PCP Turned into a Fixed Sum Loan - Ombudsman Volvo/Santander

Nearlyold

Jumblebumble said:

Nearlyold said:

You need to look at the next box down from the "Fixed Sum Loan" section on the Santander website to see the agreement you ended up with, it's called Fixed Sum Loan with "Guaranteed Final Payment*"
see - https://www.santanderconsumer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/SCUK-Product-Guide.pdf  shame you never spotted it as it would clear up some of the confusion.

You are right it's the fault of the dealer for not pointing out the type of agreement you were offered, other than adding a finance marker in error it's not clear what Santander have done wrong.

Your agreement may have the words "PCP Agreement" somewhere in the document (after all you have got a PCP product but rather than a PCP based on a Conditional Sale or HP its based on a Fixed Sum agreement) but that won't be in the section with the regulated definition, - that will say "This is a Fixed Sum Loan agreement" because from a regulatory perspective that is the official wording for the type of agreement you have.

PCPs are also often  HP based and again in the section with the regulated definition it will only say  - This is a "Hire Purchase" agreement.

If your agreement had been a Conditional Sale based PCP the same section would have only stated This is a "Conditional Sale"  Agreement. 

The PCP phrase never appears in the regulated definition section because there is no legal definition of what a PCP is - it's a marketing phrase.

Santander have claimed that the car belongs to the OP from the start but have then put a finance marker on a car that does not belong to them and the loan is unsecured
This is totally unacceptable 
Seems like Santander are just as confused as the OP.

It's just a mistake, a someone pressing the wrong button sort of thing, it happens the other way round as well when lenders fail to add a finance marker. Santander haven't "claimed" the car belongs to the OP it's a simple fact that it does. The Ombudsman might award £75 or thereabouts to the OP in relation to the marker issue for the inconvenience it might have caused them.

Picard91

Nearlyold said:

It's just a mistake, a someone pressing the wrong button sort of thing, it happens the other way round as well when lenders fail to add a finance marker. Santander haven't "claimed" the car belongs to the OP it's a simple fact that it does. The Ombudsman might award £75 or thereabouts to the OP in relation to the marker issue for the inconvenience it might have caused them.

I have to disagree, surely adding the finance marker on does claim it be owned by Santander, as mentioned it prevented me from selling the car and when I rang Santander to ask why there was a finance marker on it the CS rep said he didnt know. I asked for the information to be brought to the attention of the lady who looked into my complaint and wrote the final decision letter that I present to the ombudsman but never heard anything back.

As mentioned in my OP the ombudsman service have found that I was mis-sold the agreement and that I should have been allowed to VT the car when I originally enquired. Santader will have to take the car back and reimburse me since the date I asked to VT.

I realize Nearlyold that you maybe an expert but the average customer isn't. How many on average read and understand every part of the agreement. I would bet most try to understand it to the best of their ability and go on what the dealer says verbally. I am not saying we should sign things without understanding them but I do go back to my previous comment about this sort of stuff should be taught in schools.

You do seem to think my agreement is straight forward as well however the Ombudsman would disagree, I have copied in one of his paragraphs below which he sent to Santander.
'The agreement Mr *****  signed isn't particularly common, and I think

that's supported by the terms and condition document.

molerat

Was that an actual ombudsman decision though - give us a link to the case if it is as I can't see one - as if not Santander may not agree and it will go forward to a full case.

Nearlyold

First six decisions in the list on a quick search of  similar cases

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/57657/DRN1908901.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/218158/DRN9232007.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/181844/DRN7460732.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/268636/DRN4608535.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/234467/DRN4528741.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/19236/DRN0046871.pdf

Mercdriver

Nearlyold said:

First six decisions in the list on a quick search of  similar cases

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/57657/DRN1908901.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/218158/DRN9232007.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/181844/DRN7460732.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/268636/DRN4608535.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/234467/DRN4528741.pdf

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/19236/DRN0046871.pdf

It appears that the OP is Mr G in the final case.  It found against him on the mis-selling but ordered £75 payment for the incorrect marking of the vehicle as being Santander's

molerat

Mercdriver said:

It appears that the OP is Mr G in the final case.  It found against him on the mis-selling but ordered £75 payment for the incorrect marking of the vehicle as being Santander's

I doubt it as that case was 2017

Nearlyold

molerat said:

Mercdriver said:

It appears that the OP is Mr G in the final case.  It found against him on the mis-selling but ordered £75 payment for the incorrect marking of the vehicle as being Santander's

I doubt it as that case was 2017

Plus the OP says the case has been upheld in its entirety. I also have my doubts like you that its actually an Ombudsman's decision, I suspect it's come from an adjudicator, I say that in part because in the Ombudsman decisions I've found, there is no talk of the agreement being misleading or confusing, they all seem to confirm that it's clear that its a Fixed Sum Loan agreement with comments such as:-

Was the documentation confusing? Mrs H’s fixed loan agreement came along with an agreement which gave her a PCP option. Whilst this isn’t the most common format of finance agreements, Mrs H’s previous conditional sale agreements also came with PCP option agreements. So I don’t think it would be fair to say that the documentation would’ve been confusing. 

OR
Santander provided documentary evidence to us, including copies of Mr L’s pre-contract documentation and his signed agreement. These documents both clearly state that what he signed is a fixed sum loan. In addition, statements made by the dealer suggest that it did not discuss VT with Mr L, and that he did not raise this subject, before he acquired his car. My understanding is that Mr L thinks all PCPs include VT, which is not correct. PCP is a marketing term – and I agree with our adjudicator that his agreement can be correctly described is this way. In legal terms, though, his agreement is a fixed sum loan – which is a correct description as well. And so his agreement is a fixed sum loan PCP (which does not include VT). VT is a valuable provision included in some (not all) financial agreements.

Mercdriver

molerat said:

Mercdriver said:

It appears that the OP is Mr G in the final case.  It found against him on the mis-selling but ordered £75 payment for the incorrect marking of the vehicle as being Santander's

I doubt it as that case was 2017

Fair enough I missed the date.  

Picard91

molerat said:

Was that an actual ombudsman decision though - give us a link to the case if it is as I can't see one - as if not Santander may not agree and it will go forward to a full case.

Apologies, it was the adjudicators decision however he did mention he had to get another team  to look at the case and verify his decision before presenting it to Santander.

A few people here seem to have little hope for me but I still have my fingers crossed. At the end of the day Santanders mistake prevented me from selling the car at the point I wanted in order to put an end to this. The CS Rep I spoke to did not know the answer why and no one from management contacted me back, I believe the ombudsman service are aware of this as well so I still think I have a case.. I

My next update will be happy as larry or eating humble pie...

Picard91

An update, albeit a late one. 

I won  

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/301421/DRN-2310407.pdf