Can a vehicle lease contract by void like this?

KXL88

Hi All,

Just wanted to get collective thoughts on this. 

Placed an order for a Renault Symbioz in late June. This is for the 1.6 full hybrid engine. This was done via a leasing company which I shall not name (as I believe this is a classic case of their hands being tied) but the finance is with Renault's own Mobilize company. Went through the usual process of e-signing the contract, and the usual finance checks (hard search done) all passed and processed and the delivery date was quoted on the signed paper as 1st December. 

As an avid car geek, I keep on top of the latest, and read that Renault would be 'upgrading' their engine for the Symbioz from 1.6 to 1.8 around September / October time. So in late September I just casually and jokingly asked my leasing company by email to confirm that I would still be getting the 1.6, unless Renault are willing to do a 'free upgrade' and instead dispatch me the 1.8. The leasing company confirmed that my order was for the 1.6 back in June before the new 1.8 was out therefore do not worry I will get the 1.6. However since it was also 3 months now, another credit check needed to be done to check afordability etc. Which I said no problem, this passed with no issues. 

A week later been told by my leasing company that bad news, Renault won't honour this anymore since the 1.6 engine is discontinued, so you would need to re-quote for the 1.8 engine (higher monthlies of course) and a new lead time. I responded to the lessor asking if they can ask Renault / Mobilize if they would be either willing to and keep the same monthlies else perhaps as a good will gesture throw in a couple of complimentary servicing which I know the can do. The answer was a no. I was under the impression that this was in breach of the 1974 consumers act. Few have advised me I should take this up with the Financial Ombusman. To be fair the leasing company did refund me their fee. 

I suppose there isn't much I can do in this instance anyway? Just thought if one had signed and finance passed contracts needed to be honoured? I understand that the engine had changed, but I have previously ordered a lease car where the paint colour I chose was no longer offered, but they still found a way to source the paint from a different factory line with a 3 week delay.    

Thanks! 

Car_54

I'd be very surprised if your contract with the leasing company doesn't cover this eventuality, since it can't be the first time this has happened. They can't be forced to supply something that's no longer available.

saajan_12

The stuff about the 1.8 engine and finance company are largely irrelevant. The question is what the original contract for the 1.6 said - did it say it was 100% unequivocally confirmed, or was it subject to xyz and cancellable? 

KXL88

Thanks, I will have a look later today. The vehicle still exists, the trim still exists, just disappointed they didn't tell me back August, only when I promted them to ask, which engine I would be getting. A few I spoke to mentioned (now they are not experts) that well if I had paid the up front deposit already, might be a differenet story. But as the only 'damage' is needing to source another vehicle and 2 hard credit checks, will be only a dead end in pursuing.  

Mildly_Miffed

You placed a factory order for a 1.6
The manufacturer have just told the financier that that car will never be built.

What do you want the financier to do...?

KXL88

I had a look at my full T&C. It only mentions (several times)

7. The Agreement is not cancellable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

However nowhere does it mention any fine print about their right to cancel if change of spec, unavaliblity of vehicle etc. 

Well the financer has just breached their contract no? I mean in the contract there are mutiple ways they are telling me/us the penalties if we breach their hire contract, they could have made the effort to requote at the same T&Cs and monthlies (or just move me to the new engine) as it was signed back in late June well in advance of their change of spec in late September.

When it was ordered there was no option to order the newer engine. 

Or is the reality that the big finance companies can breach whatever they want, while if we do that, we are hit with various fines / peanlties? 

molerat

I cannot believe there is no get out of jail free clause for the provider in there somewhere.

KXL88

molerat said:

I cannot believe there is no get out of jail free clause for the provider in there somewhere.

I had a look at a previous vehicle lease (not the Renault), and it stated this: 

'(b) We may at any time with good cause (for example, but without
limitation, where the Vehicle is the subject of a manufacturer recall)
withdraw the Vehicle. In such circumstances, we shall provide you with
another vehicle of the same, or at our option, later equivalent model of
equal or similar mileage. This agreement will then apply to the
replacement vehicle, but this will not affect any existing rights you or we
had in relation to the original Vehicle.'

