Missold car finance, lying and bullying by car dealership

eskbanker

sheramber said:

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.

Like others, I've struggled to understand exactly what the basis of the claim is, but, while it would generally be true that a dealer complaint needs to go to the motor ombudsman and a finance one to FOS, the finance company would be jointly liable under section 75 if there was a demonstrable breach of (the financed) contract by the dealer.  Obviously that requires the existence and terms of the relevant contract to be provided to the finance company though....

mybestattempt

These are just my thoughts.

I think, reading through this thread for the second time, that the OP wants the FOS to say the finance agreement is unfair because before he signed it the T&Cs weren't fully explained to him.

He is insistent on this because the dealer said buying the second hand car with that finance agreement was a "temporary" arrangement, but the word temporary doesn't actually appear in the finance agreement.

My view is that the dealer will tell the FOS that by "temporary" they meant that the OP could end the finance agreement before it ran the full term, in other words the OP would have the right to terminate the agreement early.

If that is the case, and the finance agreement sets out the terms and conditions about early termination rights I think the FOS would find the finance agreement was not missold.

Okell

eskbanker said:

sheramber said:

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.

... the finance company would be jointly liable under section 75 if there was a demonstrable breach of (the financed) contract by the dealer.  Obviously that requires the existence and terms of the relevant contract to be provided to the finance company though....

I re-read this thread yesterday and have been wondering if this is the issue.

I don't think there's any valid complaint around the finance agreement, but I wonder whether the dealer hasn't been entirely straightforward with the OP regarding the purchase of the "temporary" car, and has breached the contract in some way - possibly by misrepresentation - in which case the finance company would be jointly and severally liable with the dealer under s75 CCA.

I wonder if this what the OP's cousin and NWNF solicitors have advised the OP, but the OP has picked up the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly thinks the finance agreemant has been missold?

As you say - nobody here can tell because the OP's account of what has happened is essentially incomprehensible and they won't provide copies of relevant documentation and emails etc.

Okell

mybestattempt said:

These are just my thoughts.

I think, reading through this thread for the second time, that the OP wants the FOS to say the finance agreement is unfair because before he signed it the T&Cs weren't fully explained to him.

He is insistent on this because the dealer said buying the second hand car with that finance agreement was a "temporary" arrangement, but the word temporary doesn't actually appear in the finance agreement.

My view is that the dealer will tell the FOS that by "temporary" they meant that the OP could end the finance agreement before it ran the full term, in other words the OP would have the right to terminate the agreement early.

If that is the case, and the finance agreement sets out the terms and conditions about early termination rights I think the FOS would find the finance agreement was not missold.

I think the OP is confusing the finance agreement with the discussions and negotiations that went on with the dealer regarding the pre-order and the purchase of the temporary car.

I suspect the T&Cs of the finance agreement itself were fully explained to the OP, but - for whatever reason - the nature of the purchase of the temporary car was misunderstood by the OP, whether because the dealer misrepresented it or the OP simply failed to understand what he was committing to.

The OP is then seizing on " the finance contract was missold to me" to explain this misunderstanding on his part.

If the dealer is at fault the OP might have a s75 claim against the finance company.

If the dealer has not been at fault, the OP has no remedy from anybody...

Okell

The OP doesn't appear to have taken advantage of my suggestion on Friday to post on the appropriate boards at Legal Beagles and Consumer Action Group.

Given the OP's obvious dissatisfaction with what they've been told here I'm surprised they didn't want to cast their net further in the search for reliable advice.

Even if they'd only got more of the same as here at least it might have helped them better understand their position

Grumpy_chap

Okell said:

I re-read this thread yesterday and have been wondering if this is the issue.

I don't think there's any valid complaint around the finance agreement, but I wonder whether the dealer hasn't been entirely straightforward with the OP regarding the purchase of the "temporary" car, and has breached the contract in some way - possibly by misrepresentation - in which case the finance company would be jointly and severally liable with the dealer under s75 CCA.

I wonder if this what the OP's cousin and NWNF solicitors have advised the OP, but the OP has picked up the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly thinks the finance agreemant has been missold?

As you say - nobody here can tell because the OP's account of what has happened is essentially incomprehensible and they won't provide copies of relevant documentation and emails etc.

In terms of correspondence, the OP would need to be able to present the pertinent documents in a focused way.  It certainly seems as though failure to do that was an issue with the previous complaint to to Motor Ombudsman (though they are apparently permitting a second application).

With regard to the Finance Company being liable for the Dealer breaching the contract, would the FOS suggest any case has to wait until the Motor Ombudsman has concluded their second investigation?

If the Motor Ombudsman does complete the second investigation, this will either confirm the findings from the first (in which case, I can't see the FOS reaching a different conclusion), or will conclude the Dealer was at fault (in which case the Dealer will be expected to follow the remedy set out by the Motor Ombudsman). 

It is hard to see how this will lead to the FOS reaching a different outcome, but if the Motor Ombudsman finds in favour of the OP at second investigation and the Dealer fails to implement the remedy set out, then the Finance Company may be liable for that remedy.  This is not a sequence of events I consider likely.

Ehi said:

I did that for the Motor Ombudsman, who did not read any of it, as it was over 100 pages, their final reply just quoted all the lies and errors of the dealership. So I called to explain, so they are re-looking into a fresh complaint

Going forward with the FSO, I just attached a few and said I have tonnes of evidence waiting to be submitted

In all of this whole scenario, it seems rather odd if the OP has any case that the Dealer has not made some kind of goodwill gesture to close matters out with no further time expenditure.  "Go away" money, if you will...

born_again

Not sure how OP is going to prove "misssold" finance.

I can't see a dealer putting anything in writing that you are buying a 2nd hand car on PCP & you can then trade it in against your new car, when it arrives.
Verbally they could have said that. Proving that is a different matter. Given OP will have signed the PCP agreement on 2nd hand car.

DE_612183

born_again said:

Not sure how OP is going to prove "misssold" finance.

I can't see a dealer putting anything in writing that you are buying a 2nd hand car on PCP & you can then trade it in against your new car, when it arrives.
Verbally they could have said that. Proving that is a different matter. Given OP will have signed the PCP agreement on 2nd hand car.

He says he has email from the Sales Manager - these could either back up his version, or at the very least confirm that the wording used by the dealer has not been clear enough.

The only quotes he has given from the dealer seem to be the sort of wording used in advertisements, and the he's also relying on the fact he has got "compliment cards" from the manager - I presume what he means by this is "business cards" which really don't prove anything at all.

I have to admit that I did stop contributing to this thread a few days ago - but I'm still intrigued!