Martin Lewis: Car finance mis-selling update – complaint decisions delayed, redress "more likely"

DullGreyGuy

Hoenir said:

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Build them in China at a fraction of the labour cost of US and European plants. . 

How do you build loans in China? 

Nasqueron

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Helpful sites like this and the CMC leaches are all over it, like with the false diesel claims, ALL car companies will put up prices, just like all banks did after PPI and the overdraft fee changes

MSE is boasting of 3m complaints being lodged, even if the FCA says that there is no wrongdoing as it was legal at the time, that's a lot of admin costs, let alone if they are made to repay the difference for the increase in interest + 8% interest

prowla

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Helpful sites like this and the CMC leaches are all over it, like with the false diesel claims, ALL car companies will put up prices, just like all banks did after PPI and the overdraft fee changes

MSE is boasting of 3m complaints being lodged, even if the FCA says that there is no wrongdoing as it was legal at the time, that's a lot of admin costs, let alone if they are made to repay the difference for the increase in interest + 8% interest

If the companies engaged in dodgey practices then they should be brought to task and the people they ripped off should be compensated.

MattMattMattUK

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Helpful sites like this and the CMC leaches are all over it, like with the false diesel claims, ALL car companies will put up prices, just like all banks did after PPI and the overdraft fee changes

MSE is boasting of 3m complaints being lodged, even if the FCA says that there is no wrongdoing as it was legal at the time, that's a lot of admin costs, let alone if they are made to repay the difference for the increase in interest + 8% interest

If the companies engaged in dodgey practices then they should be brought to task and the people they ripped off should be compensated.

What do you define as dodgy? Lots of people benefitted from these schemes as retailers were able to lower interest rates to get a sale. Even those who did not benefit willingly signed up to a product that was of benefit to them and should have done their due diligence with regard to other options (eg taking a personal loan, third party car finance companies etc.). This is very different to PPI where people were sold a product that was not fit for purpose and in many cases would not pay out in the circumstances described when it was sold, or was in other case compulsory even though it was no use. I really cannot see how this is a "scandal" or "mis-selling", at most it would seem to be a case of customers failing to compare their finance options. 

Nasqueron

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Helpful sites like this and the CMC leaches are all over it, like with the false diesel claims, ALL car companies will put up prices, just like all banks did after PPI and the overdraft fee changes

MSE is boasting of 3m complaints being lodged, even if the FCA says that there is no wrongdoing as it was legal at the time, that's a lot of admin costs, let alone if they are made to repay the difference for the increase in interest + 8% interest

If the companies engaged in dodgey practices then they should be brought to task and the people they ripped off should be compensated.

If you drove down a road which had a 40mph limit, then the next day the council changed it to 30mph and the police sent you a speeding ticket, would you accept that?

DCA was not illegal and indeed, plenty of people had DCA but which was neutral (i.e. they didn't have any change in interest, so won't be due anything) or even positive (interest reduced to get a deal - should they be paying the car firm the extra money?)

On top of that, the same PPI CMC companies are all over taking huge chunks of compensation for doing a free practice

All of which will cost everyone money in higher car prices because of an attempt to retrospectively enforce a rule change

DullGreyGuy

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

MattMattMattUK said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products. 

Nasqueron said:

prowla said:

Nasqueron said:

Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future

Why would that be?

Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.

Well yes, but...

Their prices still have to be competitive.

Helpful sites like this and the CMC leaches are all over it, like with the false diesel claims, ALL car companies will put up prices, just like all banks did after PPI and the overdraft fee changes

MSE is boasting of 3m complaints being lodged, even if the FCA says that there is no wrongdoing as it was legal at the time, that's a lot of admin costs, let alone if they are made to repay the difference for the increase in interest + 8% interest

If the companies engaged in dodgey practices then they should be brought to task and the people they ripped off should be compensated.

What's dodgy about it? 

Last time you bought something in a shop do you know how much commission the sales person got? Do you know what markup the store had from its wholesaler? Do you know how much markup the wholesaler had from the distributor/manufacturer? Do you know the manufacturers unit cost? When they said the best they could do was a 5% discount do you know for certain thats really the best they could have done?


In the vast majority of transactions we are told it will cost X and we decide if we want to pay X, buy elsewhere for Y or decide we dont want it if its going to cost X or Y.  We dont start accusing the business for being dodgy because of the price they've decided to sell at. 


The FCA unfortunately has form, especially around pricing transparency. When they forced brokers etc to declare, on request, their renumeration separate from the insurers costs it was a total damp squib but cost large amounts of money to implement. Most people dont even know if they are buying from an insurer or intermediary let alone care what the broker gets as long as they're buying the cheapest insurance they can find. The number of customers that do ask is tiny, a significant proportion have to be told that its impossible to tell as there is a profit share arrangement so it depends on claims performance and can only be clarified in 3 years time. 


It will end up being like the new customer pricing fiasco, people who are sensible and shop around are made to pay a higher price to protect those that go to a single place and just pay whatever is asked of them. 

GT60

Hi,
Am i correct in presuming from what i have read that my complaint i submitted in June via the MSE template letter and received a "we are looking in to this" reply from  TLT LLP are instructed by NIIB Group Limited t/a Northridge Finance.in late June, i just wait until next year and don't need to worry about anything?

Thanks 

Nasqueron

GT60 said:

Hi,
Am i correct in presuming from what i have read that my complaint i submitted in June via the MSE template letter and received a "we are looking in to this" reply from  TLT LLP are instructed by NIIB Group Limited t/a Northridge Finance.in late June, i just wait until next year and don't need to worry about anything?

Thanks 

Next year at the earliest