Diesel Scrappage Scheme

Phoenix72

UnkownUser2024 said:

XRS200 said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

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!

There are a couple of comments that this wasn't a government scheme.  

What argument would you have in court for appeal?

I would spend money getting a barristers opinion before going to court where you could end up with the other parties costs

I still don't know who ran the scheme in all honesty. All I know is I was given 7k for my car to be scrapped and put towards a new car, whether that was the manufacturer or the government, it was certainly someone's incentive. 

For someone that claims to have done hours of preparation/research then that is some admission.

Five minutes of googling yesterday and I established that despite pressure from the Motor Sector the Govt had no intention of repeating the previous Govt backed scheme. The dealers then did  their own thing.

Herzlos

UnkownUser2024 said:

Herzlos said:

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

It wouldn't be the first time a car lender has written up an improperly executed agreement and it won't be the last.

If it is accepted that my car was a part exchange then it constitutes that they broke S90 of the CCA and I would be entitled to all sums paid into the agreement as they took my car without a court order

That didn't sound right, but yeah if they are found in breach of S90 of the CCA then the deal would be voided and you'd get your money back:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/91

But is the place for that a court defence of the CCJ? It sounds like it's something you should be complaining to VWFS directly and then the ombudsman, though that'll take months.

WellKnownSid

Herzlos said:

I'm assuming there would be another argument as to whether you'd be entitled £7k back for the trade in, because that wasn't the true trade in value.

Yes this just popped into my mind.  The OP wishes to recover the £7k that he never paid into the agreement in the first place, so I can understand why the judge might be persuaded to side with VWFS on that one.

On one hand the act is designed to protect the consumer, on the other hand if the law were interpreted that way, it would seem to massively disadvantage any retailer or manufacturer that ever offered a discount incentive on a product.

Imagine walking into Currys and handing over a 14" black and white TV in order to get a £500 trade-in discount on a TV reducing it from £999 to £499 - then you change your mind.  You hand the £499 TV back and they will suddenly owe you £999...  That would be madness...

UnkownUser2024

Phoenix72 said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

XRS200 said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

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!

There are a couple of comments that this wasn't a government scheme.  

What argument would you have in court for appeal?

I would spend money getting a barristers opinion before going to court where you could end up with the other parties costs

I still don't know who ran the scheme in all honesty. All I know is I was given 7k for my car to be scrapped and put towards a new car, whether that was the manufacturer or the government, it was certainly someone's incentive. 

For someone that claims to have done hours of preparation/research then that is some admission.

Five minutes of googling yesterday and I established that despite pressure from the Motor Sector the Govt had no intention of repeating the previous Govt backed scheme. The dealers then did  their own thing.

Mate please unsubscribe from this thread and find someone elses situation to go and criticise. You've offered nothing in the way of advice or support on my explanations, all you've done is find ways to go against my comments. I don't require any more of your opinions

UnkownUser2024

WellKnownSid said:

Herzlos said:

I'm assuming there would be another argument as to whether you'd be entitled £7k back for the trade in, because that wasn't the true trade in value.

Yes this just popped into my mind.  The OP wishes to recover the £7k that he never paid into the agreement in the first place, so I can understand why the judge might be persuaded to side with VWFS on that one.

On one hand the act is designed to protect the consumer, on the other hand if the law were interpreted that way, it would seem to massively disadvantage any retailer or manufacturer that ever offered a discount incentive on a product.

Imagine walking into Currys and handing over a 14" black and white TV in order to get a £500 trade-in discount on a TV reducing it from £999 to £499 - then you change your mind.  You hand the £499 TV back and they will suddenly owe you £999...  That would be madness...

That's an interesting theory actually and I hadn't considered an additional argument for the return of the 7k.

The argument regarding me benefitting from money that I didn't have in the first place is one that was put forward to the judge in court though and it was very persuasive I have to say 

But on the other hand if the dealer wants to pay 7k for a car which is probably worth 2k at best then of course I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer with these trade in deals that you will be losing your rights as a consumer in the event of breaching the contract, but then I suppose it starts touching on the realms of unaffordable lending.

