BPF (Barclays Partner Finance), Voluntary Termination, Ombudsman

b3njamin

Back in January we exercised our right to VT, however Barclays wanted me to pay £150 for collection. I consistently never agreed to this and explained that my liability was limited to the 50% figure etc. I never signed the forms they sent out and the car was collected, again without signature.

Barclays then proceeded to mark my credit file as being in default by £150 so I quickly paid and made a complaint. They told me that I was informed of the charge and I agreed when I signed their VT documents (which I didn't). I then took the complaint to the FOS.

I have finally heard back from the FOS and they have said they will take no action; as the charge for collection was in the original credit agreement it must stand, was their line. I disagreed, because the charge in the agreement is for me returning the car, not terminating the agreement under VT rights. I stated to FOS that my liability is 50% of credit amount, and that was already paid when I chose to VT. It's not a condition of the agreement for me to cover Barclay's business costs. The advisor I was speaking to didn't seem to understand the nuance of that argument so I asked for everything in writing.

Now received, I apparently only have two days to choose to escalate this further, so my question is; is the collection charge a valid additional charge to levy on someone voluntarily terminating a PCP credit agreement? And if so, how are some customers getting away without paying the charge?

MEM62

The 50% balance figure is based on the cost of the finance. (Car purchase price, interest and other finance costs included in the finance agreement) The charge for collecting the car falls outside the finance agreement as it is not something that you took credit for.

I cannot see you winning this.

BoGoF

Some are getting away for it because the finance company choose not to pursue, your finance company chose to. It is a grey area with cases going either way with Ombudsman. I don't believe there has been a legal precedent set yet in a Court - do you want to be the first to try?

foxy-stoat

So you agreed to the £150 charge if YOU returned the car at the end of the agreement but you do not accept them charging you £150 for collection.....I hope you get the same result as you did when you got a parking ticket because you overstayed.

Mercdriver

Your liability is aways 100% of the amount of the agreement. That does not change due to the right to VT. As I have stated before, the overuse of the VT clause is going to go bang at some point and those that genuinely need it are going to be the ones to suffer most. The VT clause was intended to be for exceptional cases, and that is why people used to get away with pro rata excess mileage and collection charges.

You signed the original contract that stated the collection charge. Now you want to pick and choose which bits you want to be responsible for. Contracts don't work that way. Just because others have got away with it doesn't mean your contract is unenforceable.

b3njamin

foxy-stoat wrote: »

So you agreed to the £150 charge if YOU returned the car at the end of the agreement but you do not accept them charging you £150 for collection.....I hope you get the same result as you did when you got a parking ticket because you overstayed.

I did not agree to a £150 charge for collection; the credit agreement states that I am liable for Barclays' costs if I return the car at the end of the term, the costs are unstated and open-ended. This is not the VT clause, as the VT clause has very specific wording and mentions no additional costs.

Thanks for your sarcastic response anyway. Regarding the other thread, do you know why I overstayed? Perhaps if you did you'd refrain from sniping.

b3njamin

MEM62 wrote: »

The 50% balance figure is based on the cost of the finance. (Car purchase price, interest and other finance costs included in the finance agreement) The charge for collecting the car falls outside the finance agreement as it is not something that you took credit for.

I cannot see you winning this.

I tried to make this point to BPF and the FOS adviser - as the cost falls outside the finance, how can they report my failing to pay it to a credit reference agency as a default of the finance agreement?

Fair enough on your advice though, guess I'll just add it to the cost of changing cars early.

b3njamin

Mercdriver wrote: »

Your liability is aways 100% of the amount of the agreement. That does not change due to the right to VT. As I have stated before, the overuse of the VT clause is going to go bang at some point and those that genuinely need it are going to be the ones to suffer most. The VT clause was intended to be for exceptional cases, and that is why people used to get away with pro rata excess mileage and collection charges.

You signed the original contract that stated the collection charge. Now you want to pick and choose which bits you want to be responsible for. Contracts don't work that way. Just because others have got away with it doesn't mean your contract is unenforceable.

Wasn't aware VT was only for exceptional cases, is that written in the CCA or implied?

I don't want to "pick and choose", I'm simply being pedantic. If a contract is worth writing it's worth writing properly, otherwise why would anyone bother with a legal department? The contract does not state a collection charge for VTing, it states "costs" for returning the vehicle, and defines that action as one of a limited number of scenarios (failing to pay, choosing not to pay etc).

As others have said though, based on a coin-flip decision from FOS, I'll just leave this as is and sign shorter PCPs in future.