I will re-look and see on the current Renault. 

Mildly_Miffed

KXL88 said:

Or is the reality that the big finance companies can breach whatever they want, while if we do that, we are hit with various fines / peanlties? 

You're missing the point...

This is not the financier's choice.

The car you ordered does not exist, and will never exist. They cannot supply it, no matter how much they want to.
Yes, the financier is part of the same group as the manufacturer, but the financier is not making manufacturing decisions.

KXL88

I understand that, but then isn't that a breach of contract to whomever? It seems that the consensus to my main question is yes, it can be voided in such instances, and nothing the consumer can do about it as you mentioned, they can no longer supply that specific engine, even though the vehicle is still in production. It seems whomever is responsible took the high road, since in a previous lease car it is stated if something similar occured. 

'In such circumstances, we shall provide you with
another vehicle of the same, or at our option, later equivalent model of
equal or similar mileage. This agreement will then apply to the
replacement vehicle'

Likewise since in the contract as @molerat mentioned and I went through every line, there is no mention of any (get out of jail card) anything along the lines of having reserve the right to terminate the agreement should the vehicle no longer viable / avalaible to bulild etc. I suppose what is said is important, likewise what it doesn't say is as well in the contract. 

And @saajan_12 yes the delivery date is stated as 6th December 2025 not a TBC. 

I know I'm not going to get that 1.6 that doesn't exist anymore (at least not on factory build) but surely monies paid should be refunded plus 'goodwill gestures' and maybe even compensation forthcoming no? Surely one shouldn't be 'forced' to take the different engine (and higher price) I did not sign for, but they are still supplying (same model, and trim level).  

Mildly_Miffed

KXL88 said:

I understand that, but then isn't that a breach of contract to whomever?

The contract has been frustrated.

It seems whomever is responsible took the high road, since in a previous lease car it is stated if something similar occured. 

'In such circumstances, we shall provide you with another vehicle of the same, or at our option, later equivalent model of equal or similar mileage. This agreement will then apply to the replacement vehicle'

So you think they should supply the 1.8?
Is that "equivalent"?
That reads like supply of a used vehicle, where they're looking at the EXACT same spec.

I know I'm not going to get that 1.6 that doesn't exist anymore (at least not on factory build) but surely monies paid should be refunded

Yes, absolutely. How much have you paid that they're refusing to refund?

plus 'goodwill gestures' and maybe even compensation forthcoming no?

There's certainly no legal basis for that, although it may or may not be good marketing.

Surely one shouldn't be 'forced' to take the different engine (and higher price) I did not sign for, but they are still supplying (same model, and trim level).  

I'm confused - please clarify.

Are you refusing to have a 1.8, and complaining they're "forcing" you? As I read your posts, they aren't doing that. You're free to walk away and lease whatever other car is on the market from whoever.

At what point does a car cease to be the "same model"?
I'd suggest a de minimis change like the precise pattern of the seat cloth or a minor spec twiddle such as changing the HVAC or audio or wheels or even trim level naming (where there was a directly comparable equivalent) would not. But a relatively major change like the engine or transmission or even a fairly major range realignment and cosmetic facelift would.

You ordered a Renault Symbioz with a 1.6 145ps version of the ancient Nissan HR engine first seen in the Nissan Note in 2004. That is no longer available, the car you ordered will never be built. The replacement has 170ps from a completely different 1.8 engine, made by Horse Powertrain. It is mechanically different. Perhaps you neither want nor need that extra power, perhaps you can't get insurance on it, or you're ordering the car to fit in with some company car opt-out scheme that bars cars over a certain power.
If you'd ordered a 1.8 to "techno" trim level, and that had been discontinued leaving "techno esprit Alpine" as the lowest spec, would you argue they were the same model? How about if the cards were reversed, and the trim level you ordered had been replaced by one that was reduced in content and toys, would that same argument apply?
What about if you'd ordered a certain powertrain, and THAT had been discontinued - would you accept a lower power equivalent as the same model?

What do you actually WANT to get out of this?