Missold car finance, lying and bullying by car dealership

Ehi

The dealership (in their response)  claims I was sent a quotation. Yes I have in my email for brand new car. But where on earth is this quotation for a 2nd hand car ??? As there is none and had not seen the car when the finance was applied. I made it clear. I was told to use a test car to see if I would be accepted for finance (So the cheapeat car which i had not seen was used) then i was emailed . No quotation or explanation or anything was ever sent. None

My cousin and his colleague said that both the FCA and government have set out step by step guidelines,  before a finance agreement can be set in place and all dealerships are aware of this 

The company in question, represents one of the biggest car manufacturers globally.

If there is a dispute. It would be asked, if these guidelines where followed. There are some steps that MUST be discussed with me, before I sign any agreement and T&C read to me. So why was I told repeatedly its temporary??? And now it's been denied ???

I have looked at these on the FCA website and nothing was followed. So my cousin said visit MSE as there should be people on there who would have similar experiences and that's just what @Olinda said

OK, I am silly as u claim. But where is the brand new car ? As I am told there is none. So what about the temporary agreement? And I am told it's all lies as I took a permanent agreement 

HampshireH

Having read all 12 pages I'm genuinely bemused by the "complaint". I've never expected to buy something of high value I dont have a fully signed order form for.

You've had your "temporary" car long enough now. You did choose to have it because you accepted the keys. So to be saying thing like you never chose it seems irrelevant and not helpful to any case. If you didn't want it you are adult enough to have declined it whatever the circumstances.

Any "temporary" agreement would be written into your paperwork as such.

Rather than pursue this so long after the event, why haven't you just placed the order for your new car so you can do exactly what you intended in the first place? This would have saved a lot of time and hassle on your part and you would have the car - potentially having negotiated a discount for said hassle/misunderstanding.

boobyd

Why don't you post up your new car order,your 2nd hand car invoice and relevant email with any personnel info redacted so posters can see where the "errors/mistakes etc have happened,to help them more accurately comment?

Aylesbury_Duck

Ehi said:

Aylesbury_Duck 

Come on, that's just silly.  You're a grown adult, no one forced this car on you.  While it's arguable that you may have been persuaded that buying it was a route to the car you really wanted, it's daft to suggest you were somehow compelled to order it.  You could have walked away at any stage in the process, which would have been lengthy given the finance deal involved.

No ombudsman is going to take you seriously if you make statements like that.

I have repeatedly explained that (Prior to purchase) we exchanged emails which clearly says. It's a temporary agreement and the dealership reiterated, pls remember what we discussed. And despite rejecting it initally. They insisted, it's only temporary on their official email and I should remember the promise of a new car with extended warranty 

I don't think that's difficult to understand 

Even if my communication is poor. Both @Olinda99 and a few others have rightly Summarised my post

Lastly the reference I quoted on the FCA website. Clearly states the summary both the FCA and @Olinda99 rightly again, pointed out. That the T&C must be properly explained to the Where the T&C explained ? And the email exchanged would contradict this

As the dealership now claims they do not know anything about a promised future car (never did I talk about it or speak to the MD) 

When I was speaking strictly with the MD and have 2 complimentary cards 

Yes I could walk away, but they promised me multiple things. Cheaper finance from zuto at 19% to 6%. A new car and extended warranty. Which makes plenty of sense. 

Think before u call something silly and kindly go read the links I sent on the FCA website 

No, I said that claiming you were somehow forced into buying the hatchback is silly.  And it is.  It adds nothing to your claim and no one is going to believe you.  You need to focus on compiling evidence that the finance for it was mis-sold on the promise it would somehow pre-order the SUV and that persuaded you to buy the hatchback.  

I suggest you ask Olinda99, your cousin and his colleague to help you compile your claim.  They're the only ones telling you what you want to hear, you're ignoring, dismissing or arguing with anyone else that challenges your thinking.

And no, I'm not going to read a load of links you've posted.  I'm not the one needing help here.

born_again

Ehi said:

Which brand of car are we looking  at?

Did Zuto provided the finance for the 2nd hand car, which I do not understand how you went from a new car purchase, despite it being a back order, which is not a normal process.

born_again said:

So just who is this company & which car?

I am asked the same question over and over and I repeat, over again.

I have said, no point

Previously I asked who was the dealer, which I understand the reason for not saying.