Its definitely a minefield and one that hasn't had very much exposure, there can't be many people at all in the same position as me 

UnkownUser2024

Herzlos said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

Herzlos said:

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

It wouldn't be the first time a car lender has written up an improperly executed agreement and it won't be the last.

If it is accepted that my car was a part exchange then it constitutes that they broke S90 of the CCA and I would be entitled to all sums paid into the agreement as they took my car without a court order

That didn't sound right, but yeah if they are found in breach of S90 of the CCA then the deal would be voided and you'd get your money back:

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/91

But is the place for that a court defence of the CCJ? It sounds like it's something you should be complaining to VWFS directly and then the ombudsman, though that'll take months.

The ombudsman is an avenue I could explore I suppose but then it was brought up in Court, and having lost a case in court on the same matter I would expect they would be unwilling to help.

I did complain regarding unaffordable lending to VWFS and through a no win no fee solicitor about 3 years ago but these things take an incredibly long time to complete 

jimjames

UnkownUser2024 said:

Herzlos said:

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

It wouldn't be the first time a car lender has written up an improperly executed agreement and it won't be the last.

If it is accepted that my car was a part exchange then it constitutes that they broke S90 of the CCA and I would be entitled to all sums paid into the agreement as they took my car without a court order

Even the guy on Legal Beagles is saying there is no case if it's a discount which is what was applied.

They are claiming the part-exchange was a discount off the vehicle rather than a deposit, is that true? If so, that blows any defence you have on that out of the water

Unless you have written evidence to prove it was a deposit then I think this statement will apply.

UnkownUser2024

jimjames said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

Herzlos said:

What outcome are you hoping for here anyway? Are you hoping that VWFS will accept that they didn't follow the correct process in repossessing the car, and then what? They'll write off the debt? Pay you some compensation?

It wouldn't be the first time a car lender has written up an improperly executed agreement and it won't be the last.

If it is accepted that my car was a part exchange then it constitutes that they broke S90 of the CCA and I would be entitled to all sums paid into the agreement as they took my car without a court order

Even the guy on Legal Beagles is saying there is no case if it's a discount which is what was applied.

They are claiming the part-exchange was a discount off the vehicle rather than a deposit, is that true? If so, that blows any defence you have on that out of the water

This has already been raised above and as I explained, this was before he looked into the legislation which governs the HP agreement. He also follows it up to say it would be on them to prove so, which they provided no evidence to support 

WellKnownSid

UnkownUser2024 said:

But on the other hand if the dealer wants to pay 7k for a car which is probably worth 2k at best then of course I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer with these trade in deals that you will be losing your rights as a consumer in the event of breaching the contract, but then I suppose it starts touching on the realms of unaffordable lending.

The dealer did not pay you anything.  They discounted their product.  As I have said, you would unleash chaos if you interpreted this as anything other than a healthy discount, forcing every retailer in the land to rewrite their terms and potentially a tsunami of claims.  That becomes a very persuasive, and likely unassailable argument.

You also did not lose any rights as a consumer.  The point at which those rights kicked in might have been different to what you were expecting - but that happens all the time e.g. with VT rules on a PCP arrangement.  

UnkownUser2024

WellKnownSid said:

UnkownUser2024 said:

But on the other hand if the dealer wants to pay 7k for a car which is probably worth 2k at best then of course I'm going to take advantage of it. Maybe there should be some kind of disclaimer with these trade in deals that you will be losing your rights as a consumer in the event of breaching the contract, but then I suppose it starts touching on the realms of unaffordable lending.

The dealer did not pay you anything.  They discounted their product.  As I have said, you would unleash chaos if you interpreted this as anything other than a healthy discount, forcing every retailer in the land to rewrite their terms and potentially a tsunami of claims.  That becomes a very persuasive, and likely unassailable argument.

You also did not lose any rights as a consumer.  The point at which those rights kicked in might have been different to what you were expecting - but that happens all the time e.g. with VT rules on a PCP arrangement.  

I do take your points, it would cause chaos but then the lawyer on LB specialises in the VT process and he reckons it still should have been interpreted in said way, to the point where he suggested I enter non disclosure talks with the Claimant due to this potentially affecting others who may have had their car repossessed in similar circumstances and if it got out, would have to also compensate them too