Arnold Clark "Miles don't matter"

Zandoni

What would happen about the mileage if the OP gave the car back to the finance company using the half rule?

Hoof_Hearted

There are companies that can wind back digital odometers. Of course. not relevant in this case. Just saying...

HolaNola

Cornucopia wrote: »

You bought a car for your husband's work based on your needs?

If you weren't happy with the terms, why did you enter into a contract based upon them?

Caveat Emptor.

Thanks for this information.

I am waiting for Arnold Clark's finance team to contact me today.

I bought the car based on my needs, but informed that my husband would be using the car for work until his company car was delivered. I also informed him that I worked 30 miles away from home so had a 60 mile round trip. Taken this into account 15,000 miles would have been sufficient.

As I walked out of the show room, the Salesman was evidentially laughing at me to his colleagues - They probably just thought, another naive woman wanting to buy a pretty little Fiat! :rotfl:

HolaNola

loskie wrote: »

Scumbags!
NOT Sales "Executives" the word being used wholly incorrectly.

Why are people so gullible to believe a salesman and sign a completely contradictory contract?
You do have to be accountable for your own actions.

Maybe because we get told that's their official job title! SORRY!

Mercdriver

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

There are companies that can wind back digital odometers. Of course. not relevant in this case. Just saying...

So you're implicitly encouraging fraud? Sounds clever...

BeenThroughItAll

HolaNola wrote: »

As I walked out of the show room, the Salesman was evidentially laughing at me to his colleagues - They probably just thought, another naive woman wanting to buy a pretty little Fiat! :rotfl:

And yet you still bought a car from him? If this really happened, I'd say he was probably right about 'naive woman wanting to buy a pretty little Fiat'.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

HolaNola wrote: »

Thanks for this information.

I am waiting for Arnold Clark's finance team to contact me today.

I bought the car based on my needs, but informed that my husband would be using the car for work until his company car was delivered. I also informed him that I worked 30 miles away from home so had a 60 mile round trip. Taken this into account 15,000 miles would have been sufficient.

As I walked out of the show room, the Salesman was evidentially laughing at me to his colleagues - They probably just thought, another naive woman wanting to buy a pretty little Fiat! :rotfl:

Unfortunately, there are a large contingent on the Motoring board who are of the opinion that consumer legislation and financial legislation does not exist any more and are a bit too quick to reach for some Latin words without considering the whole picture.

Perhaps people should remember PPI - where lots of people had the paperwork yet the banks have had to concede that mis-selling overrides accepting written contracts, or Homeserve and so on.

In this case, what people are missing is that you had a contract for one thing and the salesman essentially advised you that if you had a different contract the end costs would be the same. How can you tell that was incorrect from the written information you had in front of you? Therefore, I can quite readily see why you were misled - you are entitled to rely on the word of the salesman.

Make sure you understand the impact of the mis-selling. If you are likely to be significantly disadvantaged, fight your corner, if it is likely to be a few pounds or reduced options in disposing of the car, then it may not be worth pursuing.

nidO

Unless i've missed you already mentioning this, can you tell us how your conversation with the sales guy went in terms of your intentions once you reached the end of the PCP deal?

I'm fine with bashing salesmen as much as everyone else, but if you told the sales guy that you wouldn't be handing the car back at the end of the deal and had every intention of either selling it privately or paying off the final payment to keep the car, then the salesman would have been correct that your contracted miles don't matter, and was doing you a solid by putting down a low figure.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

nidO wrote: »

Unless i've missed you already mentioning this, can you tell us how your conversation with the sales guy went in terms of your intentions once you reached the end of the PCP deal?

I'm fine with bashing salesmen as much as everyone else, but if you told the sales guy that you wouldn't be handing the car back at the end of the deal and had every intention of either selling it privately or paying off the final payment to keep the car, then the salesman would have been correct that your contracted miles don't matter, and was doing you a solid by putting down a low figure.

I mainly agree, but the trouble is we are into crystal ball territory - one of the points of these contracts is that at the end of the contract you have a number of choices, and by removing some of the options the OP may be disadvantaged - one of the points of this is that you can select the most financially advantageous option at the end of the deal.

Frankly, nobody should be trying to justify selling on the wrong mileage estimate as it means that somewhere along the line there is money missing to cover the value of the car, which may have implications for GAP insurance (or lack of in the case of a write-off) and so on. Taken to the logical conclusion the salesman and buyer are party to a fraud against the finance house which accepted the finance agreement on the understanding of a reasonable estimate of mileage.

Cornucopia

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are a large contingent on the Motoring board who are of the opinion that consumer legislation and financial legislation does not exist any more and are a bit too quick to reach for some Latin words without considering the whole picture.

Interestingly, when I bought my new car recently, the Salesman said that they were expecting PCP mis-selling to be the "next PPI".

He seemed pretty adamant that there would be sufficient potential liability in some older schemes to warrant successful claims (hence them tightening up on the various disclaimers).

Not seen any evidence of it, yet, and I wouldn't want to call this case one way or another until some ground-rules for claims on PCPs have been established.