But manufacture & which car are different & in no way tie you to the complaint.
I'm just trying to understand which car you were looking @ & when it would have been released.

But if you do not want to answer fair enough 👍

Grumpy_chap

Ehi said:

I never ordered a small hatch. I have a daughter in another city, whom I visit regularly and in summer I take my bike amongst others, a small hatch is a joke. I never asked for or wanted it and in particular, dont really like it.

But with my old car, The car was off the road for 7 months
I resorted to both trains, taxis and car hire and I said never ever again, I would opt for a brand new car. But was misled

Your statements that you "never ordered a small hatch" and "I never asked for it or wanted it" really don't seem credible.

The process of buying a car - particularly from a main franchised Dealer of a "top 4" global automotive manufacturer - is that there is a lot of paperwork setting out exactly what you are buying.  You will need to have signed that paperwork in several places.  I can understand how some parts of that detail within the paperwork will be in the small print, but the make and model of the car will be a prominent heading so not something you would overlook or make a mistake on.

Even if you did not know what the make and model referred to, I suppose you could theoretically get as far as the collection stage of the order before realising that the car was a small hatch and not an SUV.  Although I still don't think this is particularly credible as, if signing the order paperwork, and not recognising the make / model stated, I am sure you would have asked at that time for clarity / to see the second hand car on the forecourt.

At the worst case scenario, you would turn up at the garage to collect the car, see they are handing over a small hatch and, at that point, simply fail to complete the order.  Yet, you did complete the order and drove away in the small hatch.  It was a small hatch when you collected it and it is still a small hatch - the car did not shrink in the rain

You have mentioned something along the lines of "never ordered a small hatch" several times in the thread.  It is clear that the Dealer will have firm evidence that you did order a small hatch.  Pursuing comments in this theme as part of your submission to the Ombudsman would seem to be likely to undermine your position, so far as I understand the situation and the process.



Your statement that you "don't really like it"  [the small hatch] is fine, but that is more a comment showing buyers' remorse than evidencing anything incorrect in the purchase process.

Ehi said:

But where is the brand new car ? As I am told there is none. So what about the temporary agreement? And I am told it's all lies as I took a permanent agreement 

We did discuss the issue around the "temporary" agreement a little upthread and you seemed to accept the status in this regard that there is no such thing - legally - as a "temporary" agreement.
I still understand the sequence of events to be along the following lines:

1. You were without a car and not willing to "make do" without a car so enquired about an SUV that you saw advertised.
2. That SUV was on a long (>12 month) lead time.  There was an option to place a pre-order which required the payment of a pre-order fee (£1k).  There was some misunderstanding here as you believe the pre-order was placed, but the Dealer did not process the pre-order.  You have not confirmed that the pre-order fee was paid (but see also No. 4 below).
3. You were not happy to wait the further year without a car.  There were some discussions and the Dealer offered a small hatchback which you initially declined but subsequently ordered at £17k on PCP finance.
4. You understand that the order for the small hatchback at £17k included the pre-order fee.  This is not typical.  If the order for the £17k hatchback included the pre-order fee, there will be a clear line entry showing the pre-order fee as an item in the order at the value of £1k (even if that was discounted out further down the page).
5. There was an omission in the processing of the service plan in the order for the small hatchback, but the Dealer then contacted you and you paid an additional amount for a few (6?) months to cover the service plan.
6. There was a further issue with the service plan that it was not honoured when you needed a service on the small hatchback.
7. The purchase and finance of the small hatchback is a permanent legal agreement in so far as, if nothing changes, the finance will eventually conclude and you will own the small hatchback outright.
8. It would be highly unusual for the actual legal agreement for the order and finance associated with the small hatchback to actually be linked to the future purchase and finance of the £50k SUV.  At the very basic, no finance company could make a decision on lending in over a year's time.  The trade in value of the small hatchback could not be pre-determined (save for the MGFV lowest value in the PCP).
9. The purchase and finance of the small hatchback is a "temporary" measure in so far as, your intention at the time of purchase was to sell the car, settle the finance and buy the brand new £50k SUV once it became available after a year.  Any car purchased on finance can be sold and the finance settled at any time.
10. The year has now passed and the SUV you were expecting to be available is not available because the pre-order was not processed.
11. You now feel that you are "stuck" with the small hatchback which is not well suited to your needs.  I do not agree that is the case, as you can sell that small hatchback, settle the finance and buy any other SUV that is better suited to your needs.

