Toyota's response to the email sent using Martins guide.

Mariko

I have just received an interesting response from Toyota regarding my Lexus and the form that I used from this website to ask them about miss-selling of finance.
I didn't add anything accusatory into the pre done letter but the reply sounds a tad ..unkind shall I say.
Anyway this is it, without a few details like car reg and finance agreement number.
The car is a personal car that is used for home use as well as business so their reply about that is not quite as accurate as is suggested.

What is also interesting is the catchall comments, "The dealer didn't need to tell me they got commission, but I should have known there was commission"

Email below:

Your complaint about the non-disclosure of commission paid for your introduction

Thank you for your complaint about the commission which we apparently paid to the dealer for your introduction.  This letter is our final response letter.

1 Your complaint

You say that you were introduced to us and were not told that we would pay a commission to the dealer for your introduction.  You say this means there has been a secret commission or we have acted unfairly.  But you do not provide any proper or credible evidence to support your allegations or say just exactly how you have been apparently impacted.  It is, of course, a long-standing principle that a complainant must explain how they have been impacted and provide any supporting evidence and information.  But you do not do so.

2 Your introduction to us

You approached Sytner Vehicles Limited (the dealer) wishing to acquire use and possession of a Lexus RX Estate motor vehicle with registration no. ******(the vehicle).  You told the dealer that you wished to acquire the vehicle with the help of finance.  You also told the dealer that you wished to use the vehicle for business purposes.  We believe that the dealer may or will have told you that it may, or would, receive a commission if you entered into a finance agreement for the vehicle (the dealer disclosure).  You asked the dealer to introduce you to us.  The dealer did so.

After considering your application for finance, we were prepared to offer you credit on hire purchase terms.  You received a copy of the agreement.

After considering (amongst other things) the dealer disclosure and the agreement, you entered into hire purchase agreement numbered ******* with us dated 28/09/2007 (the agreement).  The agreement was not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA).

3 The legal position

For the reasons set out in this final response letter, (a) you entered into the agreement for business purposes and (b) the agreement was not regulated by the CCA.

We therefore do not believe that the dealer owed you any duties to provide any information about commission.  Because you entered into the agreement for business purposes, you should have known that a commission would be paid to the dealer for your introduction.  Neither us, nor the dealer, therefore breached any legal obligation to you.  But even if there had been any breach (which there was not), we did not act unfairly in any way.  You also cannot make use of the unfair relationship provisions because you are not a "debtor" within the meaning set out in Section 140C of the CCA.

4 Our final response

For the reasons set out in this letter, we do not uphold your complaint.  There was no requirement on us, or the dealer, to tell you the amount of commission nor how it was calculated.  We therefore did not act unfairly.

5 You do not have any right to make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (the Ombudsman Service)

Because your agreement was not regulated by the CCA, you cannot refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Kind Regards

Customer Relations Team

Toyota Financial Services

Email Commissioncomplaints@toyota-fs.com

Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC, Company Registration Number 02299961, Great Burgh, Burgh Heath, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 5UZ, registered in England. VAT Registration Number 991 2659 83.

Toyota Financial Services, Lexus Financial Services, Redline Finance and Mazda Financial Services are trading names of Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC.  Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The trademark MAZDA belongs to the Mazda group of companies and is used with its permission.

This correspondence is for the intended recipient only. It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please disregard and delete. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of Toyota. This message has been checked for viruses, but the recipient is advised to rescan the message before opening any attachments.

This correspondence is for the intended recipient only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. If you are not the intended recipient, please disregard and delete from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of Toyota

MyRealNameToo

Mariko said:

I have just received an interesting response from Toyota regarding my Lexus and the form that I used from this website to ask them about miss-selling of finance.
I didn't add anything accusatory into the pre done letter but the reply sounds a tad ..unkind shall I say.
Anyway this is it, without a few details like car reg and finance agreement number.
The car is a personal car that is used for home use as well as business so their reply about that is not quite as accurate as is suggested.

What is also interesting is the catchall comments, "The dealer didn't need to tell me they got commission, but I should have known there was commission"

As the letter explains, because there was business use the contract wasnt covered by the CCA as this requires:

an individual acting for purposes outside those of any trade, business or profession carried on by the individual

You admit it was at least in part for business use so falls outside the scope. 

