Barclays Partner Finance (BPF)- from 07/2014- Do they still have the paperwork?

Barclays_Commission_1489

I purchased a vehicle using BPF in 2014, through a Fixed Sum Fixed Rate Agreement.

I was always questioning the interest rate at the time, as my credit score was very healthy ( I had a monitoring credit score of "excellent" with a credit bureau). BPF would have undergone their normal credit scoring methodology & come up with what they perceived was a "bottom" interest rate. Of course, there are "added on" factors, such as any other risks associated with my application.

When I received a call from the dealer to collect the car, I then received paperwork from BPF. I was quietly confident upon reading the paperwork, the interest rate charged was above where I felt it should have been, even though this was literally an "unsecured loan", I felt they had heightened the rate to a level which made me feel there must of been commission paid to the dealer. 

Now, I have contacted BPF using Martin`s template & have received their auto response.

My question at this stage is:-

Bear in mind, my agreement is from mid 2014, and they are legally allowed to retain documents for 6 years after the end of the agreement, this implies, that the paperwork I am now requesting they check, to see if commission was added, may not be available in their system.

Any comments on my question?

Isthisforreal99

Other than wait for the outcome of the SC ruling and if there is a case the FCA will issue guidance to cover such scenarios. You will see from yesterdays SC judgement that common sense prevailed and commission itself isnn't an issue it's the discretionary commission ones that may be ruled unlawful.

As an aside you do realise your 'excellent credit score' means absolutely nothing in the real world.

dunstonh

Bear in mind, my agreement is from mid 2014, and they are legally allowed to retain documents for 6 years after the end of the agreement, this implies, that the paperwork I am now requesting they check, to see if commission was added, may not be available in their system.

They are allowed to be paid commission.  The courts ruled on that yesterday.   The exceptions are where the commission was excessive or increased above the standard to pay the dealer more.    

MyRealNameToo

Barclays_Commission_1489 said:

I purchased a vehicle using BPF in 2014, through a Fixed Sum Fixed Rate Agreement.

I was always questioning the interest rate at the time, as my credit score was very healthy ( I had a monitoring credit score of "excellent" with a credit bureau). BPF would have undergone their normal credit scoring methodology & come up with what they perceived was a "bottom" interest rate. Of course, there are "added on" factors, such as any other risks associated with my application.

When I received a call from the dealer to collect the car, I then received paperwork from BPF. I was quietly confident upon reading the paperwork, the interest rate charged was above where I felt it should have been, even though this was literally an "unsecured loan", I felt they had heightened the rate to a level which made me feel there must of been commission paid to the dealer. 

Now, I have contacted BPF using Martin`s template & have received their auto response.

My question at this stage is:-

Bear in mind, my agreement is from mid 2014, and they are legally allowed to retain documents for 6 years after the end of the agreement, this implies, that the paperwork I am now requesting they check, to see if commission was added, may not be available in their system.

Any comments on my question?

If you thought the interest was high why didnt you shop around?

GDPR requires that they minimise the amount of PII they hold, it doesnt set any specific timescales. Many companies would have traditionally kept data as long as possible as it has commercial value. So these two elements play off each other and it comes down to the business's ability to justify why they need to keep the data. 

Given the law of limitations is 6 years for simple contracts then many will start with a position of 6-7 years retention post the end of the contract - the case must be litigated within 6 years but wrong address, lost post etc gives an excuse for keeping it a little longer than the 6 years hence some go for 6.5 or 7 years. 

So 2014, assume it was a 3 year deal takes you to 2017, plus 6-7 years is 2023-4. So if they are following GDPR requirements there is a reasonable prospect it's been deleted however not all firms are fully compliant or may feel they can argue a different rentention period. 

Barclays_Commission_1489

MyRealNameToo said:

Barclays_Commission_1489 said:

I purchased a vehicle using BPF in 2014, through a Fixed Sum Fixed Rate Agreement.

I was always questioning the interest rate at the time, as my credit score was very healthy ( I had a monitoring credit score of "excellent" with a credit bureau). BPF would have undergone their normal credit scoring methodology & come up with what they perceived was a "bottom" interest rate. Of course, there are "added on" factors, such as any other risks associated with my application.

When I received a call from the dealer to collect the car, I then received paperwork from BPF. I was quietly confident upon reading the paperwork, the interest rate charged was above where I felt it should have been, even though this was literally an "unsecured loan", I felt they had heightened the rate to a level which made me feel there must of been commission paid to the dealer. 

Now, I have contacted BPF using Martin`s template & have received their auto response.

My question at this stage is:-

Bear in mind, my agreement is from mid 2014, and they are legally allowed to retain documents for 6 years after the end of the agreement, this implies, that the paperwork I am now requesting they check, to see if commission was added, may not be available in their system.

Any comments on my question?

If you thought the interest was high why didnt you shop around?

GDPR requires that they minimise the amount of PII they hold, it doesnt set any specific timescales. Many companies would have traditionally kept data as long as possible as it has commercial value. So these two elements play off each other and it comes down to the business's ability to justify why they need to keep the data. 

Given the law of limitations is 6 years for simple contracts then many will start with a position of 6-7 years retention post the end of the contract - the case must be litigated within 6 years but wrong address, lost post etc gives an excuse for keeping it a little longer than the 6 years hence some go for 6.5 or 7 years. 

