaccurate data.

As for your complaint, perhaps you might want to cut it down and make it much more simpler for them to understand e.g. you terminated the agreement in accordance with your rights under the CCA and in reliance on the clause "Termination: Your Rights" which explains you can terminate if you have paid 50% and took reasonable care of the goods. If complied with then you will pay no more. BMW are relying on the opposite clause claiming excess mileage.

There is a conflict of clauses, one says you don't need to pay anymore and another says that you do. There's a clear conflict and since it was BMW who drafted the terms and conditions, you ought to have the benefit of the doubt.

**jor76** · 21st October 2016, 12:33:PM

Re: BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Hi there, has anything happened since your last conversation?
My car has gone back now so waiting for the first email with regards to mileage
Thanks
Jon

BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

BMWFS VT Process (Aug '16)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?