Is this correct please

AMBERSHADOW

My daughter purchased a car 2004 she paid half of the car and then handed it back as she could no longer afford to pay for it.
In the terms and conditions you can hand the vehicle back if you have paid half with no come backs.

She purchased with Bank of Scotland finance.. They took the car now she has a another company Apex credit chasing her for the outstanding amount on the car saying they took car to auction and she is liable for the shortfall..

She has asked for the cca request which they sent for the original doc but its not valid as they have had the car The bank that is not this other company..

Now I would have thought she would need a new aggreement if they are to be chasing her for this shortfall when in the original comtract you can legally hand back with no fees inccured.

She is being hassled left right and center from this company and needs to know what she can do..

If anyone can put me right please

Thank you in advance

standupguy

AMBERSHADOW wrote: »

My daughter purchased a car 2004 she paid half of the car and then handed it back as she could no longer afford to pay for it.
In the terms and conditions you can hand the vehicle back if you have paid half with no come backs.

She purchased with Bank of Scotland finance.. They took the car now she has a another company Apex credit chasing her for the outstanding amount on the car saying they took car to auction and she is liable for the shortfall..

She has asked for the cca request which they sent for the original doc but its not valid as they have had the car The bank that is not this other company..

Now I would have thought she would need a new aggreement if they are to be chasing her for this shortfall when in the original comtract you can legally hand back with no fees inccured.

She is being hassled left right and center from this company and needs to know what she can do..

If anyone can put me right please

Thank you in advance

I am assuming this is a hp contract as there will be differences if it was a loan document.

Under HP you can hand the car back once you have paid half the hp price shown on your document providing there are no arrears and the car is in a reasonable condition.

However, it looks like the Finance company has taken the car back as a repossession rather than a vt and if that is the case she will owe the balance after the sale proceeds are credited to the account.

Are you sure she let it go back under a vt and did you keep a copy of the letter advising them that this was a vt (voluntary termination)?

If your original document was not HP but a loan then they will have taken back the car as a voluntary surrender (which is different) and she will have to pay any outstanding liabilities after sale of car.

AMBERSHADOW

standupguy wrote: »

I am assuming this is a hp contract as there will be differences if it was a loan document.

Under HP you can hand the car back once you have paid half the hp price shown on your document providing there are no arrears and the car is in a reasonable condition.

However, it looks like the Finance company has taken the car back as a repossession rather than a vt and if that is the case she will owe the balance after the sale proceeds are credited to the account.

Are you sure she let it go back under a vt and did you keep a copy of the letter advising them that this was a vt (voluntary termination)?

If your original document was not HP but a loan then they will have taken back the car as a voluntary surrender (which is different) and she will have to pay any outstanding liabilities after sale of car.

This was not a repossession it was a vt termination

standupguy

AMBERSHADOW wrote: »

This was not a repossession it was a vt termination

If it was a vt and she was not in arrears at the time and terminated correctly with a vt letter then they cannot chase for a shortfall after auction.

They can chase for any arrears at termination, any shortfall if one half hp price was not paid and any costs for any damage to the car.

AMBERSHADOW

standupguy wrote: »

If it was a vt and she was not in arrears at the time and terminated correctly with a vt letter then they cannot chase for a shortfall after auction.

They can chase for any arrears at termination, any shortfall if one half hp price was not paid and any costs for any damage to the car.

Thank you very much:j

DarkConvict

I would write to them and state it was terminated under VT, and that if they believe this was not the case and that she is liable for the an outstanding amount then provide proof.
As above if it was HP it may be possible to do a VT, if it was just a secured loan then there would not be a VT clause.
Use the tag line - "I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any other company or organisation that you claim to be representing.

Dear Sir/Madam" - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=11571227&postcount=3