Diesel Scrappage Scheme

UnkownUser2024

Hi all, new member and this is my first post. Bit of a long one but I am looking for some quite specific advice or signposting to somewhere that may hold the correct information.
Long story short, I bought an Audi on finance years ago and traded my old car in under the diesel scrappage scheme, brilliant. This allowed me to reduce the value of my brand new car by £7,000

Fast forward a few years later and I fell into hardship. Unfortunately I could no longer afford the car and despite my best efforts at trying to negotiate some kind of support from VWFS (Audi financial Services), the car was subsequently marked stolen and I was pulled over at the side of the road using Tactical Pursuit and Contain. My car was then recovered back to the finance company.

I struggled for a while, bought an older car to get myself by and eventually got my finances back on track. Then in September of last year I became aware of a CCJ against me filed by VWFS, for the shortfall of the agreement minus the value of the car which was sold at auction.

This caused me to do some research into my agreement, legislation and also consult some legal advice. Using another forum and speaking to retired vehicle finance lawyers, it turned out I may have some grounds to apply to set aside the CCJ at a Court hearing, so I drafted some documents and a witness statement and I was successful in setting aside the CCJ, on the grounds that VWFS had no evidence that I had traded in my old car as a part exchange.

Now this is where things get complicated. My whole defence on winning the case against VWFS and disregarding liability for the shortfall rested on the fact that, with my old car as a part exchange, I had paid in more than a third of the agreement and VWFS could not repossess my car without a court order or they would be in breach of Section 90 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I would be entitled to all sums paid under the agreement.

I took this all the way, noting that the CCA 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 2010 state that a deposit is defined as any exchange of goods or by any other means a reduction in value of a purchase by means of a transfer. I recently had my day in Court but as a litigant in person, was cross examined by an all singing all dancing Barrister and of course he persuaded the Judge that I had no case, and that my car traded in under the scrappage incentive was not to be classed as a deposit, despite it literally being written in legislation, amongst other reasons why I found the HP agreement to not be properly executed.

I am now appealing this decision as I strongly believe the Judge has misinterpreted the law,

What I really need for this to be successful is someone who is knowledgeable in the field of Vehicle Finance to help me understand if I have a possibility of overturning this case, as I have no doubt at all that my car should be classed as a part exchange and a deposit and it is blatantly written in the legislation that the finance companies are bound by.

I would massively appreciate if someone can help me decipher this legislation and its application in the sense of my HP agreement, I simply do not understand how I can trade in my car and it not be classed as a part exchange, or a deposit.

Similarly, if someone is able to find the exact wording of the terms and conditions of how the Government managed the Diesel Scrappage Scheme in 2018 that would be an absolute life saver!

Thanks so much in advance, this is not a straight forward nor a well documented case but I believe I am onto something and I believe there will be other people in my position who have lost their cars without knowing this clause and could well be entitled to reclaim all sums under the agreement

Mildly_Miffed

This sounds like a RIGHT mess. To let a repossession get to the point where the police had to tactically stop a car flagged as stolen...

Then to try to simultaneously rely on what appear to be inherently contradictory definitions of what is and isn't a deposit...

Honestly, by the time you've got some proper paid-for legal advice, I suspect it's going to turn out to be cheapest to just try and negotiate down what you would seem to legitimately owe. But, with the back story in this, I'm not sure they're going to be in too favourable a mood...

You're probably best posting this in one of the debt forums here.

Phoenix72

You need proper paid for advice, not someones opinion on an internet forum. Otherwise you might get your fingers badly burnt appealing if costs become an issue.

FWIW, you are very light on detail what their argument was that won them the case.

UnkownUser2024

Thanks for your comment. Yes it was a complete mess, it has been a shambles the whole way through to the point where I have been questioning my own beliefs in the legislation!

Their defences and evidence have been unreliable at best, however due to them having the money to be able to use a top Barrister to represent themselves, I sadly had no chance other than praying that a sensible Judge would understand the Consumer Credit Act, but no soch luck unfortunately. 

I've sought legal advice but again it's a grey area where nobody seems to have the answers, other than this retired lawyer on a other forum who is pushing me to appeal because he really does believe in my case.