So 2014, assume it was a 3 year deal takes you to 2017, plus 6-7 years is 2023-4. So if they are following GDPR requirements there is a reasonable prospect it's been deleted however not all firms are fully compliant or may feel they can argue a different rentention period. 

At the time, I had issues surrounding a family bereavement & was not in any proper mental capacity to even start to think about shopping around.

In 2014, I entered into a 5 year agreement, ending in 2019.

I did read recently that The FCA quoted on their website, regarding a possible redress scheme for motorists, who had an agreement which included DCA. They stated, in this same press release, that this may well include any motor finance agreements going back as far as 2007. This date, has now caused a bone of contention with The Finance & Leasing Association, who said it is concerned "about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such dated information".

Comments?

dunstonh

 did read recently that The FCA quoted on their website, regarding a possible redress scheme for motorists, who had an agreement which included DCA. They stated, in this same press release, that this may well include any motor finance agreements going back as far as 2007. 

The 2007 date is because that is when the consumer credit act was changed.   So, that is the theoretical date you can go back to.

 This date, has now caused a bone of contention with The Finance & Leasing Association, who said it is concerned "about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such dated information".

The date isn't a bone of contention as that is a legal line in the sand that defines whether it is in scope of the new act or the old act.   It's whether data will be held that is the issue.   And in many cases it will not.

MyRealNameToo

dunstonh said:

 This date, has now caused a bone of contention with The Finance & Leasing Association, who said it is concerned "about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such dated information".

The date isn't a bone of contention as that is a legal line in the sand that defines whether it is in scope of the new act or the old act.   It's whether data will be held that is the issue.   And in many cases it will not.

Whilst the date is understandable it is something that the FLA have explicitly stated is a point of concern and question how you can have a fair redress scheme based on such an old date

https://fla.org.uk/news/fla-comments-on-fcas-announcement-about-a-motor-finance-redress-scheme/ 

There is certainly an argument on fairness if people with X get compensation because their provider has a 8 year retention policy but people financed with Y dont get compensation because their provider had a 6 year retention policy. 

Won't get into the semantics of if its a "bone of contention" but it is certainly an area of disagreement 

dunstonh

Whilst the date is understandable it is something that the FLA have explicitly stated is a point of concern and question how you can have a fair redress scheme based on such an old date

Its a comment that has been said on this board for the last couple of years.    

The FCA is expected to lay out its position in its report.   This is just the FLA stating the obvious and possibly lean on the FCA to move the date on.   However, I cannot see the FCA moving the date on because the consumer credit act trumps the FCA.

Barclays_Commission_1489

**Update*

I received a response from BPF today by email, titled "We`re logging your motor commission complaint".

They have stated on the email, that my agreement is one whereby commission was paid & as such they are logging a complaint on my behalf.

They went on to state the following :-

" We’ll log a complaint for you, which will be back dated to when you first contacted us. We will then be in touch to acknowledge the complaint and provide you with your complaint reference. This letter will also confirm the type of commission arrangement that relates to your agreement."

Now, at this early stage, what they have not stated, is what type of commission was paid. I am presuming more clarity surrounding this will become more clearer in the letter.

Bear in mind, after the Supreme Court rulings, BPF must now be very clear, that any agreement which did not have a DCA applied, will no longer have any credence. So for my case to be accepted by them & moved forward, gives me the impression that my agreement did have DCA within it.

I did read, that Martin has stated, that there are approximately 50% of agreements which had DCA applied within them, so my agreement must be one of the 50%. Or am I thinking too optimistically.

Nasqueron

Barclays_Commission_1489 said:

**Update*

I received a response from BPF today by email, titled "We`re logging your motor commission complaint".

They have stated on the email, that my agreement is one whereby commission was paid & as such they are logging a complaint on my behalf.

They went on to state the following :-

" We’ll log a complaint for you, which will be back dated to when you first contacted us. We will then be in touch to acknowledge the complaint and provide you with your complaint reference. This letter will also confirm the type of commission arrangement that relates to your agreement."

Now, at this early stage, what they have not stated, is what type of commission was paid. I am presuming more clarity surrounding this will become more clearer in the letter.

Bear in mind, after the Supreme Court rulings, BPF must now be very clear, that any agreement which did not have a DCA applied, will no longer have any credence. So for my case to be accepted by them & moved forward, gives me the impression that my agreement did have DCA within it.

I did read, that Martin has stated, that there are approximately 50% of agreements which had DCA applied within them, so my agreement must be one of the 50%. Or am I thinking too optimistically.

The email is stock - they might reply and say there was commission but not DCA

DCA was on about 40% and there is no breakdown of the types of DCA. Negative DCA (pushing up interest for more commission) should get some money but neutral (available but not used) and positive (used to reduce your interest e.g. to get a sale) won't as you didn't lose money

Grey_Critic

How long does anyone keep documentation?  One large motor dealer I was associated with who had multiple branches and franchises kept it for many years until finally running out of space to store it. They then looked into the cost of shredding what they did no longer need to keep. EXPENSIVE.

I suggested that they purchase their own commercial shredder and set up a system to share it around which they then adopted.

Each branch was instructed to sort it and then the shredder was moved around ALL the branches on in turn and it took over a year to clear the backlog but after that it was no longer a problem.

I seem to think they worked on an 8 year programme for retention. Back in 2010 I was tasked with having a clear out at one firm and we settled on 8 years.

I do suspect that many companies will have a similar policy - I have no idea how long it is kept on a computer.