Tweet
I have recently voluntary terminated my car HP Agreement with Motonovo Finance given I as was 50% through agreement but am being charged excess mileage charges and damages which total £2,588.
This was terminated due to a change in my financial circumstances.
When I purchased the car I was not made aware of additional terms and conditions that apparently form part of the agreement that mentions the excess mileage and damages beyond reasonable wear and tear.
On querying this, Motonovo sent me a copy of the HP agreement with these additional terms and conditions pages enclosed.
You can clearly see that the dealer has faxed through to Motonovo on the day of purchase only the first two pages containing the repayment terms and the page with my signatiure contained from the fax footer (date, time, car dealer name and fax number) being evident, but this is not evident on these additional terms and conditions pages.
In my opinion proof that these terms and conditions were never provided and subsequently should not form part of the agreement.
Additionally the section which I have signed has a section for a witness to the agreement. This is blank.
I have in the first instance questioned the legality of the agreement and any enforcement of these subsequent terms and conditions.
Motonovo have responded highlighting a clause stating that I have signed on the basis that the information was explained to be verbally which it never was, only the monthly amount payable.
The car has subsequently went back via Manheim Motor to auction.
Prior to return Manheim carried out an inspection and highlighted very minor chips to bodywork and alloys.
The car is 6 years old and it is in imaculate condition - reasonable wear and tear.
It has full service history which also demonstrates it has been maintained.
I reluctantly signed on return of the car but was told I was only signing to the fact that the car had been inspected prior to return but was was not agreeing any financial liability.
I subsequently checked Manheims website and found my car prior to going through auction last week.
The report has car as grade 2 condition which intimates good condition and photos would confirm this.
However Manheim mis-advertised car prior to auction and missed out the last service March 2015 and have subsequently advertised last service as March 2014.
This potentially could reduce price obtained at auction?
In the interim Motonovo have now sent me a letter stating a liability of £2,588 with no breakdown of calculation, even though at the date this letter sent the car had not been sold at auction.
Setting aside the legality of the agreement, surely any final settlement figure cannot be made until sale price of car established, given the need to demonstrate potential mileage/damage has devalued the car?
I have written back to Motonovo highlghting that I disputed legality of agreement and requesting breakdown of there assessment of liability.
I would be grateful of any advice please.
This was terminated due to a change in my financial circumstances.
When I purchased the car I was not made aware of additional terms and conditions that apparently form part of the agreement that mentions the excess mileage and damages beyond reasonable wear and tear.
On querying this, Motonovo sent me a copy of the HP agreement with these additional terms and conditions pages enclosed.
You can clearly see that the dealer has faxed through to Motonovo on the day of purchase only the first two pages containing the repayment terms and the page with my signatiure contained from the fax footer (date, time, car dealer name and fax number) being evident, but this is not evident on these additional terms and conditions pages.
In my opinion proof that these terms and conditions were never provided and subsequently should not form part of the agreement.
Additionally the section which I have signed has a section for a witness to the agreement. This is blank.
I have in the first instance questioned the legality of the agreement and any enforcement of these subsequent terms and conditions.
Motonovo have responded highlighting a clause stating that I have signed on the basis that the information was explained to be verbally which it never was, only the monthly amount payable.
The car has subsequently went back via Manheim Motor to auction.
Prior to return Manheim carried out an inspection and highlighted very minor chips to bodywork and alloys.
The car is 6 years old and it is in imaculate condition - reasonable wear and tear.
It has full service history which also demonstrates it has been maintained.
I reluctantly signed on return of the car but was told I was only signing to the fact that the car had been inspected prior to return but was was not agreeing any financial liability.
I subsequently checked Manheims website and found my car prior to going through auction last week.
The report has car as grade 2 condition which intimates good condition and photos would confirm this.
However Manheim mis-advertised car prior to auction and missed out the last service March 2015 and have subsequently advertised last service as March 2014.
This potentially could reduce price obtained at auction?
In the interim Motonovo have now sent me a letter stating a liability of £2,588 with no breakdown of calculation, even though at the date this letter sent the car had not been sold at auction.
Setting aside the legality of the agreement, surely any final settlement figure cannot be made until sale price of car established, given the need to demonstrate potential mileage/damage has devalued the car?
I have written back to Motonovo highlghting that I disputed legality of agreement and requesting breakdown of there assessment of liability.
I would be grateful of any advice please.
