Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

[zuluroyal]

Hi all.

I've read lots of threads on VT fallouts but haven't been able to find an answer to my specific question. So here goes...thanks in advance for nay help that may be offered.

I bought a 5-year-old car on finance in 2014 over 5 years, and sent off the VT letter in March of this year. I had paid well over 50%, about 6 or 7 months over the 50% mark.

They sent Manheim out and their inspection found an incredible £1800-odd worth of damage/scratches etc etc. I refused to sign and they took the car away.

Now, I'm very, very anal about my possessions and the car was in very good nick, inside and out. Of course there were some scratches, the car is 8 years old now! But I argued that they had no way of knowing how much of that 'damage' was there when I bought the car..and that it was 5-years-old when I bought it.

I've been arguing with them for months, the Financial Services Ombudsman said GMAC had done nothing illegal and that they couldn't uphold my complaint.

GMAC said they'd half the £1800 to £900 if I paid within 30 days, but in that time I was talking with the Ombudsman. After the Ombudsman said they couldn't help me, GMAC said they would still honour the £900 offer. I ignored them for a few months and today they called me to ask when I would pay the £1800 (not £900). They've now given me 7 days to settle, and if I do so they'll accept £900.

They told me they sold the car for £2050 at auction and that it was graded a '4'.

I guess the crux of my question is this....what will happen to me if I refuse to pay and just ignore them from now on? I have a perfect credit rating and would hate to lose that over this, but am I at risk of court action or a poor credit rating if I tell them to get lost? Happy to provide more details, just didn't want to bombard you all!

[zuluroyal]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hi again.

Sorry to be a pain, but does anyone have a minute to offer some guidance on this? My 7 days are nearly up.

I'm of a mind to ignore them from now on, or to formally complain at GMAC's suggestion on the phone last week that I "borrow the money from a friend or family member."

As ever, any help at all would be most gratefully received.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hello

GMAC are well known for trying to claim a number of substantial charges but you also have to be realistic with the charges they may be seeking from you. That means you need to take the age of the car into account when looking at its condition. For example, you wouldn't expect to see badly curbed alloys or large dents/scratches in a relatively nearly new car compared to one that might be 8 or 9 years old.

Manheim carry out the inspection according to the BVRLA guidelines which are not really appropriate for consumers who VT because the allowance under the BVRLA guidelines are strict and don't factor in the age of the car, so you could have a brand new car and a 10 year old car yet the same allowance for scratches, dents etc. will be the same.

Manheim also use a grading system for cars that go under auction to give buyers a more transparent overview of the cars condition (usually interior and exterior but not mechanically). The grading system was set up by the National Association for Motor Auctions (NAMA) and you can find more info here on the link below.

http://www.nama-uk.com/grading/what-is-auction-grading/

Ultimately the question a to whether you pay will be a subjective one. You were in possession of it and you can determine whether or not the charges they have applied are realistic and reasonable. GMAC tend to pass their work to Shoosmiths who are a firm of solicitors to try and recover the money, though I've never actually seen them issue a claim against someone rather it seems to be a scare tactic. However that does not mean that GMAC won't issue a claim if the sum is high enough to warrant them issuing a claim.

I also not aware that they issue defaults for not paying but you would be wise to check this on your credit report, if they do issue one because you refuse to pay their charges then your only realistic option of having it removed would be going to court. The fact that they have offered to reduce the charges from £1,800 to £900 is pretty drastic and i'd be questioning with such a massive reduction in price whether or not any of the alleged damages is more than reaosnable wear and tear - only you can determine that. Bear in mind, the law says you only need to take 'reasonable care' of the goods, that doesn't mean excellent or good or above average.

I would also suggest you have a read at the following link if you haven't already, it will answer most of your questions.

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...on-Your-rights

P.s. GMAC should not be suggesting you borrow money from your family or friends to pay for the balance, I believe that is not allowed under the FCA rules they need to adhere to (or possibly some decision by Ombudsman).

[zuluroyal]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Thanks very much for the reply Rob.

I promise to keep you all updated as this rumbles on, to hopefully help anyone else in this position.

[zuluroyal]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hi rob

Just an update, Shoosmiths are now involved and have been calling and texting me all this week.

I have seen advice on how to handle them on another thread on this site, so I will go home tonight and pen a letter to send to them, based on the advice given in that other thread (this one, if you're interested http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...MAC-Shoosmiths )

It's clear to me that this is nothing but an attempt to scare me out of money that I don't owe.

Thanks again

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Yes, GMAC seem to pass the matter on straight to Shoosmiths as a tactic to pay up. If Shoosmiths are sending multiple texts and calls within a week I would be inclined to tell them that you consider it harassment and aggressive commercial practice contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. I would also suggest that their aggressive nature is also contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct and if the continue in such a manner then you will also report them to the SRA and/or consider issuing proceedings against GMAC for harassment and joining Shoosmiths as a Defendant.

You should adapt any example letters to suit your position and make sure you lay it on thick, but not aggressively rather more assertive. Your likely to get a standard response from Shoosmiths but they might stop texting / calling you. I would also suggest that you explicitly tell them that all correspondence must be made in writing and you do not consent to them calling or texting you.

Happy to look over anything if you post up

[zuluroyal]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hi Rob.

FYI, I have sent them this letter, via email, today. Will let you know the outcome.

----------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir or Madam

I am writing in response to your letter dated 1 September 2017 in regards to the above GMAC agreement number and the alleged outstanding balance of £1891.35.

