Help! Car was impounded and now the lender has it

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Mza123 wrote: »

The issue isn!!!8217;t with the insurer, this was a letter from the finance company explaining why they!!!8217;re keeping the car. What happened with the insurer is, the day I went to collect the car they wanted to prove I was a home owner, otherwise my partner policy would be void. I of course did this and all was well, but the day I came back I found out the car was taken back by the finance company.

The location was Birmingham, well West Brom, and the car was a BMW 520d

Contracts are still governed by consumer law and the suggestion that you cannot leave a car at a premises because you are incapable of driving (not as part of any plan) it is clearly an unreasonable term.

In all your communication with the finance company, throw in the word "unreasonable" at ever opportunity. I would suggest that the clause is unenforceable as it is unreasonable. Once a contract term is unreasonable, the contract is considered not to contain that clause. The implication of the term generally would be as to so restrict the use of the car as to be unreasonable. For example, I could interpret the clause as suggesting that I was not allowed to park in a public car park as the car is no longer in use while I go shopping. It is very poorly drafted and I would suggest that it would not stand up in court. The fairness test is not about a pedantic interpretation but simply what a reasonable person would expect and if it was not such a thing then the restriction would have to be prominently brought to your attention, not hidden in small print.

Anyway, the car was in use. You had used it to get to and from a party. It is unfortunate you mislaid the keys, but again, I challenge anyone to suggest that it is reasonable to expect anyone know exactly where their keys are at any possible time.

So my suggestion is to write to the finance company and say that their behaviour is unreasonable and that further that the clause is an unfair clause under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is impossible to comply with under the reasonable use of a motor car. As such they are themselves in breach of their contract to you and are liable for your costs that you are incurring.

Doozergirl

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Contracts are still governed by consumer law and the suggestion that you cannot leave a car at a premises because you are incapable of driving (not as part of any plan) it is clearly an unreasonable term.

In all your communication with the finance company, throw in the word "unreasonable" at ever opportunity. I would suggest that the clause is unenforceable as it is unreasonable. Once a contract term is unreasonable, the contract is considered not to contain that clause. The implication of the term generally would be as to so restrict the use of the car as to be unreasonable. For example, I could interpret the clause as suggesting that I was not allowed to park in a public car park as the car is no longer in use while I go shopping. It is very poorly drafted and I would suggest that it would not stand up in court. The fairness test is not about a pedantic interpretation but simply what a reasonable person would expect and if it was not such a thing then the restriction would have to be prominently brought to your attention, not hidden in small print.

Anyway, the car was in use. You had used it to get to and from a party. It is unfortunate you mislaid the keys, but again, I challenge anyone to suggest that it is reasonable to expect anyone know exactly where their keys are at any possible time.

So my suggestion is to write to the finance company and say that their behaviour is unreasonable and that further that the clause is an unfair clause under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it is impossible to comply with under the reasonable use of a motor car. As such they are themselves in breach of their contract to you and are liable for your costs that you are incurring.

If I could thank you twice, I would. I read that clause exactly the way that you did; that it is a completely unfair and unreasonable clause. To me it effectively reads that I can drive the car but I can't actually get out of it it isn't at my house or with a mechanic being repaired!

Some people really need to up their comprehension skills. The story started odd, it was filled out quite quickly by the OP. Then they gave more info and people were asking questions that had already been answered simply by volunteering the information. The OPs story isn't particularly odd, the finance company's behaviour is odd.

I hope you get your car back soon, OP. I'm sure you will. Well done for sticking it out with the crowd you were given on this thread

Herzlos

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Complain to them. The car may not "technically"have been in your possession, but if that was through no fault of your own, I think they're being unreasonable.

It sounds like they are objecting to the car being left, with keys, at another property, and thus out of his possession. Not that someone else drove it (since that's a crime with #).

And on the face of it, it's completely true. How do they know it was a one-off and that the car doesn't normally live in someone elses possession?

I think if you'd left the car, but not the keys, it'd be a completely different matter (plus the car wouldn't have gone anywhere).

Otherwise as you say, even leaving it in a car park would be a violation.

waamo

For the sake of some completeness the issue is Section 3 of Blue Motor Finances credit agreement (assuming this is HP agreement 6.28.0) requires the vehicle to be left at the keepers address.

The way I read it you cannot even leave it in a secure car park overnight or at an airport car park if your going on holiday even.

The OP could have been clearer from the start but now the whole story has come out it does make sense.

Mza123

Doozergirl wrote: »

If I could thank you twice, I would. I read that clause exactly the way that you did; that it is a completely unfair and unreasonable clause. To me it effectively reads that I can drive the car but I can't actually get out of it it isn't at my house or with a mechanic being repaired!

Some people really need to up their comprehension skills. The story started odd, it was filled out quite quickly by the OP. Then they gave more info and people were asking questions that had already been answered simply by volunteering the information. The OPs story isn't particularly odd, the finance company's behaviour is odd.

I hope you get your car back soon, OP. I'm sure you will. Well done for sticking it out with the crowd you were given on this thread

Thank you both, I will give this a go.

Mza123

waamo wrote: »

For the sake of some completeness the issue is Section 3 of Blue Motor Finances credit agreement (assuming this is HP agreement 6.28.0) requires the vehicle to be left at the keepers address.

The way I read it you cannot even leave it in a secure car park overnight or at an airport car park if your going on holiday even.

The OP could have been clearer from the start but now the whole story has come out it does make sense.

Yes, the complete clause is:


‘3. Selling or disposing of the goods
You must keep the goods safely at your address shown on the preceding pages. You may not sell or dispose of the goods or transfer your rights under this Agreement. You may only part with the goods to have them repaired. You may not use the goods as security for your outstanding debts or responsibilities. If the goods are a motor vehicle, you must keep it at your address shown on the preceding pages when it is not in use and you are allowed to take the vehicle to any country in the EU for up to 30 days (up to a maximum of 60 days in any calendar year) but no more and you may only take the vehicle outside the UK at all if this is permitted under your motor insurance policy.‘

And I asked exactly that, I sarcastically said if I were to go on holiday would that mean I’d need to take the car with me?

To which he replied, ‘it would need to be in your possession at all times’

Mza123

Herzlos wrote: »

It sounds like they are objecting to the car being left, with keys, at another property, and thus out of his possession. Not that someone else drove it (since that's a crime with #).

And on the face of it, it's completely true. How do they know it was a one-off and that the car doesn't normally live in someone elses possession?

I think if you'd left the car, but not the keys, it'd be a completely different matter (plus the car wouldn't have gone anywhere).

Otherwise as you say, even leaving it in a car park would be a violation.

Im not entirely sure but I think I may be able to prove to them that this was a one off as a lot of the new iDrive systems in BMW have built in trackers.

HWG

This all adds up now. You did the responsible thing by not driving home drunk, and someone took your keys and took it for a joyride. Delays caused by an unusual insurance situation resulted in your leasing company confiscating the car.

The first priority is to try and stop the leasing company from selling off your car. It'll cost them time and money to do this - hopefully someone senior might realise it's better for everyone if your car is returned to you.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Contracts are still governed by consumer law and the suggestion that you cannot leave a car at a premises because you are incapable of driving (not as part of any plan) it is clearly an unreasonable term.

In all your communication with the finance company, throw in the word "unreasonable" at ever opportunity. I would suggest that the clause is unenforceable as it is unreasonable. Once a contract term is unreasonable, the contract is considered not to contain that clause. The implication of the term generally would be as to so restrict the use of the car as to be unreasonable. For example, I could interpret the clause as suggesting that I was not allowed to park in a public car park as the car is no longer in use while I go shopping. It is very poorly drafted and I would suggest that it would not stand up in court. The fairness test is not about a pedantic interpretation but simply what a reasonable person would expect and if it was not such a thing then the restriction would have to be prominently brought to your attention, not hidden in small print.
.

Throw that at them by post, email and phone. Ask to speak to a director, to escalate your complaint - anything to get it read by someone with some common sense.

If this doesn't work, you'll probably need a solicitor to try and take them to court for unfair terms in your contract. The harsh reality is that it may be cheaper for you to just give up and pay them the difference in what they sell the car for.

I have no idea if you might have a civil claim against the person that took your car. I suspect you might not.

And as an aside, I'd be pushing as hard as possible for the thief to be prosecuted. Their actions were seriously stupid, and it's lucky the police caught them when they did. If the car had been written off, I imagine your leasing company would now be pursuing you for the full value of the car. Worse still, what if someone had been hurt?
I'd be furious at the financial loss, stress and wasted time they've exposed you to, and they danger they'd exposed the general public to.

waamo

Mza123 wrote: »

Yes, the complete clause is:


‘3. Selling or disposing of the goods
You must keep the goods safely at your address shown on the preceding pages. You may not sell or dispose of the goods or transfer your rights under this Agreement. You may only part with the goods to have them repaired. You may not use the goods as security for your outstanding debts or responsibilities. If the goods are a motor vehicle, you must keep it at your address shown on the preceding pages when it is not in use and you are allowed to take the vehicle to any country in the EU for up to 30 days (up to a maximum of 60 days in any calendar year) but no more and you may only take the vehicle outside the UK at all if this is permitted under your motor insurance policy.‘

And I asked exactly that, I sarcastically said if I were to go on holiday would that mean I’d need to take the car with me?

To which he replied, ‘it would need to be in your possession at all times’

I think the guy told you wrong. As I read it if you take it abroad you would need to return home to park it overnight unless it was being repaired abroad.

It sounds completely unreasonable and the Ombudsman might well agree.

Oh and don't drive it to Switzerland. They could come and grab it on your return even if you made it back overnight.

AdrianC

waamo wrote: »

I think the guy told you wrong. As I read it if you take it abroad you would need to return home to park it overnight unless it was being repaired abroad.

As I read it, so long as it's in your possession, then you can park it where you are.
If it is not in your possession, then it needs to be parked at your home address.