Voluntary Termination With BMW

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

I thought it was a mileage restricted PCP?

I always regarded them to be closer to a lease purchase scheme than HP.

I have never had a HP contract contain a mileage restriction.

The one i signed a couple of weeks ago didn't.

I did have a PCP back in 99, we did hand it back as it was surplus to requirements after about 2years, it wasn't a VT though, but I was not over on the miles

Surely if the price of the monthly rental is affected by mileage then you can't just put in a stupidly low figure, save a fortune then hand back the car when you feel like it with 3 times the agreed annual mileage being covered.

No a PCP arrangement is a form of HP, hence you have rights under the Consumer Credit Act, such as the ability to VT at any time.

If you were to do ridiculous miles over what was agreed, they could probably argue it under fair wear and tear, but otherwise, theres very little they can do.

Under a VT, you're terminating the contract, so any terms in it are nullified.

You can VT at any time, and the finance company can only ever pursue you for no more in total than 50% of the total transactional value.

AdrianC

motorguy wrote: »

If you were to do ridiculous miles over what was agreed, they could probably argue it under fair wear and tear, but otherwise, theres very little they can do.

And would 70% over the contractual mileage for the period-to-date count?

Nobbie1967

AdrianC wrote: »

And would 70% over the contractual mileage for the period-to-date count?

I'd be surprised if they could, as very little extra wear would be involved on a properly serviced car. The value may be substantially affected, but this is a different argument not mentioned in the agreement.

bigjl

If you read the statement from BMW Finance again it mentions T&C that were on the front of the contract.

I would suspect the legal team that drew up this contract had pretty good legal training.

I would suspect the fact that BMW refer to the monthly payments as "rentals" should not be overlooked.

At best the OP has could be considered to have underestimated their annual mileage to obtain cheaper monthly rentals.

It is not often that I would side with a corporate entity like BMW Finance, but I think they are in the right.

The agreed future value is based on an agreed maximum contractual mileage.

It is a Personal Contract Purchase, not Hire Purchase.

Some interesting information from a quick Google

http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-voluntary-termination-pcp-hp/

Finance Companies appear to take legal action when they deem a car owner has VT'd a PCP and has significantly underestimated their mileage.

Just like the OP has done.

I personally don't believe the comment that he or she didn't notice the 8000 mile annual limit, as it would have been pretty obvious that it made the car cheaper, if they knew they did 15000 a year then I would consider that dishonest.

I remember signing my PCP in 99, and the mileage limit was obvious to see. I am fairly certain the excess mileage charge was clearly written aswell, wasn't hidden in the small print.

bigjl

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they could, as very little extra wear would be involved on a properly serviced car. The value may be substantially affected, but this is a different argument not mentioned in the agreement.

Do you actually believe there will be the same level of wear and tear on a car with 30000 miles as there is on one with 50000 miles?

Has the OP kept the car fully services with BMW? They mentioned the last service was done by BMW and then stated it was done to BMW guidelines)

Only ever put on the very best Michelin or Pirelli RF tyres? Or just whatever tyres were available cheaply.

Or have they given it the absolute minimum needed using the cheapest garage possible.

And now after running the car on a shoestring they are handing it back knowing the lack of good quality maintenance could cause problems in the longer term?


(This is a generalisation of a worst case scenario, I am not saying that is what the OP has done)

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

And would 70% over the contractual mileage for the period-to-date count?

If they could link it to a wear and tear difference, then possibly.

But they're not doing that, they're taking a mile per mile stance.

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

If you read the statement from BMW Finance again it mentions T&C that were on the front of the contract.

I would suspect the legal team that drew up this contract had pretty good legal training.

I would suspect the fact that BMW refer to the monthly payments as "rentals" should not be overlooked.

At best the OP has could be considered to have underestimated their annual mileage to obtain cheaper monthly rentals.

It is not often that I would side with a corporate entity like BMW Finance, but I think they are in the right.

The agreed future value is based on an agreed maximum contractual mileage.

It is a Personal Contract Purchase, not Hire Purchase.

Some interesting information from a quick Google

http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-voluntary-termination-pcp-hp/

Finance Companies appear to take legal action when they deem a car owner has VT'd a PCP and has significantly underestimated their mileage.

Just like the OP has done.

I personally don't believe the comment that he or she didn't notice the 8000 mile annual limit, as it would have been pretty obvious that it made the car cheaper, if they knew they did 15000 a year then I would consider that dishonest.

I remember signing my PCP in 99, and the mileage limit was obvious to see. I am fairly certain the excess mileage charge was clearly written aswell, wasn't hidden in the small print.

No. They appear to threaten legal action - big difference. I dont think there is a documented case of it ever getting to court because the finance companies know they cant win it.

I dont see how you're reading that report and concluding that BMW are in the right - they simply arent. End of.

The legal team that drew it up knew how to fluff around the actual issue and point you towards clauses, etc that in no way can they actually enforce when you exercise your legal right to terminate the agreement

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

I always regarded them to be closer to a lease purchase scheme than HP.

It doesnt matter what you personally consider them as - they are a form of Hire Purchase and therefore are subject to the Consumer Credit Act, an effect of which is that you can Voluntary Terminate the contract.

Lease contracts are entirely different

motorguy

bigjl wrote: »

Do you actually believe there will be the same level of wear and tear on a car with 30000 miles as there is on one with 50000 miles?

Has the OP kept the car fully services with BMW? They mentioned the last service was done by BMW and then stated it was done to BMW guidelines)

Only ever put on the very best Michelin or Pirelli RF tyres? Or just whatever tyres were available cheaply.

Or have they given it the absolute minimum needed using the cheapest garage possible.

And now after running the car on a shoestring they are handing it back knowing the lack of good quality maintenance could cause problems in the longer term?


(This is a generalisation of a worst case scenario, I am not saying that is what the OP has done)

Thats a giant leap you've made there to suggest the O/P ran his car on a shoestring budget to the point of potentially causing problems to subsequent owners.

Under a PCP deal they are not required to even have the car serviced by the franchised garage, so i dont know why you're even trying to make that relevant.

verityboo

As motorguy has mentioned many times, a pcp is a form of hp and the right to vt when 50% has been paid is absolute with the only previso in the act about fair wear and tear

The problem the car finance companies have is that the act which gives the buyer rights to vt a car was written before the idea of pcp type finance deals had been thought of. If the act was written now or revised I can imagine that a clause would be added regarding mileage but as things stand the act doesn't