Mileage charges on contract car

Sterowley

Yes that’s right it’s 50% which is fine, I haven’t missed any payment either. I will be at 50% in a few months time so I will go back to them for the paperwork for VT and check the wording, knowing there is no FCA change!
Thanks a lot for your help on this it’s eased some fears they obviously tried to put on me!!

molerat

There is no paperwork for a VT. You simply write and tell them you are VTing the car. You do not sign anything they give you. How much is the car worth against the finance settlement amount ?

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

Again, how would you know?

Yes, I agree that the evidence online, or lack off may suggest this is this case but it certainly isn't definitive.

We would know because it would be sited as case law and they would simply take all cases to court on the back of that.

Dont underestimate how much VTing !!!!es finance companies off. Its wholly a thorn in their side and the mere fact that they HAVENT taken anyone to court shows they know they've no mission of winning. IF they HAD taken anyone to court it would be well advertised in the media / used by them.

neilmcl

motorguy wrote: »

We would know because it would be sited as case law and they would simply take all cases to court on the back of that.

You do understand that these cases would be heard at the County Court level in the first instance, "Case law", or rather precedent, is set at the higher courts, which I've already mentioned. So I say again you or I simply don't know whether a finance co. has sought a county court action in the past or simply given up once the debt collectors have had no joy.

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

You do understand that these cases would be heard at the County Court level in the first instance, "Case law", or rather precedent, is set at the higher courts, which I've already mentioned. So I say again you or I simply don't know whether a finance co. has sought a county court action in the past or simply given up once the debt collectors have had no joy.

And the finance companies rely on this sort of unsubstantiated hearsay and internet myth to keep the fear of god in people that they are chasing for money they are not obliged to pay.

neilmcl

motorguy wrote: »

And the finance companies rely on this sort of unsubstantiated hearsay and internet myth to keep the fear of god in people that they are chasing for money they are not obliged to pay.

Mate, you assertion that the finance co's have never taken anyone to court is as "unsubstantiated" as mine. The fact is we just don't know, and whilst I agree the odds they do so is extremely high, I (nor you) have no actual evidence to suggest that a single company hasn't in the past.

I'm bored of this now so if you want the final word have at it

AdrianC

Sterowley wrote: »

I have done about 9000 extra miles than contracted at this stage which is 6p a mile extra. Of course I wouldn’t have done this if I was told about this apparent FCA change!

So £540 extra. You don't say when in 2015 you took out the PCP, but let's assume it's 2.5yrs - so £18/month.

Would taking out a PCP with the correct mileage allowance have been more expensive than that?

Or would you simply have driven the car so much less...?

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

Mate, you assertion that the finance co's have never taken anyone to court is as "unsubstantiated" as mine. The fact is we just don't know, and whilst I agree the odds they do so is extremely high, I (nor you) have no actual evidence to suggest that a single company hasn't in the past.

I'm bored of this now so if you want the final word have at it

"Mate". The onus is on you to prove it has happened, not on me to prove it hasnt.

For example, i would be very confident that the Loch Ness monster doesnt exist. Some people have asserted that it does. The burden of proof would of course lie with them to prove that, not with me to prove otherwise. Likewise that doesnt make it as likely to exist as not exist.

If you havent any evidence to prove it has happened, you're just perpetuating an internet myth, frankly.

neilmcl

motorguy wrote: »

"Mate". The onus is on you to prove it has happened, not on me to prove it hasnt.

For example, i would be very confident that the Loch Ness monster doesnt exist. Some people have asserted that it does. The burden of proof would of course lie with them to prove that, not with me to prove otherwise. Likewise that doesnt make it as likely to exist as not exist.

If you havent any evidence to prove it has happened, you're just perpetuating an internet myth, frankly.

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/money-debt/consumer-credit-act/99722-bmw-financial-services-voluntary-termination-excess-mileage/page2 - post #26 (took me approx 3 secs to find that).

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/money-debt/consumer-credit-act/99722-bmw-financial-services-voluntary-termination-excess-mileage/page2 - post #26 (took me approx 3 secs to find that).

Right, well on reading that i'm big enough to admit i was wrong and i therefore apologise.

I will apply that to my future responses accordingly on the subject of exceeding contract miles.

I genuinely never thought they would take it to a county court - interesting that they will an do.

Apologies - i was wholly wrong on that one.