I have to take notice until they rescind it or I can take it to further authorities. Just thinking if I explain all the ridiculous reasons them why they can't do what they say they want to it could all go further in my favour should FOS or courts get involved at a later date

How about this? [Address] Dear Sir/Madam I write to you with regard to your letter dated 8th June 2010 which contains the paper worked I requested to voluntarily terminate my vehicle which is under Hire Purchase with your company. As you are aware it is my right under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to return my vehicle early and forfeit ownership after I have made payments up to and above 50% of my contracted total as per section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act. I have paid in excess of 50% and therefore I have the legal right to terminate this agreement. Upon reading the information pack you have sent it seems your company is now adding what I consider to be unilateral unfair terms to this legal right which differ from that on my original contract paperwork that was signed in February 2007. Your letter of 8th June 2010 states "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future" and goes on to explain on page 2 of the information document How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork? We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork. In stipulating that if a vehicle does not achieve Glass’s book value at an auction then this is automatically deemed to be the fault of the debtor I believe an unfair term. There are many extrinsic factors which could affect the price of a vehicle, the number of people at an auction, the location of the auction, the current financial state of the economy to name a few. I am sure with your company being in the vehicle trade you will also recognize that the sale price of vehicles at auction is generally always lower than the trade price the vehicle would achieve in at a garage. Therefore using a trade price guide to judge the value of an auction vehicle is I believe highly flawed and your use of this is designed solely for the financial benefit of your company. Upon relinquishing the car to your company at your branch in Leeds I will have no control upon the condition the car remains in. Yet were it to somehow become damaged in your care thus diminishing its sale value your terms and conditions will still hold me liable for that. Furthermore will you provide evidence to show the price achieved at auction and that no damages, losses or extra mileage was incurred, reducing the value whilst the car is in your procession? There is no legislation contained in section 99 or 100 of the CCA 1974 that states the debtor is required to pay any shortfall in the price achieved by a vehicle at auction. In fact the only provision for any further payment beyond the 50% of full contracted amount is Section 100 subsection 4 of the CCA 1974 states (4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention. As you will see this only stipulates the good should be returned in “reasonable condition” this does not state that reasonable condition is determined by their resale value. I ascertain that this is an unfair term in consumer contract regulations. I now require you to either a) Send amended paperwork that allows the termination of my vehicle as per section 99 & 100 without the unfair terms stated above. OR b) Explain why you believe you are entitled to enforce these unfair terms in clear and understandable English refraining from the use of complicated or legal jargon. Please be aware that I will also be reporting this matter to Trading Standards and should I need to progress this further to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Yours Faithfully Andie_303

Oh another thought should I fit something into the letter about 1) How do I know the price they claim to have achieved at auction is the actual price they received? 2) Once I relinquish the car to them at their drop in Leeds (otherwise i have to pay £110 for them to come and collect it!) how do I know they aren't going to damage it - thus diminishing it's value for which I will then be held liable for at their auction?!

went the court route the first time - tried and tested

Because that was all I was offered by 2 garages for p/ex towards a newer one. The glasses value is £1600 but I can obviously only go on what people will actually give for the car. Even at £1600 there is still a £900 shortfall from what is actually outstanding. The car is a Kia and if you look on any car website their resale value is extremely low. Cheap to buy cheap to run but have absolutely no value left in them at the end.

Thanks Posty, Something tells me that this is going to be a long battle!! Grrr from Welcome to BCT!! All I wanted to do was buy a new frickin car!!!!

The car is I believe reasonable. There are no dents there is a small scratch on the rear wheel arch about 1.5 inches - I was thinking of getting that done before I VT'd anyway. The car is a 55 plate with 65k miles on so approx 15k miles a year - perfectly reasonable i think. It's obviously been MOT'd every year and has never failed or required anything to be done whilst being MOT'd. It has an MOT until December. Whilst it hasn't been dealer serviced it has had new parts fitted as required including 4 new brake pads and disks only 4 months ago and 4 new tyres 5 months ago.

