BMW Financial Services - Voluntary Termination/Excess Mileage

[Phaeton]

KurtCrisco it might be worth reading http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...larke-pls-help

[vipvipvip]

Okay, I’ve been monitoring this for some time and my health hasn’t been the greatest since this all started, but need to do something soon.

To put things in perspective I’ve been having a late payment marker against me for the last 2.5 years thanks to BMW.

I’ve just checked my credit file with Noddle and the following is showing.

• Prior to returning the car, all was green OK indicators.
• The month I returned the card it shows green and VT
• Next three months after show amber 1, 2 and 3 with VT
• Followed by red 4,5 and 6 VT
• All other months now show as red 6 VT

In order for me to not give too much details away as BMW may be on the forum. I will use x,y and z or similar to indicate sums of money.

So my credit file has an opening balance of X
The excess mileage charge (balance on credit file) is Y

My credit file according to noddle shows settled despite late markers being continually filed against me and the balance of Y still being present.

Stick with me, this might take a little moment to read.

I VT the car and receive confirmation of VT

I receive excess mileage invoice with value of Y (please note payment is due within 7 days from date of invoice. So in my mind this is an invoice for an additional charge and not something that has been added to an agreement that has already been terminated as per the VT.

So this is what I find strange, how can they add the balance of an invoice to an agreement that is terminated? Noted above a green VT status on my credit file prior to the late markers being filed as a result of non-payment of the invoice. Did I terminate the agreement or not? It would appear not in BMW’s eyes.

To add further I received some arrears notice later in the first year after VT

---

“Notice of sums in Arrears in relation to Agreement No: xxxxxxx”

Opening balance (including arrears) under your Contract purchase agreement at 00/00/0000 value Y

The part of the Opening balance above in arrears on 00/00/0000 is value Y
The total amount paid in the Notice Period was 0.00

Closing balance (including any arrears) under your Contract Purchase agreement at 00/00/00 is value Y

The part of Closing balance above in arrears on 00/00/0000 is value Y

The points I’m making are these.

1. The credit file had a green VT status for one month and should have been the final status.
2. The opening and closing balance (the milage Y) is not the opening balance on the credit agreement or the credit file, this is X although the balance now sits as Y.

So is it normal for an invoice giving a different opening balance of Y to be making use of a credit file entry that had the opening balance of X

This is clear abuse and in my opinion not correct use of credit reporting. Seriously, is this a true representation of my ability to pay? It’s not and misleads future lenders.

Not sure what direction to take this in, but I’ve let this one sleep for far too long.

I should also add that BMW did mention in a telephone call that even if I cleared the balance for the mileage they would NOT remove the markers and these would be present until 6 years after the balance has cleared. Now this is where my problem sits, these will be here forever as I have no intention of paying.

Will the introduction of GDPR in May give us more of a chance with the ICO?

Thanks to all who has pushed this far.

[Phaeton]

Put quite simply, why are lenders able report bogus information about my former account with them to credit reference agencies (CRAs) without a court ruling, when I can't report information about them in the same way? The fact is, they're doing it because they can, because no one is stopping them. It's almost as if all our rights as consumers have been completely forgotten/ignored.

I feel from the outside this is the issue, they know (currently) they can get away with it, they have the financial backing to do it, for you or somebody else to take them to court is a big deal, it could cost multiple £1000's they can afford that, can you?

This will continue until somebody or group of somebodies has the Kahuna's or ££££'s to be able to take them on.

[stuckcluckets]

Thanks all for the recent posts. Apologies that I've been a little quiet, I went away for the last week.

https://consumercreditlitigationandd...y-busy-lately/

you may find this of assistance, i did also appear on Moneybox recently where the issue of excess mileage was in dispute, ill dig out the link for you

I listened avidly to the Moneybox segment you appeared on the day it was broadcast. I'm sure I speak for many when I say thank you very much indeed for your insights, though I was somewhat dissappointed that there was no definite outcome either way, despite how blatantly illegal the behaviour of these lenders really is, especially when it comes to their manipulative use of credit reporting facilities to try and bully consumers into paying. I do however appreciate that anyone speaking on a nationally broadcasted radio programme would need to behave as impartially as possible.

