Arnold Clark "Miles don't matter"

Nessun_Dorma

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?

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 really is one of the most simplest things to understand. The product has been used, very successfully, for decades. Most people who use it are perfectly happy with it.

Nessun_Dorma

motorguy wrote: »

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.

Back then, when it started in the USA, it was called "Half and Half," then became "Options, here in the UK." It saw Ford's sales almost double within three years.

=rizla=

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

It is unlikely that (unless a larger than typical deposit is paid), with the amounts payable under a PCP, the buyer will achieve the amounts to qualify for the half rule.

The deposit only changes the monthly payments, and not the total paid, the MGFV stays the same and only changes with mileage (with some manufacturers the optional extras don't even matter) so over the term of the agreement the deposit and monthly payments you will pay is the same amount if you pay a £1 deposit or £10000. (ignoring of course any apr)


Ford options, wasn't it options 1 2 3 ?, I seem to remember the tv add now.

Cornucopia

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

If the valuation of the car is lower than the original GMFV, then the OP will still be charged the excess mileage.

^ This is confusing.

The true position has already been stated further up the thread.

The net effect of the Salesperson's action (assuming we fully accept the OP's version of events) is that the OP loses the protection of the MGFV or will need to pay mileage penalties to gain access to it.

In the event that the car is traded, that the car is sold independently of the PCP or that the car is purchased under the PCP terms, the mileage penalty will not apply.

In the case of trading or selling the vehicle, the MGFV figure is due to the finance company at the end of the term. This amount is fixed in the contract and is not dependent on mileage or condition. The vehicle's actual value is variable and does depend on mileage and condition, however, I doubt that any regulator would find that the numbers in the contract could ever possibly affect the value of the physical car (which has much more to do with the customer's usage).

Bonfire_Bride

Is the finance company aware that a vehicle was purchased in your name but is being used by your husband. Are you on the V5?

Nessun_Dorma

Bonfire_Bride wrote: »

Is the finance company aware that a vehicle was purchased in your name but is being used by your husband. Are you on the V5?

What is it the business of the finance company, as long as he is insured, it doesn't matter.

motorguy

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

What is it the business of the finance company, as long as he is insured, it doesn't matter.

It is the finance companies business and it does matter to them - they own the car and because the finance agreement is with the O/P, they will be expecting the v5c to be in their name.

They could view that as circumventing finance checks that otherwise would prevent their husband financing car car OR if the car ever needed to be repossessed it adds a level of complexity for them.

Nessun_Dorma

motorguy wrote: »

It is the finance companies business and it does matter to them - they own the car and because the finance agreement is with the O/P, they will be expecting the v5c to be in their name.

They could view that as circumventing finance checks that otherwise would prevent their husband financing car car OR if the car ever needed to be repossessed it adds a level of complexity for them.

There is no indication from the OP that the V5 is not in her name.

The fact that the car is used by the applicant's spouse, would have no direct bearing on any repossession proceedings.

motorguy

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

There is no indication from the OP that the V5 is not in her name.

The fact that the car is used by the applicant's spouse, would have no direct bearing on any repossession proceedings.

Correct, however i was responding to YOU when you said it was none of the finance companies business whether they were or not.

Nessun_Dorma

motorguy wrote: »

Correct, however i was responding to YOU when you said it was none of the finance companies business whether they were or not.

And it still isn't. :huh: