Arnold Clark "Miles don't matter"

Cornucopia

The issue for me with whether PCPs are "too complex" is that I don't think buying a £20k or more new car, and just trusting its future trade-in value to luck is a sensible approach, either.

Whilst I think it's correct that many PCP customers do not properly understand the product, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad product. The protection of future value inherent in PCPs and implied in Leases is a valuable feature in itself.

There's also a question of interest rates. My PCP is 0% over 4 years, so it makes a lot of sense. If it had been 9.9% APR, then not so much.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Cornucopia wrote: »

The issue for me with whether PCPs are "too complex" is that I don't think buying a £20k or more new car, and just trusting its future trade-in value to luck is a sensible approach, either.

Whilst I think it's correct that many PCP customers do not properly understand the product, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad product. The protection of future value inherent in PCPs and implied in Leases is a valuable feature in itself.

There's also a question of interest rates. My PCP is 0% over 4 years, so it makes a lot of sense. If it had been 9.9% APR, then not so much.

I think that is my feeling (PPI and credit card insurance are/were not necessarily bad products either).

However, the decision process to evaluate whether PCP is the best way to purchase is complex, and has to be looked at on each individual offer, it is not like there is a simple flow chart which you can answer 5 questions and decide it is the best solution plus the next day the answer could be different with different offers around. I doubt there are many people who have the ability and willingness to work through the options and really understand the implications of what they are getting into, especially when you probably need to be evaluating nearly new cars as well as new cars.

Cornucopia

I think that it's an easy case to make on mis-selling of PPI, especially if the Lender "pushed it", i.e. they either said, or implied it was compulsory. ISTR, also, that on occasion loan rates were loaded if PPI was not taken.

The car financing decision is hugely complicated (much more so than PPI - which somehow I managed to navigate my way through, never purchasing). As well as the financing decision, you also often have discounts, trade-in under- and over-valuations and haggling to consider. And worse, all the financials are tied together in the Seller's accounting processes, such that you often are effectively choosing between optimum elements, and cannot choose them all.

For me, all of that makes it a situation that even the naivest customer must recognise as both challenging and very much optional to even get involved with (unlike some other more basic forms of lending) and so my sympathy for the notion of mis-selling is somewhat limited.

Having said that, I've complained twice in the past about being mis-sold in connection with cars (once successfully - although I did end up speaking to the UK CEO of Saab, and and once spectacularly unsuccessfully). From that unsuccessful experience, I drew the conclusion that nearly-new was not the panacea that it was widely purported to be (a depreciation hit large enough to be verging on fraud, a dubious finance product and customer service from a main dealer that was on a par with a shady car lot from the rough end of town).

But it did teach me to watch out for certain "indicators" in future negotiations and walk away, if necessary... which I've done many times.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Cornucopia wrote: »

The car financing decision is hugely complicated (much more so than PPI - which somehow I managed to navigate my way through, never purchasing). As well as the financing decision, you also often have discounts, trade-in under- and over-valuations and haggling to consider. And worse, all the financials are tied together in the Seller's accounting processes, such that you often are effectively choosing between optimum elements, and cannot choose them all.

For me, all of that makes it a situation that even the naivest customer must recognise as both challenging and very much optional to even get involved with (unlike some other more basic forms of lending) and so my sympathy for the notion of mis-selling is somewhat limited.

I think that agrees with what I was getting irritated with this board for - people glibly suggesting that customers can simply read a contract and understand what they are getting into and it is their fault if they don't understand.

I appreciate your position, mine is straight forward, as soon as the salesman goes off piste with inappropriate advice then mis-selling has occurred. However, it would be sensible in such cases to walk away at the point it is obvious that the salesman is putting you into a contract where the facts you are providing are not being used to inform the finance company.

HolaNola

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

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'.

:T

This was when I walked out after picking the car up! So once I had signed the contract. Before this he was very attentive and friendly!!

HolaNola

motorguy wrote: »

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:

I didn't go back and buy the car, this is after I'd BOUGHT the car! Do you honestly think I'd have bought the car if he'd have done this prior to the sale? I may be naive but I'm not thick!

I clearly stated I wanted 15,000 miles on my contract! So actually I was wiling to pay extra a month! But what the salesman did was draw up a quote for 5,000 miles without actually informing me!!! :mad:

HolaNola

motorguy wrote: »

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.

I have called 3 Fiat dealerships and Fiat themselves and they all know, as soon as I say Arnold Clark, that the mileage was set to 5,000 this is without me even saying what the problem was.

motorguy

HolaNola wrote: »

I have called 3 Fiat dealerships and Fiat themselves and they all know, as soon as I say Arnold Clark, that the mileage was set to 5,000 this is without me even saying what the problem was.

Surely your only issue though is if you go to hand the car back?

Set a bit aside each month to cover the extra miles you do

loskie

arnold clark are the kwikfit of car sales


avoid

Cornucopia

HolaNola wrote: »

I didn't go back and buy the car, this is after I'd BOUGHT the car! Do you honestly think I'd have bought the car if he'd have done this prior to the sale? I may be naive but I'm not thick!

I clearly stated I wanted 15,000 miles on my contract! So actually I was wiling to pay extra a month! But what the salesman did was draw up a quote for 5,000 miles without actually informing me!!! :mad:

It's not great customer service, but you still seem to be regarding it as a much more serious defect in the contract than it actually is. It will only be directly relevant in one out of four settlement options.

You can-

- Buy the car for the MGFV on the contract.
- Trade-in the car for its then actual value.
- Sell the car for its then actual value.

I strongly doubt that there was any benefit to the Salesman or the Dealership from selling the contract at 5k miles pa, rather than 15k miles. Is this a 3-year deal? Are you sure there wasn't simply mis-communication in which your 15k miles per year was confused with 15k miles in total?

The fact that there is no benefit to them in doing this (in fact it potentially creates an issue that will need subsequently sorting out) makes me doubt that they were laughing at you as a consequence of it (that seems ridiculous). What do you think the basis of their laughter was?