My biggest issue is, as I mention above, the way that lenders are abusing their legal ability to report information to credit reference agencies (CRAs) in order to try and bully consumers like myself into paying alleged sums - 'alleged' being the operative word here. It's clear that there is (for some frankly ridiculous unknown reason) a lot of confusion surrounding what's legal and what's not when it comes to excess mileage charges in a voluntary termination scenario, and as such, consumers and lenders are locked in a sort of 'stalemate'. My question is therefore, since there is no concrete conclusion on what's fair vs. what's not, why are the lenders being allowed to control the situation and manipulate it to their advantage? Why are consumers like myself being left at the mercy of the lenders and their power to use their credit reporting abilities by default? Lenders are deliberately avoiding fighting the alleged charges in court, because they know full well that doing so poses a risk to them. How, and why is this fair?

Put quite simply, why are lenders able report bogus information about my former account with them to credit reference agencies (CRAs) without a court ruling, when I can't report information about them in the same way? The fact is, they're doing it because they can, because no one is stopping them. It's almost as if all our rights as consumers have been completely forgotten/ignored.

I intend to take BMW Financial Services to court as soon as I am able to do so, but I'm not entirely sure of the best way to go about doing so. As I've mentioned previously, any advice would be most welcome.

[Phaeton]

Maybe it's worth contacting Moneybox & see if they will assist/sponsor they have a good amount of clout, maybe they can't legally help but I'm sure if there were a place for people to register their interest in joining together they can at least help with that. I have heard Legalbeagles on R4 before but not sure if it was Moneybox or You & Yours

[jezza2016]

Thanks PT2537/PHAETON - I believe it's time for a test case - my 999 credit score has been decimated by BMWFS marker and I am so frustrated by the apparent ease in which BMWFS can side-step the protection supposedly offered by VT and the CCA. Let's get this campaign rolling!

[Phaeton]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09nqnxd

[pt2537]

Hi All - I'm in the same boat having successfully VT'd the BMW and paying 50% in full, but then BMWFS added mileage charges and a single interest charge on those charges. I'm planning on trying small claims route, but there's so many approaches on the forum, I'm unsure as to the best way forward.

However, my question is this - as there are so many of us with exactly the same issue can we not launch a class action against BMWFS to once and for all get a high level ruling on this matter? I would willingly donate funds to a 'crowd-funded' action, as I am sure most of the rest of our affected members would.

I would rather pay into that fund than give BMWFS a single penny of their illegal and malicious claim against me!

https://consumercreditlitigationandd...y-busy-lately/

you may find this of assistance, i did also appear on Moneybox recently where the issue of excess mileage was in dispute, ill dig out the link for you

[jezza2016]

Hi All - I'm in the same boat having successfully VT'd the BMW and paying 50% in full, but then BMWFS added mileage charges and a single interest charge on those charges. I'm planning on trying small claims route, but there's so many approaches on the forum, I'm unsure as to the best way forward.

However, my question is this - as there are so many of us with exactly the same issue can we not launch a class action against BMWFS to once and for all get a high level ruling on this matter? I would willingly donate funds to a 'crowd-funded' action, as I am sure most of the rest of our affected members would.

I would rather pay into that fund than give BMWFS a single penny of their illegal and malicious claim against me!

[stuckcluckets]

Hi all.

I've been chasing my insurer for a verdict on whether or not I would be covered for a claim in relation to the above, and their verdict remains unchanged - they're arguing that because I opened the agreement with BMW Financial Services a few years back (long before I was insured with them), they won't honour my claim.

It's utterly daft, since nearly all insurance packages run for a 12 month term only - have you ever heard of a car finance agreement being less than 24 months? No, me neither.

Any advice on how I can start moving down the court proceedings route without incurring extortionate costs would be much appreciated.

R0B - I'm not sure what advice you can offer here in terms of handling the legal proceedings side of things?

[stuckcluckets]

Hi Kurt,

We've already discussed Principle 4 regarding their obligation to keep data up to date and accurate, but it might be worth pointing out to your insurers that the DPA actually defines data as being 'inaccurate' (section 70(2) if:

"... they are incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact."

You might also want to supply them with a copy of the Experian information guide on credit score and credit report (https://www.experian.co.uk/downloads...erian-YCRE.pdf)

Page 12 gives information on the status codes and the suggests the status code "U" should be used in various examples such as when there is a dispute about payments. At the top of page 13, it also says that an active account "is one that is still open. We keep a record of active accounts until they are settled, and then for six years afterwards".

