Finance company keeps switching off the Car, is that allowed?

Herzlos

gb12345 wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you, but hiding an important part of the contract like that away in small print on page 118 of a 126 page contract could be deemed an unfair contract - what type of contract to take out a finance deal is made up of 126 pages, you normally get a few pages at most.

I think you'd probably manage to justify that; lots of (mostly software/warranty) contracts have been rendered void on the assumption that its unreasonable to have read them all, and a 126 page contract would certainly qualify. The legal fees to have a lawyer go over it would buy you the car outright. It must contain a huge amount of waffle.

Personally if a salesperson handed me a document that long I'd insist they sat with me whilst I read it through (and asked questions), or I'd just hand it back and walk away.

SeanG79

Apples2 wrote: »

Is the 5 month handover at the half way point (is it a VT you are taking advantage of?)

If so, you should expect them to reject your VT application as the terms will state that all payments should have been made on time (failing to pay breaches the contract terms which is what you would be using to VT the car).

We have had a post on here where someone successfully challenged this in Court but it is not common.

The CCA affords consumers the right to VT the agreement irrespective of the arrears. The only requirement is to pay 50% of the overall agreement, so provided the lender has not terminated the agreement, the consumer can VT at any time but will be responsible for paying 50% of all payments. Charges for late payments or default letters will fall outside of the calculation to VT.

That said most of these PAYG lenders will have had the customer on a rent to buy scheme or a fixed sum loan, to "get around" the VT option afforded to consumers with HP/conditional sale agreements.

Apples2

I don't dispute it but let's see what happens.

We've seen loads of posts where the finance company reject the request but only one that I can recall where it was challenged and quite rightly won.

spacey2012

I think it would be rolling over a cliff, accidental of course when they switch it off making the brake servo stop working...

tinkerbell28

Sorry but I don't see the problem? You took out a sub prime loan. They knew you'd be high risk and have been proved right, as you don't pay on time or stick to the agreement.

If they didn't do something, then a few days late, would be a week, then a month, then two months, then court. When they;d have a significantly devalued asset.

If they turn your car off, then you pay quicker.

You've got an exact date and time which they will switch it off. If they were doing it randomly at 80mph then I'd say that is outrageous.

But these things can only go on when stationary, so in traffic or parked up. If you haven't paid, and you know that's the cut off time. You shouldn't be driving the car you haven't paid for.

paye

Hi

if your constantly chasing payments from companies, you should hightlight to them that if payment is not received by a certain date you will start to charge interest on the outstanding amounts.

have a read of this and see if this applies to your husbands buisness.


http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_Late_Payment_of_Commercial_Debts_Regulations_2013

Herzlos

I'm curious as to where the liability rests once the car is disabled. Say you're stuck in traffic in a no stopping zone and it shuts off, or if you're in a restricted car park, who pays the parking/recovery fees?

iolanthe07

I can see that the loan company, quite reasonably, want their payments in full and on time; but disabling the car does seem a bit extreme.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm curious as to where the liability rests once the car is disabled. Say you're stuck in traffic in a no stopping zone and it shuts off, or if you're in a restricted car park, who pays the parking/recovery fees?

I'm sure that will be covered in the 126 page finance agreement the OP signed up to. And it won't be the finance company!

tinkerbell28

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I can see that the loan company, quite reasonably, want their payments in full and on time; but disabling the car does seem a bit extreme.

Or you could look at another way.

These deals are for bad risks/payers.

It's unlikely they'd have even got a loan from the car supermarkets.

So the company took a risk on them and lent against a car, but won't allow use of it if payments aren't met. Not entirely unreasonable. They didn't have to. The op knows the time and date, yet STILL doesn't pay on time and drives the car. That's where I'd lose sympathy with the op. They knew the score the first time, if they didn't before yet still drive it and get stranded. I would say the fault there lies entirely with op.

So in a way, they've taken a risk and lent them money for a car when most lenders wouldn't.

Then they don't pay on time. Regularly. So they'd be stuck with a depreciating asset and then tomorrow, would become never. As they've got previous "form" hence having to go to this place.

The company are of the ilk of payday lenders I'm sure, but that said no one forced op to take the car loan out, which is probably a ludicrous high APR and public transport would probably be cheaper. But there ya go.

But to know that the clause is there and having been caught out once, then still do it? Well that's just foolish.