I have no issue paying for the advice and representation in Court if I know that I have a real chance at winning, honestly what I am really worried about and want to be sure of is that either someone will pull up a reason why the diesel scrappage scheme is not classed as a deposit or that the CCA1974 can't be relied on for my arguments, but I've seen no such evidence as of yet which makes me believe I still have a strong argument and a Judge who knows more about vehicle finance will understand this. 

I will post in the debt section but it is really the HP agreement side of things I really need advising on

UnkownUser2024

Also it's worth noting that settlement discussions took place between myself and the finance company, but ultimately they would not budge by a penny and ultimately were right to do so in a sense as they won everything plus legal costs. I'm now at the point where I feel like what difference does it make if I appeal and lose as a few more thousand in legal costs is neither here nor there at this point 

UnkownUser2024

Phoenix72 said:

You need proper paid for advice, not someones opinion on an internet forum. Otherwise you might get your fingers badly burnt appealing if costs become an issue.

FWIW, you are very light on detail what their argument was that won them the case.

Thanks for this. 

The argument which won them the case ultimately was that in the Judges opinion, the car was not classed as a deposit under the diesel scrappage scheme, rather part of a negotiation deal in which it could be used to create a discount against a new car. 

FYI the CCA1974 states that even as a discount against another product, it should still be classed as a deposit. 

This then triggered a series of other arguments to become valid which involved parts of the agreement being improperly executed due to the figures under the total amount payable and advance payment not including the deposit value, all of which rested on the outcome of the part exchange being classed as a deposit or not. 

This is why I strongly believe I should appeal, despite the Judge reading the definitions in the CCA back to me he still ruled in his own opinion. He has misinterpreted the law

Phoenix72

UnkownUser2024 said:

Phoenix72 said:

You need proper paid for advice, not someones opinion on an internet forum. Otherwise you might get your fingers badly burnt appealing if costs become an issue.

FWIW, you are very light on detail what their argument was that won them the case.

Thanks for this. 

The argument which won them the case ultimately was that in the Judges opinion, the car was not classed as a deposit under the diesel scrappage scheme, rather part of a negotiation deal in which it could be used to create a discount against a new car. 
 He has misinterpreted the law

In your opinon.

UnkownUser2024

Phoenix72 said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

Phoenix72 said:

You need proper paid for advice, not someones opinion on an internet forum. Otherwise you might get your fingers badly burnt appealing if costs become an issue.

FWIW, you are very light on detail what their argument was that won them the case.

Thanks for this. 

The argument which won them the case ultimately was that in the Judges opinion, the car was not classed as a deposit under the diesel scrappage scheme, rather part of a negotiation deal in which it could be used to create a discount against a new car. 
 He has misinterpreted the law

In your opinon.

I appreciate your view. However it is not my opinion that any vehicle exchanged against goods by any means is defined as a deposit, as laid out in the consumer credit act. It's literally there in black and white

Phoenix72

UnkownUser2024 said:

Phoenix72 said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

Phoenix72 said:

You need proper paid for advice, not someones opinion on an internet forum. Otherwise you might get your fingers badly burnt appealing if costs become an issue.

FWIW, you are very light on detail what their argument was that won them the case.

Thanks for this. 

The argument which won them the case ultimately was that in the Judges opinion, the car was not classed as a deposit under the diesel scrappage scheme, rather part of a negotiation deal in which it could be used to create a discount against a new car. 
 He has misinterpreted the law

In your opinon.

I appreciate your view. However it is not my opinion that any vehicle exchanged against goods by any means is defined as a deposit, as laid out in the consumer credit act. It's literally there in black and white

A barrister and a judge thought otherwise.

Hey, if you you have the money to pursue it then good luck to you but you read about people who think they have a cast iron case ending up bankrupt 'having their day in court'

UnkownUser2024

Thanks for your input

Mildly_Miffed

UnkownUser2024 said:

The argument which won them the case ultimately was that in the Judges opinion, the car was not classed as a deposit under the diesel scrappage scheme, rather part of a negotiation deal in which it could be used to create a discount against a new car. 

He was right, though.

There was no government scrappage scheme in 2018. All it was was manufacturers offering substantial discounts on new cars in return for a PX'd old one.

You say you want somebody to find the government's wording... it never existed.