charged for stronghold device

[thecatsloose]

I have a HP agreement with Credit for cars or Avelo. I have been charged 349 for a stronghold device in my contract which I havent been told about and only noticed later.

Now there have been some people that discovered that those are duds.

My question can I claim the money back when I VT? if no, why not as I return the goods.
Is it legal to charge me with them?

In my contract it is only noted that there is a device but nothing further about the return or purchase or anything. I can't quite see that there is wear and tear on such a device so I am really not sure why I had to pay for it.

DO you know what my chances would be if I dispute the charge and request a refund over this amount?

Shoosmith handlers are extremly sly and I dont want to end up with a massive bill just because I wanted to do what it right by me?

349 in my pocket would be very welcome and exeeds a monthly payment as well so will help towards a new car when I VT.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Kati]

Re: charged for stronghold device

tagging [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION] xx

[R0b]

Re: charged for stronghold device

Hello, interesting question. I don't know what these devices do but presumably they are installed and intend to act as a protection device to immobilize the car remotely.

I'd have to see the terms of the contract first of all before I could give any definite answer but I guess the question is whether the device included in the agreement was intended as goods to be sold to you or for the sole benefit of the lender. You would have to look at the substance of the agreement and not what is written on the form to understand it properly.

If the stronghold device was intended to be part of the goods sold under the contract then it will also depend on the type of agreement too i.e. a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement.

If we take a hire purchase agreement for example, then both the car and the stronghold device is on hire for the term of the agreement and only at the time you exercise the option to purchase do you legally own the goods. But if the goods are on hire then surely you should be entitled to use the stronghold device yourself yes? However, I assume the lender has it installed for security measures and to allow them to disable the car for non-payment or other means.

If that is the case then the device isn't really on hire to you, nor do you have the benefit of the device itself. The device is purely there as an aid to to the lender to protect the car from being used in certain circumstances and on that basis, I can't see how they can charge you for something that you have had no benefit from. Perhaps there is an argument that it is an added service charge by the lender of £349 to allow the lender to exercise its right to enforce the terms of the agreement but that would probably be for a court to decide.

If it is referred to as part of the goods on hire with an option to purchase then you could have an argument to a pro-rata of the £349 you have paid so far, but they may also argue that they would provide you with the necessary login information if you exercised that right to purchase the car (though again your argument would be you have had no use of the device despite it being added as part of the goods on hire).

I suspect that if you want a refund of the amount paid for the device, you need to calculate how much you have paid so far under it: 349 / term of the contract x number of months you have paid = amount

I also do not think Shoosmiths nor the new lender will agree to pay that amount and the only way of fighting it will be by issuing a claim. if the value is under £300 then you would get away with the cost of the claim being £50 if it went all the way to a hearing. If you lose, then you will only lose £50. Of course the other side might argue that the claim is vexatious and obtain more costs but you could simply explain that the agreement was not very clear and also required an interpretation by a court to determine what it actually meant, therefore the claim could not be considered vexatious and had a reasonable prospect of success.