We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Lex Autolease Refund

The reason being was something to do with them not including some wording on their loan documentation. I was just wondering if anybody knew what this is all about. I have happily banked the check and assume that the FCA have probably told them to do this. It just seems very odd to me that I can enter into an arrangement that I am quite happy with and then years down the line get an unexpected refund. Not complaining of course, but just curious if anyone could shed some more light on this.
Comments
-
Not sure if this is the correct board, apologies if it isn't. This is more a question out of curiosity than anything else. In 2008, I entered into a lease hire agreement for a car with Lex Autolease. I was happy with the terms and paid for the three years and then paid the balloon payment at the end and still have the car (Mazda 6 btw, cracking car and lasting well). Anyway, Lex Autolease hadn't entered my consciousness until yesterday, when I received a cheque from them for just shy of £1,400!
The reason being was something to do with them not including some wording on their loan documentation. I was just wondering if anybody knew what this is all about. I have happily banked the check and assume that the FCA have probably told them to do this. It just seems very odd to me that I can enter into an arrangement that I am quite happy with and then years down the line get an unexpected refund. Not complaining of course, but just curious if anyone could shed some more light on this.
Basically every so often finance providers find some anomaly in their documentation which means they were not allowed to collect interest for a period and have to refund it. It's all technical gibberish because you owed the money + interest, paid the interest and were clearly none the wiser but there you go, you get a windfallSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Blimey, I'd imagine that whoever made the error on the paperwork isn't going to get their Christmas bonus! Thanks for the response.0
-
You'll find it happens more often than you'd think as it's all got to be declared to the appropriate bodies, they can't just ignore it. There's a thread going about Co-Op doing it and Northern Rock and seen others over the last few years. Keeps the banks on their toes I guess
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards