Help! Car was impounded and now the lender has it

Manxman_in_exile

Mercdriver wrote: »

Also reading from what you have posted, you can't go on holiday at all without your car. That is illogical and I would suggest would be an unfair contract. If every HP contract had this clause, I would have real problems as I am constantly travelling and my car is parked in an airport car park almost as much as it is parked at home (yes my insurers are aware and I have proper business insurance appropriate for my work). At the moment, I am in Helsinki and my car is parked at Heathrow, as I have been in Asia for a few weeks. My car is parked away from me frequently.

It would be interesting to see a scan of this contract, because it sounds most unusual to me.

Agreed. If "in your possession" is interpreted strictly as meaning physical possession the clause is wholly unworkable.

Mercdriver

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Points taken Adrian - especially the one about valet parking companies. Personally I would never use them because I would want the keys in my possession all the time.


But on the ordinary meaning of the word, I possess my house. Are you arguing that if I went on holiday to Australia (all the keys coming with me) that I'm no longer in possession of my house? Does that mean that while I'm away no-one is in possession of the house? I don't think that can be right.


I can understand what the finance company is trying to do (protect their asset) but I can't tell whether they were deliberately trying to cover the OP's situation, or whether it's simply an unintended consequence of sloppy drafting. If your car is Twoc'd (and you haven't contributed to that) and then it's impounded, it seems a bit Draconian for the finance company to seize it.

I used to use valet parking before they drove my wife's X5 (bought with cash) scraping a bollard and tried to deny it. A high quality camera and macro lens provided evidence that the damage was brand new. Now I usually prebook short term even if parking for two weeks for much less than valet so that I am close to the terminal when I land...less convenient if taking off from Terminal 5 and landing in Terminal 3 like on this trip, but...

Definitely looks like sloppy drafting to me, borderline amateur in application too.

Manxman_in_exile

IanMSpencer wrote: »

But the clause does not use the word "possession", it uses the vague word "use". I would struggle to define what that clause means in the context of normal motor vehicle usage except in considering whether it was essentially SORN'd or not.



I'm guessing they are trying to say that they want to know where the car is so that they can repossess it - no hiding it at a mate's house etc. - but that is a guess.

Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct - it talks about "use" not "possession". I would argue that if you use the car to drive to the airport in order to go on holiday, you are still using it while out of the country. You intend (and expect) to drive home in it on your return.


I suspect that whoever from the finance company told OP that it must always be in his possession was mistaken and didn't understand the clause.


I notice the clause is headed something like "Selling or disposing of the goods" and I think it needs to be interpreted in this context. So OP can only "part" with the vehicle to get it repaired.


I think you are probably right that the purpose of this clause is to prevent the car being "hidden" if they want to re-possess.


I don't think it's got anything to do with leaving it an airport car park or having it impounded.

Mza123

So a quick update guys:

I!!!8217;ve called the finance company and mentioned everything regarding consumer law and also threatened action from the ombudsman, I actually had a customer service member who listened to what I said and the situation.

unfortunately the one manager I!!!8217;d need to speak to who!!!8217;s the only person that can rectify this isn!!!8217;t in due to the adverse weather conditions.

Message has been passed on and I should expect a call within the next day.

The customer service member wouldn!!!8217;t be able to give me a final response letter which the ombudsman would need to take this further without waiting out the full 8 weeks.

Thanks everyone for your help, I!!!8217;ll post updates on the situation incase anyone has similar problems in future.

Manxman_in_exile

Mza123 wrote: »

So a quick update guys:

I!!!8217;ve called the finance company and mentioned everything regarding consumer law and also threatened action from the ombudsman, I actually had a customer service member who listened to what I said and the situation.

unfortunately the one manager I!!!8217;d need to speak to who!!!8217;s the only person that can rectify this isn!!!8217;t in due to the adverse weather conditions.

Message has been passed on and I should expect a call within the next day.

The customer service member wouldn!!!8217;t be able to give me a final response letter which the ombudsman would need to take this further without waiting out the full 8 weeks.

Thanks everyone for your help, I!!!8217;ll post updates on the situation incase anyone has similar problems in future.

OK - good luck.


FWIW (I'm no expert so don't rely on me!) the clause your finance company quoted to you is headed something like "Sale and disposal of goods", and I would argue that this clause should be interpreted within that context. (Why would you expect it to apply to other circumstances?) You've not attempted to sell or dispose of the car (it was Twoc'd), so why does this clause apply? I would be challenging them on that.


It's not directly relevant to your situation, but I think that it's arguable that by leaving your car in a car park (air-port or supermarket) you are still "using" it. An interesting academic question.


I was originally sceptical about you thread - but now I'm not so sure. If it happened to me I'd be P'd off. (But I would never have let the car keys out of my control!)


EDIT: Just to clarify - I'm not suggesting the clause is unfair or unreasonable insofar as it relates to "selling or disposing of the goods" - what I'm suggesting is that the finance co's attempt to apply it in the OP's circumstances is unfair and unreasonable. The OP has never attempted to sell or dispose of the goods (I'm assuming!).

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

My additional advice to the OP is keep track of any expenses they have.

If someone breaks a contract with you then you still have an obligation to minimise your losses, but in principle, if they have broken the contract then they should be liable for your necessary expenses.

The OP been careless with keeping their records up to date and communicating with those they have an obligation to keep up to date and got into difficulties because of it - how many people on here and Pepipoo are in a mess because they simply don't consider their responsibilities? However, that doesn't excuse the finance house in their unreasonable behaviour.

Mza123

IanMSpencer wrote: »

My additional advice to the OP is keep track of any expenses they have.

If someone breaks a contract with you then you still have an obligation to minimise your losses, but in principle, if they have broken the contract then they should be liable for your necessary expenses.

The OP been careless with keeping their records up to date and communicating with those they have an obligation to keep up to date and got into difficulties because of it - how many people on here and Pepipoo are in a mess because they simply don't consider their responsibilities? However, that doesn't excuse the finance house in their unreasonable behaviour.

All my records with the finance company are up to date, that isn’t the issue.

Manxman_in_exile

IanMSpencer wrote: »

My additional advice to the OP is keep track of any expenses they have.

If someone breaks a contract with you then you still have an obligation to minimise your losses, but in principle, if they have broken the contract then they should be liable for your necessary expenses.

The OP been careless with keeping their records up to date and communicating with those they have an obligation to keep up to date and got into difficulties because of it - how many people on here and Pepipoo are in a mess because they simply don't consider their responsibilities? However, that doesn't excuse the finance house in their unreasonable behaviour.

I think the OP may have been a bit careless over insurance records, but I think that's been a red herring (because the OP made it seem significant to their problem) and according to the OP that has now been sorted satisfactorily. Whether they've been careless with the finance company - we don't know. (EDIT: We do now)


I'd be challenging the finance company on what might be an unfair and unreasonable application of a clause entitled "Sale and Disposal of Goods". The OP hasn't attempted either of these actions.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Mza123 wrote: »

All my records with the finance company are up to date, that isn’t the issue.

I had it in mind that if your insurance was not disputed you would be blissfully unaware of your clause in your finance contract Anyway, best of luck with getting it sorted.