Contacted regarding missold PCP

k3lvc

What you suffered as losses would be how that PCP finance rate compared to what you could have obtained generally.

Interest rate at 9% seems high on a brand new car PCP - what was the headline advertised rate on the Audi website when you purchased the car?  I note, though, the Audi website does seem to have "higher end" PCP finance rates when I looked today.

Many rates in via VWFS were in the 9% range but more often than not came with some deposit contribution/2yrs free servicing/warranty etc making the comparison hard

When I bought my last Audi it was 'cheaper' at 9.9% than my company loan at 2.8% when I took all other benefits into consideration

Purpleee

I’ve had a call back from ‘the agency’ who’ve advised that their solicitors feel I have grounds for a claim - apparently off the basis that they “bumped up” my APR with “undisclosed commissions” I said well how do they know the APR was inflated by commissions and not something else, and they replied that financing companies have to disclose their commissions in the agreement

They’ve sent documents through for me to sign - they said that after signing, the solicitors will furth scrutinise the agreement and come back to me within 7 days, and there is a 14 day cooling off period. They’ve also said that it’s fully no win no fee under “ATE protection” (whatever that is), and I’d only be liable for costs under 2 circumstance: 1, if I submitted fraudulent documents and 2, if I ran off with a settlement

To be honest, I am quite skeptical of the agent that I’ve been in contact with because it sounds like a lot of spiel that they would reel off to unsuspecting people, it wasn’t an intelligent conversation and felt very half-baked

This was the same person that told me that “92% of PCPs have been missold” and I asked where they got that figure from, and the response was “in the document I sent you”, I said it’s not there, and they referred to section 3, and I said well you fail to acknowledge that right underneath in section 3.3 that it warns to take the above figures into context - so yeah, it’s quite annoying to be given half-truths

Anyway, I thought I would keep people abreast with developments

Jenni_D

ATE = After The Event, an insurance policy that is supposed to cover their costs in the event that the claim fails. What you need to be very careful of is whether it includes the other side's costs if the claim fails - the losing party is generally always liable for the winning party's costs in court claims, and this won't be a claim in the small claims track where costs are limited.

Grumpy_chap

Another important consideration in ATE is that there is a clause along the lines to make the claimant (i.e. the OP) liable for costs if the claimant fails to co-operate, fails to provide information or decides the whole thing is hopeless or not worth the effort and gives up.  This can mean that the solicitor, if they realise it is hopeless, won't say so but carries on asking for the OP to supply stuff that is irrelevant until the OP fails and then the solicitor says the case fails because of the OP, so OP pays and not the insurer.  Remember, the ATE was chosen by the solicitor to protect the solicitor not the OP.

I am sure there are others that can give the details about how ATE really works.

Purpleee

Jenni_D said:

ATE = After The Event, an insurance policy that is supposed to cover their costs in the event that the claim fails. What you need to be very careful of is whether it includes the other side's costs if the claim fails - the losing party is generally always liable for the winning party's costs in court claims, and this won't be a claim in the small claims track where costs are limited.

Grumpy_chap said:

Another important consideration in ATE is that there is a clause along the lines to make the claimant (i.e. the OP) liable for costs if the claimant fails to co-operate, fails to provide information or decides the whole thing is hopeless or not worth the effort and gives up.  This can mean that the solicitor, if they realise it is hopeless, won't say so but carries on asking for the OP to supply stuff that is irrelevant until the OP fails and then the solicitor says the case fails because of the OP, so OP pays and not the insurer.  Remember, the ATE was chosen by the solicitor to protect the solicitor not the OP.

I am sure there are others that can give the details about how ATE really works.

Thanks for this, have since read reviews on the agency's chosen solicitor and they were dreadful, so I've advised the agency that we will not be proceeding with them

motorguy

BOWFER said:

I thought the crux of the matter was that people were mis-sold payment protection insurance on their PCP?
Not that they felt the PCP was a problem in itself.
Why would it be?

That was the PPI scandal.

This is something different.  Basically the ambulance chasers are trying to drum up business with people who were supposedly mis-sold PCP deals.  

Clearly claims for food poisoning after all inclusive package holidays didnt pan out for them.

ontheroad1970

The way they figure it, is that if they get enough people signed up to it, they can use the pressure and adverse publicity for the companies to settle out of court.  In the majority of cases, the plaintiff lawyers don't want it to be heard in court.  They want to have a weight of people involved to try and make the legality or otherwise irrelevant.  They are leeches.

user1977

Coming soon: "Were you wrongly told you had a claim for mis-selling? Sign up with us and we'll sue your previous solicitors..."

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:
 Remember, the ATE was chosen by the solicitor to protect the solicitor not the OP.

ATE is purchased by the solicitor but given it covers the third party costs in the event of an unsuccessful claim they are not the main beneficiaries of the policy. It can include covering the solicitors own disbursements and therefore this in theory gives the claimant more protection but also gives the solicitor the ability to argue its truly no win no cost (excl abandonment) rather than just no win, no fee but potentially substantial disbursements. 

Grumpy_chap

Sandtree said:

Grumpy_chap said:
 Remember, the ATE was chosen by the solicitor to protect the solicitor not the OP.

ATE is purchased by the solicitor but given it covers the third party costs in the event of an unsuccessful claim they are not the main beneficiaries of the policy. It can include covering the solicitors own disbursements and therefore this in theory gives the claimant more protection but also gives the solicitor the ability to argue its truly no win no cost (excl abandonment) rather than just no win, no fee but potentially substantial disbursements. 

Thank you for your clarification and correction.