Diesel Scrappage Scheme

DrEskimo

Okell said:

I think a few posters on here could do worse than read through the whole of the thread on legal beagles.

I don't think the distinction between a discount and a deposit or "contribution" is as straightforward as many posters here think it is.  They need to look at how "deposit" is defined in the relevant legislation which is what the OP is arguing.

I'm not saying the OP is right, but I'm not sure others on here fully understand his argument...

I tended to agree and when first reading through this thread and the LB thread, could see why this would be a grey area and understand the argument put forward.

However, overall I came to the conclusion that the Judge was, on balance, correct. The diesel you traded-in, was never part-exchanged in the true sense of a part-exchange. The diesel scrappage scheme was simply a marketing gimmick, where an additional discount on specific models (the crux here is that different models got different levels of discount) conditional on them taking a diesel car from you and then scrapping it on your behalf. The car was not treated as having any material value to act as an upfront payment/deposit/contribution IHMO.

The harsh reality is, large discounts on a model like an A6 for £7,000 were absolutely achievable without the scrappage scheme. Case in point, I negotiated nearly £9k off a Audi S5 back in 2016 and had no part-exchange. That's why the point about the 'cannot be used in conjunction with other discounts' was stipulated, as they didn't want people negotiating large discounts and then at the end 'oh I also have a banger diesel, can I get another £7k off please!'.

So I'm afraid I would echo the sentiment that I don't think this is worth pursuing further. Sounds like you had a rough few years though mate, so wishing you all the best.

UnkownUser2024

DrEskimo said:

Okell said:

I think a few posters on here could do worse than read through the whole of the thread on legal beagles.

I don't think the distinction between a discount and a deposit or "contribution" is as straightforward as many posters here think it is.  They need to look at how "deposit" is defined in the relevant legislation which is what the OP is arguing.

I'm not saying the OP is right, but I'm not sure others on here fully understand his argument...

I tended to agree and when first reading through this thread and the LB thread, could see why this would be a grey area and understand the argument put forward.

However, overall I came to the conclusion that the Judge was, on balance, correct. The diesel you traded-in, was never part-exchanged in the true sense of a part-exchange. The diesel scrappage scheme was simply a marketing gimmick, where an additional discount on specific models (the crux here is that different models got different levels of discount) conditional on them taking a diesel car from you and then scrapping it on your behalf. The car was not treated as having any material value to act as an upfront payment/deposit/contribution IHMO.

The harsh reality is, large discounts on a model like an A6 for £7,000 were absolutely achievable without the scrappage scheme. Case in point, I negotiated nearly £9k off a Audi S5 back in 2016 and had no part-exchange. That's why the point about the 'cannot be used in conjunction with other discounts' was stipulated, as they didn't want people negotiating large discounts and then at the end 'oh I also have a banger diesel, can I get another £7k off please!'.

So I'm afraid I would echo the sentiment that I don't think this is worth pursuing further. Sounds like you had a rough few years though mate, so wishing you all the best.

Thank you for your constructive feedback and your kind words. It has indeed been a rough few years 

You do kind of echo what the Judge said about the car having no material value, and in a sense you are correct. But for the judge to have accepted that the car was traded in against the agreement in some form, does kind if constitute the agreement being improperly executed in a way. It is a tough one. 

The only counter I have to your argument about negotiation two discounts, is that I did exactly that. I had a dealer discount on top of the manufacturer discount. Which in my eyes says they have to accept the car as a part exchange, because then why did I have to trade it in at all when I could have just technically negotiated a bigger dealer discount. 

I will as I've said previously, consult a vehicle finance lawyer or barrister and see if they think an appeal would be a chance at over turning the decision or not. I've seen case law where similar debates have been overturned but there is also the risk that another judge will agree with the decision that the car was not a deposit. 

Going to take a break for the weekend and enjoy the sunshine. 

Enjoy your weekend

UnkownUser2024

Okell said:

I think a few posters on here could do worse than read through the whole of the thread on legal beagles.

I don't think the distinction between a discount and a deposit or "contribution" is as straightforward as many posters here think it is.  They need to look at how "deposit" is defined in the relevant legislation which is what the OP is arguing.

I'm not saying the OP is right, but I'm not sure others on here fully understand his argument...

Thank you. 

I'm not saying I'm right either, I was happy to have had the CCJ set aside and leave it at that but this lawyer on LB pushed me to counter claim as he strongly believed I had a good case, and still does for that matter. 

I've already posted the quote from S189 of the CCA and if people choose to read that their own way then so be it. Legislation is there in black and white and I am more just frustrated that the Judge read it back to me word for word but then dismissed it completely and that's the part I can't get my head around. He has in essence either misinterpreted the CCA or made his own view of it, both of which are unacceptable. 

Appreciate you trying to show others exactly where my argument lies, but I think I'm posting on the wrong forum for others to understand 

born_again

In many ways this is not the right forum for this question as no one is going to give legal advice. if the person on LB is prepared to come & back you up, take that route.
if not then take proper legal advice, rather than from random people on the internet.

Don't rely – verify!

Our Forum offers a wealth of MoneySaving wisdom, tips, hints and information both new and historical. However, some of the information changes quickly, is opinion or may be incorrect. We don't verify or take responsibility for what is posted by the community. No two people have the same circumstances or experience and it is up to you to investigate, check and check again before you make any decisions or take any action based on information you glean from our community. Remember, don't rely on what you are reading. Verify it and protect yourself. You are responsible for any action you consequently make.