As a matter of fact, you terminated the agreement yet BMW have kept the agreement active to enable them to continue reporting these missed payments which, as already pointed out, do not relate to any credit repayments but ultimately gives the impression that they are missed credit repayments. As a result of that, Experian would be retaining the information longer than is necessary because until it is recorded as closed, the 6 year period for retention does not kick in.

All in all, it is not only incorrect but misleading and contrary to section 70(2).

Thanks for your advice here Rob. Currently struggling to secure legal cover from my insurer, due to the fact that the original agreement with BMW Financial Services was opened a few years back (i.e. before I actually had the insurance cover in place). Bit daft really as my claim is in relation to their breaching the DPA, but anywho.

Got another response from the ICO today in response to my last couple of emails to them. I contacted them questioning their last response on the basis that they have provided absolutely no explanation of how they came to the conclusion that the alleged outstanding balance is "not a fee/charge" in their view.

I write in response to your recent correspondence.

With regard to your concerns about the interpretation of a fee or charge. Whilst I appreciate that BMW Financial Services (‘BMW’) refer to the requested payment as a charge or fee, we must interpret the intent of the guidelines. When interpreting what is a charge or a fee we will consider the account as a whole.

In this instance there was a clause in your contract with BMW that made it clear that you would be expected to pay for any mileage over the agreed amount.

As you had exceeded the allowed mileage in this clause we do not consider this to be a charge or fee as intended by the SCOR guidelines. We therefore consider it appropriate for BMW to default this account once they consider the relationship to have broken down.

Turning to your concerns about the possible marking of the account in default, the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘the DPA’) does not specify when an account should be marked as in default.

As explained in our previous correspondence, we would expect an organisation to report an account as in default once the relationship has broken down. Whilst this is typically between three to six months of no payments being made, it is dependent on the circumstances of the case and for an organisation to decide.

Were we to consider the account to be solely made up of fees or charges then BMW would not be expected to mark the account as in default. This would not require BMW to cease reporting the information to the credit reference agencies.

Finally, I should clarify that complying with the SCOR guidelines is good practice. Should an organisation not comply with them this would not mean they are non-compliant with the requirements of the DPA.

A case review is the final stage of the ICO complaints procedure. If you believe that you have received a poor service from us, or if you believe we have not treated you properly or fairly, then you may be able to complain to:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP.

As per usual, what a load of contradictory, pointless, unhelpful trash.

Not really sure what my next step is going to be if I can't secure legal cover.

[R0b]

Hi Kurt,

We've already discussed Principle 4 regarding their obligation to keep data up to date and accurate, but it might be worth pointing out to your insurers that the DPA actually defines data as being 'inaccurate' (section 70(2) if:

"... they are incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact."

You might also want to supply them with a copy of the Experian information guide on credit score and credit report (https://www.experian.co.uk/downloads...erian-YCRE.pdf)

Page 12 gives information on the status codes and the suggests the status code "U" should be used in various examples such as when there is a dispute about payments. At the top of page 13, it also says that an active account "is one that is still open. We keep a record of active accounts until they are settled, and then for six years afterwards".

As a matter of fact, you terminated the agreement yet BMW have kept the agreement active to enable them to continue reporting these missed payments which, as already pointed out, do not relate to any credit repayments but ultimately gives the impression that they are missed credit repayments. As a result of that, Experian would be retaining the information longer than is necessary because until it is recorded as closed, the 6 year period for retention does not kick in.

All in all, it is not only incorrect but misleading and contrary to section 70(2).

[stuckcluckets]

All, thanks for your replies/posts.

I will be sure to keep you all updated. I need to collate all the evidence to send to my insurer, and I'm currently recovering after an operation so it may take me a few days to do so.

I definitely agree it would be good for me to collate as many examples as possible of other's credit files that have been damaged by BMW Financial Services. I'll find a secure way of doing this.

[97Joanne]

Just checked my credit with noddle. its not good reading either its shows I VT in May 2017 and then scores 1 - 6 indicating late payments since then !! coloured coded in red whatever that means !! happy to send evidence if someone wants it and shows me how to do it !!

[97Joanne]

Im in a very similar situation and will check my credit report as well. I do have a feeling it will be similar to those on here as they are chasing me for over £3000 !!! its making me ill