Yes i did - they should have got it today. I have just drafted a letter that Connif is looking at on another thread. Take a peek if you like http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/vehicle-retailers-manufacturers/263050-british-credit-trust-vt.html#post2974160

Apologies Maka for hijacking your thread but as we are about to start dealing with the same thing I hope you don't mind. Here's my first draft.... [Address] Dear Sir/Madam I write to you with regard to your letter dated 8th June 2010 which contains the paper worked I requested to voluntarily terminate my vehicle which is under Hire Purchase with your company. As you are aware it is my right under section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to return my vehicle early and forfeit ownership after I have made payments up to and above 50% of my contracted total as per section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act. I have paid in excess of 50% and therefore I have the legal right to terminate this agreement. Upon reading the information pack you have sent it seems your company is now adding what I consider to be unilateral unfair terms to this legal right which differ from that on my original contract paperwork that was signed in February 2007. Your letter of 8th June 2010 states "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future" and goes on to explain on page 2 of the information document How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork? We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork. In stipulating that if a vehicle does not achieve Glass’s book value at an auction then this is automatically deemed to be the fault of the debtor I believe an unfair term. There are many extrinsic factors which could affect the price of a vehicle, the number of people at an auction, the location of the auction, the current financial state of the economy to name a few. I am sure with your company being in the vehicle trade you will also recognize that the sale price of vehicles at auction is generally always lower than the trade price the vehicle would achieve in at a garage. Therefore using a trade price guide to judge the value of an auction vehicle is I believe highly flawed and your use of this is designed solely for the financial benefit of your company. There is no legislation contained in section 99 or 100 of the CCA 1974 that states the debtor is required to pay any shortfall in the price achieved by a vehicle at auction. In fact the only provision for any further payment beyond the 50% of full contracted amount is Section 100 subsection 4 of the CCA 1974 states (4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention. As you will see this only stipulates the good should be returned in “reasonable condition” this does not state that reasonable condition is determined by their resale value. I ascertain that this is an unfair term in consumer contract regulations. I now require you to either a) Send amended paperwork that allows the termination of my vehicle as per section 99 & 100 without the unfair terms stated above. OR b) Explain why you believe you are entitled to enforce these unfair terms in clear and understandable English refraining from the use of complicated or legal jargon. Please be aware that I will also be reporting this matter to Trading Standards and should I need to progress this further to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Yours Faithfully Andie_303

In looking at s99 and 100 of the cca I have come across this - I guess this is the subsection on which they chose to rely? 100 Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc agreement (4) If the debtor has contravened an obligation to take reasonable care of the goods or land, the amount arrived at under subsection (1) shall be increased by the sum required to recompense the creditor for that contravention, and subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly. I suppose the grey area now is what constitutes "reasonable care"? and can the price they achieve at auction be used as a guide for the amount of "reasonable care"

Yep Post lives to annoy we are Welcome friends. Thank you will get drafting

Thanks Connif - whats even more fustrating is the fact I am not in arrears and never have been! I have paid on time without a problem every month the only reason I'm VT'ing is I have bought a new car and the finance is in such negative equity that it makes no sense to keep it. I'm going to try scribing a letter shortly would you mind taking a peek in a while and giving me your feedback?

Well, Well, Well My VT paperwork comes through today and what nasty little paragraph to they put in..... "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future" WTF So I am liable for external market conditions or the fact that noone turns up to the auction!!! I carry on reading through the information pack and it goes on to explain under the heading How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork? We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork. And to top it of a £110 collection fee!! They are seriously taking the p**s - someone tell me this is not allowed. My contract with them at the time of buying simply says I have a right to terminate the contract under s99 of the CCA 1974 as long as I have paid over 50%, have no arrears and the vehicle is kept in resonable condition for it's age and mileage. The stinger here is to go ahead with VT you have to sign to say you agree to these terms and you agree to be liable for the shortfall.

