Hire agreement mis-sold under CCA with 45% Interest

middleman31

I have been mis-sold a Commercial Lease Finance deal at 45% interest under the Consumer Credit Act.

I have no breakdown of how the final figure was calculated.

They have not deducted the initial deposit from the overall figure which was financed.

They have told me it is non-cancelable.

They have told me that I am responsbile for the maintanance and insurance yet in a normal Hire agreement, it would be they, who was responsible.

Lots more than this, but these are the basics.

It seems that the finance company has created their own Heinz 57 of lease, consumer credit, Hire, HP and Lease purchase contract which is just plainly un-enforceable.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how to progress from here? As stated there is too much to write down in the initial post but would be happy to discuss further.

Rgds

somethingcorporate

Are you a business? are you sure the CONSUMER credit act applies if that is the case?

Go see a solicitor with your contract.

antrobus

Well yes, by definition one would expect that the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act would not apply to Commercial Lease Finance.

I don't know, I think you'll have to be far more specific about the terms of the agreement that you did sign, and what it was that you thought you were signing, in order for anyone to reach any kind of conclusion.

CH27

Did you read the paerwork before signing?

guesswho2000

Also, maintenance and insurance would not normally be included in such an agreement, maintenance possibly with additional cost but insurance is highly unusual unless the contract is an employee benefit...which this doesn't suggest it is, certainly not at 45% interest...

chanz4

they must of found you to be high risk @ 45%, as others have said unless an addon was taken servicing etc would not be included.

dealer_wins

M19rtg wrote: »

We recently had a similar issue at work where we were mis-sold 2 photocopiers. After looking around we came across a company who specialize in helping companies in this situation. They reviewed our lease agreement for free and found we had a valid case. It took nearly 2 months to complete the process but we received compensation and kept the equipment. I would recommend any company in this situation to visit commercialleaseadvisor.com and get them to audit your lease to acertain if you have a claim for a mis-sold lease.

I smell some SPAM under the grill. MMMM

heathcote123

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Are you a business?.

Not for long...

RichGold

Is it mis-sold Monday already?

middleman31

Please excuse my late response, things have gotten a little crazy.

Yes, I am a business. Sole Trader, so Consumer or business; debateable.

I told my broker that I wanted a hire purchase agreement and I wanted to own the equipment, not rent it.

At inception of this contract, my credit rating was 999 out of 1000.

I have done some investigation recently and it seems that the contract is a hotch potch of the best bits which benefit the finance company from the Consumer Credit and Lease Hire side thus giving me all the rubbish left over.

To elaborate.

1. Sold under the CCA label at the top of the contract, therefore misleading and mis-selling.
2. Amount was in excess of £15,000 under the heading of the CCA on the contract.
3. No APR stated under the CCA rules and regulations.
4, When the finance company were asked why no APR was stated on the contract, they advised me that it was based on affordability and interest was not calculated on a rate!! Recorded!
5. If the above rule is followed then, should the richest pay the most and the poorest pay the least?
6. No means test was undertaken in order that my "affordability" could be "calculated".
7. The finance company charged me insurance as a bolt on advising me that I might not be covered under the business insurance and that would be a breach of my contract.
8. Surely, when I hire a car, the hire car company pay the insurance or build it into my payments, as they own the vehicle and I am hiring it, so, why am I charged insurance for a vehicle I am paying for under a
Hire Agreement?
9. If this is a hire agreement, why do I have the option to buy for a small fee at the end, is this not Hire Purchase?
10 Is the terminology different for consumer as opposed to business?
11. My original deposit £10K, went to the equipment manfacturer and the finance company still factored this into the overall finance, therefore all the figures are incorrect.
12. The contract states that this is a non-cancellable agreement? Under the CCA? I think not!
13. If I hired a car and it broke down at the side of the road, I could walk away as the hire car company would pay, why do I have to pay for maintanace for something I do not own under this hire agreement?

From what I can understand, the overiding objective, which the finance company aim to achieve is to claim back the Tax Relief on their VAT payments.

I, of course, can also do the same.

So, if I claimed back my VAT and the agreement was not a Hire with the option to purchase at the end of the term, the finnace compnay could not claim back their TAX Relief, so they need to dress the finance deal in new clothes, hence the option to buy, that way the title does not pass back to me direclty and they can cliam their Tax Relief as it passes back to the original owner; the manufacturer (who received the payment from the finnace comnpany originally).

Ordinary consumers do not cliam their tax back and so the finance is classed as a straight CCA contract and the finance company claims their tax back without a problem.

It is all about Tax Relief and Title ownership.

There are so many core issues with this one sided contract.

So far as I can tell, the finance company has:

1. defrauded me of my £10K
2. bolted on interest for the extra £10K
3. cost by business as a direct result
4. mis-sold me a mis-represented contract which is not binding under neither CCA nor the Lease Finance laws, i.e. the contract fits into neither category, it falls between the cracks
5. charged me for insurace where not needed/required
6. forced me to pay for repair when under a hire agreement which this purports itself to be, but surely it is not mine to repair but the finance companies
7. sold me a contract under the CCA which does not meet CCA rules and regulations, if I knew I was not bound by the CCA I would certainly have queried it further.

Bottom line is, this is a tax dodge or rather gain, on behalf of the finance company which is crippling small businesses.

This contract is neither CCA nor Business Hire Agreement but a mixture of the two. How is this legal? If so, then surely by being neither one thing nor the other I can argue it is the opposite of what the finance company say it is and still be equally correct!

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

LovelyLeeds

dealer_wins wrote: »

I smell some SPAM under the grill. MMMM

...and you've re-posted it well done!