Mis-sold Loan - Was told it was Hire Purchase

damasta

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So now you've gone from "assuming it was HP" to "Like I said, the T&Cs looked like they were for HP. One could argue that it was worded cleverly to conceal the fact that it was not," to "I checked the T&Cs, they seemed to make sense."

As for your claim that "the average person on the street is not expected to understand every single word of every set of T&Cs they sign," I'm afraid like the law, ignorance is no excuse.

No. I did check the T&Cs. I did not check word for word with a fine tooth comb but checked the main facts and from what I saw they seemed to indicate HP which since it is what I asked for and what I was told I had no reason to doubt it.

As for the T&Cs, is your argument then that claiming back PPI should not happen because the T&Cs say that it is optional?

DevCoder

damasta wrote: »

No. I did check the T&Cs. I did not check word for word with a fine tooth comb but checked the main facts and from what I saw they seemed to indicate HP which since it is what I asked for and what I was told I had no reason to doubt it.

As for the T&Cs, is your argument then that claiming back PPI should not happen because the T&Cs say that it is optional?

Absolutely, you can only put in a complaint against PPI if you were advised wrongly, the t&c's won't state for the majority that it was optional as you either know this yourself or are advised when your purchase PPI. If you don't know and weren't advised then you haven't done enough research and your complaint won't be upheld anyhow.

I think the word "Loan" in big letters at the top of the agreement is a bit of a give-away tbh.

My advice would be that unfortunately you appear to be locked into the loan repayments, however as there is no HP or other lien being held against the car then you are free to sell that now, you don't have to wait for the loan to mature.

opinions4u

So you got a 0% loan giving and think it was mis-sold?

There is no chance for this nation. None at all.

Antimoron

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

Car dealers rank only marginally above estate agents - one should assume that everything they say is either a lie or a gross distortion of the truth unless there is firm evidence to the contrary.

Brock_and_Roll
[dad 30 years a car dealer]

I would argue below. Most of them (being careful not to generalise) are scheming profound liars only thinking of a commission.

Fortunately for them, there many car hungry customers like the OP who are giddy by the thought of a shiny new car that they forget how to read or count.

This OP amazes me. He got caught out trying to pull a fast one by hoping to VT and thinks he's a victim of misselling.

Sell the car, pay off loan.

JuicyJesus

If your complaint, if there is one, is successful they will have to put you in the position you were in had you not taken out the loan and instead taken out a hire purchase instead. However since the loan is at 0% you have actually benefitted significantly - the value of the debt has gone down catastrophically due to inflation, as compared to any other interest charging debt where the interest charged outpaces inflation significantly. Additionally you have a more flexible agreement where you directly own an asset that you can do with as you wish. So you have a debt that magically reduces its own value to pay for an item you directly own, and your complaint is that you wanted a more expensive debt to pay for an item that belongs to someone else.

Couple that with the fact the agreement clearly says "fixed sum loan" and your complaint is a complete non starter.

molerat

Clearly stated at the top of the form either of the below

Fixed Sum Loan Agreement Regulated By The Consumer Credit Act 1974
or
Hire Purchase Agreement Regulated By The Consumer Credit Act 1974

All trade loan agreements mention what the loan is for. If VT was so important why did you not check out the VT breakpoint on the form, if you had then you would have found it was not there and could have queried it at the time.