Urgent help needed with ARNOLD CLARK - horrendous company!

albionrovers

If these companies dealt in honesty, they wouldn't last weeks. Does beg the question though - why a knighthood?

Surely can't be simply because he is a medium-sized employer?

Hintza

brendenconnolly wrote: »

My Mother then arranged with her current finance company to do an early termination agreement on her current car, and return it to them under the terms of that on 20th November.

Early termination might not affect your credit score, but you van be sure they will not be too keen to offer you finance in the future.

brendenconnolly

I think I have explained the situation badly in this post. For those with the endurance, below is a copy of my letter to Arnold Clark, and I think it explains much better why we are upset.

I have tried to resolve the following matter at a local level via the salesman and sales manager at Bishopbriggs, and since I have been ignored, after the sales manager promised to arrange a rental car, I am left with no option but to issue this e-mail as a formal complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, since it is our assertion that your salesman, ***** **** breached section 55a of the Consumer Credit Act, contrary to the provisions of your licence to act as an intermediary of credit facilities.

I will now outline the circumstances of my complaint, which I have been advised by the FOS is perfectly valid, and which they will be happy to become involved with should an amicable solution not be reached with you directly, and resultant of this complaint.

On or around the 17th July 2013, my Mother, Ms.***** ****, and her partner, Mr. ****** *******, approached your Bishopbriggs branch with an interest in purchasing a Dacia Sandero. They were met on arrival by a sales representative by the name of ***** ****.Following discussions about the car, and the finance option with Santander, she agreed to proceed with a purchase of a Dacia Sandero Stepway. She was informed there was a delivery period of 3 - 4 months.

It is clear from conversations with Santander that they have a policy where credit has to be reproposed if 3 or more months have passed without delivery being taken. It is also clear from conversations with Santander and the FOS, and following guidance from The Office of Fair trading,and the Citizens Advice Bureau, that your sales staff are supposed to inform customers of this critical aspect of the deal. ***** ****, on behalf of Arnold Clark, failed to do this. As a result of this failure in his duty, Ms.******* has suffered excessive and undue stress, and has been left out of pocket, and I will explain why.

On 13th November Mr. **** called to say the vehicle would be ready to be collected on 20th November. At this point, he confirmed everything was OK, it was just a simple matter of picking the car up. This information was entirely incorrect. More than 3 months had already passed since the vehicle was ordered, Mr. **** was clearly well aware the finance would need to be re applied for. However, on the basis of what he told Ms *******, she arranged an Early Termination Agreement with her current financiers, RCI and to return her car to them on 20th November. The same day she was to collect her new car.

The day before collection, on 19th November, Mr. **** called to tell Ms. ******* of this 3 month rule with Santander. This was the first we had heard of it. Anyway, to keep to the salient points, he claimed to have "Just realised" it needed re submitted. "Just realising" is not good enough. He deals with finance every day. He must, or should, know his products. In exasperation, since we thought it was already a done deal, we agreed to allow this re application to keep things simple. Santander then declined the application. Her old car was being collected, and the agreement to terminate couldn't be reversed.

Arnold Clark left her without a car because they couldn't be bothered doing their job properly. Whilst being negligent they have, we believe, breached the terms of Arnold Clark's Consumer Credit Licence by failing to supply an adequate explanation of the finance product they were selling, and that this is contrary to section 55a of the Consumer Credit Act.

Further, as though this disgraceful behaviour wasn't bad enough, Mr. **** then, of his own volition, with no reference to Ms. *******, no discussion of alternatives, and certainly with no permission, written, implied or otherwise, decided to present an application for finance on her behalf to every lender Arnold Clark use, in a desperate attempt not to lose his sale, and not to keep his customer informed of what he was doing. In spite of the fact that his failure to disclose key features of a financial product you are licensed to sell was at the heart of this matter, and the cause of all the problems, he was doing it again by desperately trying to get anyone to accept this application. Ms.******* has been left in a weaker position than when she started this transaction, because the unauthorised credit searches have taken an adverse effect on her score.

If she had the correct information, she would never have terminated the finance on her old car, until she knew everything was accepted and definite with Santander.

Santander are not at fault. They are free to decide who to lend to, and to vary their criteria.

Arnold Clark failed to describe the Santander product appropriately, resulting directly in considerable loss and suffering. This suffering has extended beyond Ms. ******, and affected her elderly Mother In Law, who has Alzheimers and mobility problems, it has affected her work because she is employed by the NHS in a location inaccessible to public transport, during her shifts which are always out of hours. The financial aspect is that, at considerable, unforeseen cost she has been forced to rent a car, to fulfil her daily duties, she has her £100 deposit to Arnold Clark still outstanding, and she is out of pocket through having to make 2 unnecessary amendments to her insurance, followed by a cancellation charge now that she has no vehicle whatsoever and was mid-term. These costs amount to an additional £90. We don't yet know what the final figure will be on a rental vehicle, because of the weakened position Ms. ******* has been left in by Arnold Clark's unauthorised instigation of credit searches by various finance houses, finding an appropriate and affordable finance product to buy another vehicle is expected to take longer than one would normally expect.

When I spoke to Mr **** he avoided all responsibility, and tried to blame Ms. ******. He can't even accept when a mistake has been made. When I spoke to his manager, he was so sickeningly apologetic I thought we might resolve this locally, but after promising to arrange and cover at least some of the cost of a rental car to help out, he has scurried away, and won't return calls, won't accept my calls, and will not reply to an e-mail I sent him yesterday. I find it galling that ANY business, far less a supposedly reputable, and huge car dealership should have their staff behave in such a way, and with seeming impunity, for when I spoke with your customer service department, I felt I might have had many more productive conversations with my dog. I have never in my life spoken to someone so disinterested in a genuine grievance, and who refused to provide their name. So in every area, with every member of staff, and with every communication since this deal was no longer in your favour, we have been met with rudeness, ignorance, and diversion of blame. Not to mention downright incompetence, and failure to adhere to correct selling practices. One has to wonder where you recruit from.

We believe Arnold Clark should agree to meet all of these costs, and offer a payment of some kind in apology for the suffering their divisive and dishonest business practices have taken upon Ms. *******.

I await your acknowledgement and response.

brendenconnolly

albionrovers wrote: »

If these companies dealt in honesty, they wouldn't last weeks. Does beg the question though - why a knighthood?

Surely can't be simply because he is a medium-sized employer?

I have no idea why they would want to knight a successful, multi millionaire, geriatric conman who sells cars. lol