In all of the above, you have to see that there are several decision steps where the process could have stopped or diverted in a different direction.  There has to be some personal responsibility for the choices and decisions made.  Based on your account, the Dealer has also made some errors.  In the ideal world, errors, misunderstandings, miscommunications would never happen.  In the real world they do.

Probably the most significant decision was the choice to buy the "temporary" small hatchback from the same Dealer as offering the future SUV, rather than buying any "temporary" car from any Dealer in the land.  There would have been a second hand large SUV available somewhere from stock at £17k and that may well have suited your needs better.

I am not convinced that you have any claim against anyone in relation to this whole saga.
You are now pursuing a mis-selling claim against the finance provider for the £17k small hatchback.  If there is a claim, I am not sure this is the correct organisation to claim against.

I think you may very well have a claim against the Dealer with regard to the service plan.  This seems to have been a bit of a by-line in this whole saga.

I think you may have a claim with regard to the pre-order not be properly processed, if indeed the pre-order actually reached the stage of contractual pre-order.  This hinges on whether or not the pre-order fee was paid:

• Did you pay the £1k pre-order fee?
• Did the order for the £17k second hand hacthback include a specific line item showing the pre-order fee?

If the answer to both of the above is "no" then it does not seem as though the pre-order was ever actually confirmed and the Dealer was correct not to process the pre-order.



As you are pursuing your claim, you need to try to be concise is how you present matters.  Comments that lack credibility (such as never ordered a small hatchback) or comments that impose meaning on conversational phraseology (such as temporary) that are beyond any legal basis do not support your claim and risk undermining anything that may be valid.


From a practical perspective, what are you actually doing about the small hatchback, which clearly is not suitable for your current needs, and obtaining a more suitable large SUV?  
I assume from the thread as a whole that you still have the small hatchback and maintaining the finance payments on this car.
Do you still want the original SUV from the original manufacturer?  (If this were me, and the poisoned relationship with the Dealer, I'd be thinking to cease dealing with them and buy anything else from anywhere else.)
You are expending a great deal of energy pursuing this claim / compliant via the Ombudsman.
The whole process is making you unhappy and stressed.
Would you be better expending some of your energy in resolving the practical issue and having a car that is better suited to your current needs than the current small hatchback?  
You have indicated that you are in the fortunate position that you can afford a brand new £50k SUV.
I am quite certain that if you focused your efforts on this you could, by the end of today, source a brand new quality large SUV (but possibly not the original make and model) that is available from stock, agree a trade in value and settlement of the finance on the small hatchback, and be ready to take delivery of the brand new SUV with the new registration plate at the start of next month.
This might result in a more happy you.

Aylesbury_Duck

^^ Excellent post which summarises the situation perfectly.

Ehi, if you do nothing other than read this, reflect on it, ignore the baiting of your "friends" and what looks like misplaced encouragement from your cousin (who, despite being legally-trained, has declined to properly help you, which is telling), you'll be in a better position to properly address the mistakes of the dealership and sort yourself a vehicle you actually want.

sheramber

On lage 7 you said it was 'time to call it a day'.

5 pages later things have not changed.

No matter how many times you repeat yourself  responses haven't changed.

Your complaint is against the dealer - not the finance company.

Thry may have lied, you may have been duped by a sweet talking salesman who wanted a sale.

Noe of that is relevant to the Finacial Ombudsman.

If you are convinced your cousin and your friends are correct and eveybody here is wrong then go back to them for advice. 

Or go back to the no win, no fee solicitor.  

Or carry on regardless and come back and tell us how you won your case.

Jumblebumble

boobyd said:

Why don't you post up your new car order,your 2nd hand car invoice and relevant email with any personnel info redacted so posters can see where the "errors/mistakes etc have happened,to help them more accurately comment?

That's never going to happen in my view
As I say to my SO often please forward me the email rather than describing it to me.

MeteredOut

All this over what seems to be a misunderstanding/miscommunication when buying a car, and the resultant lack of checking what was being signed for by the OP.

Valid complaint to FOS: no chance
Valid complaint to dealer: possibly, but hard to say without the apparent evidence that the OP is unwilling to share