Arnold Clark "Miles don't matter"

motorguy

Zandoni wrote: »

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

Technically they cant then apply any mileage rates. They might try to, but they have no legal standing or precedent to do so.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

It's too complex a product for the general public - I think I am bright and I have never been able to get my head around the pro's and con's. My take is that if I cannot understand the product then it is unlikely that anyone else can, so how can it be safely sold?

In this case, it seems that the salesman is treating this as hire purchase rather than PCP - getting the lower payments of PCP while treating the contract as HP as clearly the car will be so over-mileage that the penalties for being over the contract mileage will outweigh the advantages of the supposed Guaranteed Future Value.

Nodding_Donkey

Cornucopia wrote: »

Were they really contacting you "about your mileage" though?

Very likeky I would have thought, if they'd already had complaints it would make sense to see if others were affected.

motorguy

IanMSpencer wrote: »

In this case, it seems that the salesman is treating this as hire purchase rather than PCP - getting the lower payments of PCP while treating the contract as HP as clearly the car will be so over-mileage that the penalties for being over the contract mileage will outweigh the advantages of the supposed Guaranteed Future Value.

It is a form of hire purchase and yes, people are being encouraged to exploit the rights given to them under the consumer credit act to return the car under the "50% rule".

The product itself has been around since the 1980s - i remember Ford were offering it on mk2 fiestas. I think now too many people "chose" to ignore the small print, rather than not understand it, and then get themselves in a hole later on. You cant have ultra low payments and ultra low residual values at the end. Its a sliding scale based usually on miles.

I think it will give way in terms on dominance on new car sales to lease deals. Already these are being offered as a mainstream product by manufacturers and theres any amount of other companies now catering for private customer leases too.

The risk there is of course they are very expensive to get out of early.

motorguy

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:

Its not up to the salesman to deduce your mileage - its up to YOU.

Also, the salesman was laughing at you? Did that really happen? And if it did you still went back and bought the car? :eek:

motorguy

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Very likeky I would have thought, if they'd already had complaints it would make sense to see if others were affected.

Why would they bother?

Very few cars are handed back at the end of the term, and any that are are subject to excess mileage charges.

motorguy

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Very likeky I would have thought, if they'd already had complaints it would make sense to see if others were affected.

And what would the complaints be that they're received "duh, i'm complaining because i've done more miles than was in my contract" - hardly a complaint.

Nodding_Donkey

How about:

"The car dealer told me miles don't matter, why are you trying to charge me thousands of pounds"

Dont forget complaints to the ombudsman cost them even if they win.

Cornucopia

IanMSpencer wrote: »

It's too complex a product for the general public - I think I am bright and I have never been able to get my head around the pro's and con's. My take is that if I cannot understand the product then it is unlikely that anyone else can, so how can it be safely sold?

Maybe. I'm used to the concept of a lease, so a PCP is the same principle, but with more flexibility at end of term. I certainly couldn't honestly describe myself as materially disadvantaged by the relative complexity of a PCP.

That said, we get so many queries here about PCPs, that it suggests the general level of understanding amongst customers is poor.

In this case, it seems that the salesman is treating this as hire purchase rather than PCP - getting the lower payments of PCP while treating the contract as HP as clearly the car will be so over-mileage that the penalties for being over the contract mileage will outweigh the advantages of the supposed Guaranteed Future Value.

I think so, and whether it was mis-sold or not may come down to some quite subtle differences in wording, and in the Salesman's checks and disclaimers against the OP's knowledge.

motorguy

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

How about:

"The car dealer told me miles don't matter, why are you trying to charge me thousands of pounds"

Dont forget complaints to the ombudsman cost them even if they win.

Yet they signed a form committing to X miles in total?

Its been going on for years, if not decades. Put in low miles and worry about it later.

I would go so far as to say the finance companies shouldnt (a) allow people to put in "just" 5,000 miles (which a lot of them do) and (b) if you're buying a diesel, then the min should be 15,000.

Would sort the problem out full stop.

Either way, and back to your original point, the finance company certainly isnt ringing around everyone because they've just discovered this loop hole, as was your assertion.