PCP excess miles and VT

motorguy

TheMoonandBack wrote: »

Anyone who has managed to avoid excess mileage charges by VTing has exploited a loophole. As the example posted by Tarambor shows, a reasonably objective examination by the ombudsman resulted in the mileage charges being upheld.
Most people select the lowest possible annual mileage on a pcp to get the lowest possible monthly payment. If you end up doing more mileage you should pay the charge, not doing so and then VTing is having your cake and eating it - nice if you manage it, but not really the right thing to do.

If i were a few (thousand?) miles over and had to VT to get out of a deal, i'd go ahead and then just deal with the posturing from the finance company knowing they will give up eventually.

I'd probably avoid doing it though if i could as i dont even want the hassle of shirty letters, etc.

Too many people now see a VT as their primary exit strategy from a PCP agreement.

Robby1988

Just put aside £86 a month from now on, pay the penalty at the end and walk away debt free & with a squeaky clean credit file.

It’s money down the drain, but the most responsible way to deal with it.

My advice is to ignore salesman BS & always set the mileage generously with PCPs, that way your covered if you do more mileage than expected & have more options if you don’t because you’ll have positive equity to play with.

AnotherJoe

neilmcl wrote: »

The FOS only give an opinion, they don't make or adjudicate the law. The above was one persons opinion and, in my opinion, could be challenged in court.

And that’s why I said currently thenfinance companies are “winning” because you’d either have to go to court or hope the finance company didn’t take you to court to get a CCJ though I don’t see why they wouldn’t since i’m Sure they would do that if a client stopped paying. They might decide that if the amount owed was low enough it wasn’t worth their while but, at £1300 I suspect they wouldn’t.

Even without that You would also be in danger of being placed on some sort of blacklist which would make it difficult to get this and perhaps other finance in future.

Now, again you could chance that none of this would happen, but at the moment people in this position would seeem to be on the back foot...there’s someone in the house buying forum who has a CCJ against them because they didn’t pay £6 to their lease company so you never know what a company will do.

I agree it’s not 100% clear cut but advising the OP not to pay up is not IMO likely to work out welll for them and then other approaches would work best especially longer term.

System

neilmcl wrote: »

The FOS only give an opinion, they don't make or adjudicate the law. The above was one persons opinion and, in my opinion, could be challenged in court.

A judge however would refer to FOS ombudsman's rulings or take them into account when presented with them by the finance company when deciding a ruling.

neilmcl

Tarambor wrote: »

A judge however would refer to FOS ombudsman's rulings or take them into account when presented with them by the finance company when deciding a ruling.

I would've thought a judge's main point of reference would be the actual legislation itself rather than rely on opinions of others

Mercdriver

neilmcl wrote: »

I would've thought a judge's main point of reference would be the actual legislation itself rather than rely on opinions of others

Judges are human though, and the opinion of a member of the regulatory body would be a persuasive argument by the claimant. Decisive? Maybe, maybe not. But would I want to be taking that chance in a county court? Unlikely, but then YMMV.

AndyMc.....

Mercdriver wrote: »

Judges are human though, and the opinion of a member of the regulatory body would be a persuasive argument by the claimant. Decisive? Maybe, maybe not. But would I want to be taking that chance in a county court? Unlikely, but then YMMV.

A County Court Judge can only rule on legislation and case law.

Lucky_Duck_2

According to one thread on here excess mileage charges have got as far as a debt collection agency so if the position is as clear cut as asserted then I'd expect to learn of court action being commenced.

In the alternative the legal entitlement is dubious and the credit 'blacklist' referred to above is, perhaps, a figment of that poster's imagination.

vikingaero

VT if you are happy not to go with that finance provider again.

neilmcl

vikingaero wrote: »

VT if you are happy not to go with that finance provider again.

Another spot of scare mongering. VT'ing, as is your statutory right, will rarely have any effect on getting finance again with the same provider.