car fanance 247 wants me to pay for estimated repairs once car handed back!!

Thundaznutz

Hi all.
I hope someone can help.
I purchased a car through car finance 247 last year.
Due to family circumstances and my dislike for the car I decided to hand it back.
I needed to pay a lump sum so I would have paid half the repayable amount.
I took the car for an inspection where the guy doing this started to point out where panels had been painted in the past etc. (Every panel)
When I went to buy the car it was in a showroom with Bentley's etc and was a shiny black car when I dropped it to the inspection it was still the same shiney black car.
He estimated just over £1800 in repairs to get the paintwork redone.
Needless to say I felt sick. As I only had a balance of 3k.
I rang the finance company and said I will take the car back as I don't agree and it's how I got it minus a couple of stone chips.
They said I couldn't once the car was on site. The guy on site at the auction place said sign the form to agree it's what he the inspector had seen and then dispute this.
After not hearing anything for two weeks I called them and they said the cost were over 2k and I signed to say I'm liable.
I don't mind repaying this if they provide invoices for this work but should I have to pay for an estimate for them then to sell the car as is? I handed it back to avoid paying out each month and now I may have to repay almost the full amount of the car and end up with no car.
I'm getting really upset stressed out over the whole thing

Any advice is appreciated.
Thank you

stator

Did you really sign a form saying you agreed with their report on the condition of the car?

Thundaznutz

I signed the digital pad the guy said to agree to what he could see wrong with the car and when he went through it all I couldn't disagree but he said I was signing to agree to the condition of the car.
But this is how I bought the car (apart from it needing a new tire) but I'm no bodywork expert. When I rang the finance they said have o got proof it was like it when I got it. If had know it had been repaired all over ok wouldn't have bought it!
But they can not prove it wasn't like that either

Thundaznutz

I signed the digital pad the guy said to agree to what he could see wrong with the car and when he went through it all I couldn't disagree, although I had to get on floor look down the panel and him point out the imperfections, but he said I was signing to agree to the condition of the car, and the estimated value of repairs.

But this is how I bought the car (apart from it needing a new tire stone chips and a one inch scratch on the front bumper) but I'm no bodywork expert. When I rang the finance they said have i got proof it was like it when I got it. If had know it had been repaired all over in the past i wouldn't have bought it!
But they can not prove it wasn't like that either

AdrianC

Thundaznutz wrote: »

But they can not prove it wasn't like that either

They don't need to.


You financed a used car with a product that includes fair wear and tear clauses over the return. You're now returning it with damage that breaches those clauses, without having any proof that the damage was NOT incurred in your care.

When you received the car, you would have signed to say that you were happy with the description of the condition.
When you handed it back over, you signed to say that you were happy with the description of the condition.

Now, you're arguing that one or both of those was wrong... and you seem to be saying "Well, I didn't look properly at what I was getting" is your excuse?

motorguy

Have you compared what they're saying is wrong to the BVRLA guidelines?