The amount your client is claiming is grossly unfair on a number of levels, not least because the car was five years old when I purchased it and also because no inspection was carried out on the car when GMAC agreed to finance its purchase. Therefore, the inspection carried out by Manheim earlier this year has nothing with which to compare the condition of the vehicle when I opted to voluntarily terminate the agreement. I should also add that I paid at least six further monthly payments on the car after I had reached the 50% point at which I could have carried out a VT, and I feel that substantial sum should have been taken into account.

In their inspection report, Manheim highlighted a string of alleged faults, but have not accounted for the fact and much of the alleged 'damage' was there when I bought the car. Surely the burden is on GMAC to prove that I caused the alleged damage? How can they know whether it was there when I bought the car or not? If the car had been brand new when I bought it, that would be a different matter. But it was five years old.

I provided photographic proof of very clear damage to the alloys existing on the day that I collected the car. And while the general view image of the car only shows one wheel clearly, I would have hoped it would give GMAC an indication of the general condition of the car when I bought it.

I would also like to point out that GMAC have repeatedly offered to almost half the amount that is allegedly outstanding if I pay within a certain period. I note you, Shoosmiths, now seem to be adopting a similar tactic. That seems to me to be a clear indication that this pursuit of me is nothing more than an unfair attempt to get as much money out of me as possible in response to me exercising my legal right to VT the agreement.

The car was sold at auction very soon after the Manheim inspection and GMAC have offered me no proof that they carried out any of the repairs they say were needed. Therefore, they did not take reasonable steps to get the best price for the car (which I'm told was sold for just over £2000).

Another point to note is that GMAC have referenced the BVRLA’s Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines. The BVRLA guidelines are used for the commercial leasing and renting of commercial vehicles. The vehicle under the agreement is not a commercial vehicle nor is it used for any commercial purpose. Your client is not a member of the BVRLA and your client cannot rely on the fact that Manheim is a BVRLA member as the agreement is between myself and your Client. Manheim has absolutely no interest or rights under the Agreement.

It is my firm belief that your client has failed to mitigate their loss and is not entitled to the sums allegedly owed. My agreement with GMAC states that the vehicle need only be returned in a reasonable condition and I am still yet to see any evidence that the vehicle was not returned in a reasonable condition. The car was very well looked after by me throughout the three years it was in my ownership.

Your client has shown no evidence in which it has taken reasonable steps to avoid any further losses. The agreement was lawfully terminated by myself under the Consumer Credit Act and your client ought to have obtained the best price for the vehicle at the time. There were other avenues in which your client could have sold the car such as through a dealership or privately yet it chose to auction the car which is known to attract lower prices than what could have been achieved. Due to your client's failure to mitigate their loss they are not entitled to the sums allegedly owed. Furthermore, the fact that your client did not have the repairs carried prior to the auctioning of the car, they have effectively waived their right to any damages.

I would also like to put on record my disappointment that on 3 August 2017, at 13.08pm, I received a call from GMAC in which they attempted to resolve this issue. Towards the end of the call, the GMAC representative suggested that I "borrow the money from a friend or family member." Surely this falls foul of the FCA rules?

And finally, this week I have texts and calls from Shoosmiths. I want to make clear that I only want to be contacted in writing, preferably via email at XXXXXXXXX for all future correspondence.

In the above circumstances, please confirm that the account is closed and no further action will be taken.

[zuluroyal]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

An update: Shoosmiths have emailed me back, saying they have passed my comments back to GMAC.

Not sure that means but will wait and see. I doubt GMAC will change their tact.

Will provide updates as and when

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Thanks for the update, unlikely that GMAC will change their stance but who knows. Usually it is all smoke and mirrors with them so I'd be surprised if they took matters further.

Just make sure to retain all correspondence and notes etc. for the next 6 years as that is the amount of time they have to bring any claim against you. I've not seen it yet but they could sell the alleged debt on to a debt purchaser who is more likely to bring a claim against you, though they will have the same problems which is the evidence.

[AdamV123]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hi,

what at was the outcome of this? Are you any further forward. I am going through a similar thing with GMAC.

thanks

[mally h]

Re: Voluntary Termination GMAC and Manheim drama...please help

Hi,

what at was the outcome of this? Are you any further forward. I am going through a similar thing with GMAC.

thanks

Just to make you aware I am in the same situation as all of you Manheim came and inspected my 14 plated car they found dirt in the paint work which was not spotted in the factory and some other bits and the total was £660. I got an abrupt telephone call from GMAC saying that I had to pay there and then if not they where sending the matter to Shoosmiths they have been contacting me for 6 months after me telling them that I was going to contact the ombudsman.
I have realised that they are a waste of space, I asked shoosmiths to send me Manheims inspection standard operating procedures as they are meant to inspect any car to the british manufacturing standard which is from a distance of 2 metres awat and at 90 degrees to the car +/_ 45 degrees. The only reason why I know this, I worked in a car plant for 15 years as an QA inspector. I disagreed with the way the inspection was carried out and the inspector findings. No investigation was carried out as GMAC hold all of the strings and don't like to be challenged in any way.

They use bullying tactics to try and get the money from you as you know shoosmiths are a debt collecting business and personally GMAC sell these problems on to these types of businesses.

I also contacted Manheim themselves to investigate my findings and when they found out that it was a GMAC inspection they closed all forms of communication with me. Even though the MD of the UK knew I was hitting a raw nerve with him knowing that I was right how the inspection should be carried out.

When the car gets taken to the auction house it is re-inspected using the NAMA standards, but when they come to your house they say that they use the BVRLA standards. Manheim are a training provider of the BVRLA inspection course which is based in BIrmingham and the NAMA course is done by a college in the midlands.

SO this only my opinion any of these inspections carried out are not worth the paper that they are written on and it's a massive scam for people who are giving the car back whether its on finance or on PCP.

I am awaiting a reply from shoosmiths