Tweet
Hi,Â*
This is quite an extensive story but I’ll try to give you an outline. The finance supplier kept the vehicle in their custody after the car was wrongfully impounded. They terminated the agreement, with no court order. My partner has paid over 1/3.
The situation is that the VC5 was in his little brothers name. Therefore after reviewing documentation to release from safe custody they came upon this and then added a charge for fronting.
This was the mistake of the dealership as they registered the car in the little brothers name, as he initially wanted the car but failed the credit check. Regardless, the dealership took responsibility for this. Therefore any evidence for fronting was taken away.
Our take away is this: given that they added the fronting charge only after the “allowing the police to take your vehicle charge” shouldn’t it have been dealt with as two separate matters?
As soon as we proved that the vehicle was being driven with insurance, should they not have returned the car till the proved the fronting charge. This is because the contract isn’t clear on whether they’re allowed to keep it, given it was taken into safe custody, but it is clear that it should be in my partners possession regardless.
Also, as soon as it was proven that the car was impounded for the wrong reasons, it’s my beliefs they should have released the car to him till they proved or got a court order for the fronting charge. Because the whole reason they were allowed to have the car in their custody was now not a reason. Does this mean they kept it illegally?
The contract states that they can’t remove it from my partners custody even if he broke the terms of the agreement without a court order. Which he didn’t, the only proof they had for the fronting charge was the VC5 and that his brother was driving at the time of the police stop however the VC5 was the dealerships mistake so how is it fair that they terminated the agreement based on a hunch? Is that even enough legal proof?
Furthermore they terminated the agreement, without a court order. Is it illegal for them to terminate a contract without a court order? Please help as we are so very desperate.
We’ve been fighting this for 6 months, and mistreated by Santander every step of the way, even the police involved are dumbfounded by how we’ve been treated. We’ve progressed it to ever level, even the ombudsman but it’s as if she doesn’t even read what we’ve written and hangs onto the fact she can’t blame Santander for the mistake of the third party (reg of VC5) but she holds my partner responsible clearly? I’ve read they’re bias but I guess now we’ve experienced it firsthand. She got them to agree to return the car, but we don’t want this! We want nothing more to do with them, the fact they’ve exploited us until a third party got involved and even then.
We want our money back under the 1/3 rule. they also emptied the car as soon as they got it, and lost his things and will NOT take accountability, and the ombudsman won’t even hold them responsible? How is this legal for them to treat us this way. please reply ASAP.
This is quite an extensive story but I’ll try to give you an outline. The finance supplier kept the vehicle in their custody after the car was wrongfully impounded. They terminated the agreement, with no court order. My partner has paid over 1/3.
The situation is that the VC5 was in his little brothers name. Therefore after reviewing documentation to release from safe custody they came upon this and then added a charge for fronting.
This was the mistake of the dealership as they registered the car in the little brothers name, as he initially wanted the car but failed the credit check. Regardless, the dealership took responsibility for this. Therefore any evidence for fronting was taken away.
Our take away is this: given that they added the fronting charge only after the “allowing the police to take your vehicle charge” shouldn’t it have been dealt with as two separate matters?
As soon as we proved that the vehicle was being driven with insurance, should they not have returned the car till the proved the fronting charge. This is because the contract isn’t clear on whether they’re allowed to keep it, given it was taken into safe custody, but it is clear that it should be in my partners possession regardless.
Also, as soon as it was proven that the car was impounded for the wrong reasons, it’s my beliefs they should have released the car to him till they proved or got a court order for the fronting charge. Because the whole reason they were allowed to have the car in their custody was now not a reason. Does this mean they kept it illegally?
The contract states that they can’t remove it from my partners custody even if he broke the terms of the agreement without a court order. Which he didn’t, the only proof they had for the fronting charge was the VC5 and that his brother was driving at the time of the police stop however the VC5 was the dealerships mistake so how is it fair that they terminated the agreement based on a hunch? Is that even enough legal proof?
Furthermore they terminated the agreement, without a court order. Is it illegal for them to terminate a contract without a court order? Please help as we are so very desperate.
We’ve been fighting this for 6 months, and mistreated by Santander every step of the way, even the police involved are dumbfounded by how we’ve been treated. We’ve progressed it to ever level, even the ombudsman but it’s as if she doesn’t even read what we’ve written and hangs onto the fact she can’t blame Santander for the mistake of the third party (reg of VC5) but she holds my partner responsible clearly? I’ve read they’re bias but I guess now we’ve experienced it firsthand. She got them to agree to return the car, but we don’t want this! We want nothing more to do with them, the fact they’ve exploited us until a third party got involved and even then.
We want our money back under the 1/3 rule. they also emptied the car as soon as they got it, and lost his things and will NOT take accountability, and the ombudsman won’t even hold them responsible? How is this legal for them to treat us this way. please reply ASAP.
Comment