As to commissions, the Supreme Court has basically said the same, that the lay person should have realised that an introducer gets paid which is why they introduce you and how there is competitive tension between different lenders the garages can choose. 

The Supreme Court ruled that for consumers only DCA or excessive commission is an issue for consumers but you arent a consumer in this discussion. The law pretty much sees consumers as idiots that need protecting from themselves as much as from businesses. The law similarly sees all people acting in a business capacity to be intelligent people would good working knowledge of the world who can stand up for themselves or knows when to pay others to stand up for them. 

The reality is less black and white than the law sees it in my opinion and most people are somewhere in the grey but ultimately it doesnt matter, consumers get masses of protection and people acting for business get very little. 

Mariko

MyRealNameToo said:

Mariko said:

I have just received an interesting response from Toyota regarding my Lexus and the form that I used from this website to ask them about miss-selling of finance.
I didn't add anything accusatory into the pre done letter but the reply sounds a tad ..unkind shall I say.
Anyway this is it, without a few details like car reg and finance agreement number.
The car is a personal car that is used for home use as well as business so their reply about that is not quite as accurate as is suggested.

What is also interesting is the catchall comments, "The dealer didn't need to tell me they got commission, but I should have known there was commission"

As the letter explains, because there was business use the contract wasnt covered by the CCA as this requires:

an individual acting for purposes outside those of any trade, business or profession carried on by the individual

You admit it was at least in part for business use so falls outside the scope. 

As to commissions, the Supreme Court has basically said the same, that the lay person should have realised that an introducer gets paid which is why they introduce you and how there is competitive tension between different lenders the garages can choose. 

The Supreme Court ruled that for consumers only DCA or excessive commission is an issue for consumers but you arent a consumer in this discussion. The law pretty much sees consumers as idiots that need protecting from themselves as much as from businesses. The law similarly sees all people acting in a business capacity to be intelligent people would good working knowledge of the world who can stand up for themselves or knows when to pay others to stand up for them. 

The reality is less black and white than the law sees it in my opinion and most people are somewhere in the grey but ultimately it doesnt matter, consumers get masses of protection and people acting for business get very little. 

Thank you for a super swift reply! 
I quite agree. I also know that I will never buy anything ever again and mention 'business,' its a way for companies to just let things slide. (especially if a particular item fails within a couple of months as I have found to my cost with currys business.. wrong forum I know but its a lesson well learnt by me now.) 

Thank you once again for your reply though re the car.

Nasqueron

Mariko said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Mariko said:

I have just received an interesting response from Toyota regarding my Lexus and the form that I used from this website to ask them about miss-selling of finance.
I didn't add anything accusatory into the pre done letter but the reply sounds a tad ..unkind shall I say.
Anyway this is it, without a few details like car reg and finance agreement number.
The car is a personal car that is used for home use as well as business so their reply about that is not quite as accurate as is suggested.

What is also interesting is the catchall comments, "The dealer didn't need to tell me they got commission, but I should have known there was commission"

As the letter explains, because there was business use the contract wasnt covered by the CCA as this requires:

an individual acting for purposes outside those of any trade, business or profession carried on by the individual

You admit it was at least in part for business use so falls outside the scope. 

As to commissions, the Supreme Court has basically said the same, that the lay person should have realised that an introducer gets paid which is why they introduce you and how there is competitive tension between different lenders the garages can choose. 

The Supreme Court ruled that for consumers only DCA or excessive commission is an issue for consumers but you arent a consumer in this discussion. The law pretty much sees consumers as idiots that need protecting from themselves as much as from businesses. The law similarly sees all people acting in a business capacity to be intelligent people would good working knowledge of the world who can stand up for themselves or knows when to pay others to stand up for them. 

The reality is less black and white than the law sees it in my opinion and most people are somewhere in the grey but ultimately it doesnt matter, consumers get masses of protection and people acting for business get very little. 

Thank you for a super swift reply! 
I quite agree. I also know that I will never buy anything ever again and mention 'business,' its a way for companies to just let things slide. (especially if a particular item fails within a couple of months as I have found to my cost with currys business.. wrong forum I know but its a lesson well learnt by me now.) 

Thank you once again for your reply though re the car.

Buying something for business use but pretending it isn't, could cause problems later on