Well, Well, Well My VT paperwork comes through today and what nasty little paragraph to they put in..... "If your vehicle sells for less than the current trade value (as listed in glasses guide) then this is put down to the vehicle condition or missing paperwork. If you do not pay off all these liabilities immediately as they fall due, you will have a default registered against you and this may affect your ability to get credit in the future" WTF So I am liable for external market conditions or the fact that noone turns up to the auction!!! I carry on reading through the information pack and it goes on to explain under the heading How do you calculate my liability for damage or missing paperwork? We simply sell your vehicle at auction and compare the price achieved against the Glass's guide trade value. This value is calculated on your car with the current mileage. If the sale price is less than this difference is due from you as it is due to damage or missing paperwork. And to top it of a £110 collection fee!! They are seriously taking the p**s - someone tell me this is not allowed. My contract with them at the time of buying simply says I have a right to terminate the contract under s99 of the CCA 1974 as long as I have paid over 50%, have no arrears and the vehicle is kept in resonable condition for it's age and mileage. The stinger here is to go ahead with VT you have to sign to say you agree to these terms and you agree to be liable for the shortfall.

I am currently VT'ing with BCT as it is also in negative by a long way and I have bought a new car. Firstly they said they would drop the outstanding finance from 2.5k to 1.5k if I didn't VT but I said no and eventually they have caved and sent me the paperwork. If you are on a HP agreement and have paid over 50% you are not liable for any further payments or shortfall. I have made a cheeky offer in writing though - I wrote yesterday with a one time only offer that I would pay them £500 for the car on the condition they released their HP marker and cleared my credit file as fully settled. Should they disagree they must pick up the car before the 2nd July and I will be liable for no further payments. BCT are in some financial trouble so they may need all the money they can get

You're welcome Landy - i bet Lloyds hate people like me and you who relish in their error in their own t's and c's. All Hail 1.4

Lewis Group are Welcomes in house DCA

clause 1.4 is VERY important and should be the main focus as well when it comes to it. They will want to restructure your loan meaning you sign new paperwork and end up worse off financially. Coincidentally clause 1.4 has disappeared post 2008 something I highlighted to Lloyds when I claimed against them. My complaint was upheld by them on first contact but the battle came when they wanted to restructure. I had to ram clause 1.4 down their throat on a number of occasions before they caved. LPI was removed and I was required to pay just the cash payment stated on my original paperwork.

Investigated and fined accordingly

I also have a virgin mobile and regularly use 08 numbers normally to contact companies like student finance england, CSA my bank etc - all those companies that pick up the call with a recorded message and then leave you on hold for up to 30 mins before they actually humanly pick up the phone. As this is my only phone source (no landline) the call increase could make a massive difference to my monthly bill.

Her Majestys revenue and customs are always interested in this kind of thing - especially creative accounting and tax dodging. When my mum was forced out of her job by her scummy (yes that is the technical term ) boss I felt the need to divulge to HMRC that whilst he declared his business car to the tax man to be a 8 year old small 1.2 vauxhall it was infact a 3.9l BMW worth more than £45k!!

I was defaulted AFTER SETTLEMENT - because they hadn't paid THEMSELVES off!!! My default has since been removed though

I had the CP and Trethowens losers on my back in January about a ticket for Morrisons car park where a few spaces are leased by my employer for their staff we display permits - but one day CP ticketed us all. I didn't even bother to highlight their mistake just ignored them and have heard nothing since (1 letter from each) Then last wednesday I went to Trowell services (southbound) went into the services had a coffee and a muffin and left. Couple of hours letter went to Tesco and realised my purse was missing remembering the last place I had it and in hope more than anything went back to Trowell. No purse Today a ticket for staying 3 hours 35 mins something they claim to have photographic evidence of. Again I have no intention of even responding - however I think Mr Moto Manager will be due a letter of complaint about the shady company he employs!

Ahhhhh - how very nice of them!

Hi Surfer - I have already bought a new car and was only offered £1k on p/ex hence the discussion about whether to VT etc Unfortunately at the time my credit wasn't that good and the APR was 27% which has obviously led to the negative equity situation. Thankfully my credit has significantly improved and my new car is financed in the single figure APR not double And thanks Summer I do know to send a 3rd party check - I have decided to try and do this properly though and sent them the letter offering them the £500 now they have 14 days to accept or decline. Should they accept I will send them their £500 should they decline they shall come and pick up the car and I will pay them nothing more. The ball is now in their court.