Advantage Car Finance

[iconoclash]

Hi - has anyone has had any correspondence from a Nick Chamberlain at Advantage Finance? can you pm if you have pls

 

thanks

[iconoclash]

Hi - back with my car finance problem. I need to make some kind of offer with this case as the claim has been dismissed but with general liberty to restore. Yes I see that the claim may be reissued, but not with the same details and faulty notices, and i want to sort something before this happens.

The other issues about the whole deal were not heard of course but the DJ told the advocate that he already had a case in front him that week with "this company" and they were most disreptuable in the way they misrepresented their contracts. Then told the advocate that if he kept on pressing him he would find for me. The advocate thought he would pressure me outside the Chambers too but I was perfectly happy to talk round the issues telling him that the devil is in the detail. Was he shocked when he found out about that detail I'm disputing the unfair charges added to the account to include searches for me and the vehicle even though I was in correspondence with them - they even searched facebk - cant think why. Another problem was the cancellation at the outset of two insurances embodied in the contract, leaving a warranty on, but was a combined total charge for credit. Dont know if they should have reissued the contract but they wanted to claim all the contract interest for the term plus extra interest from their DN at a daily rate, which I saw as double recovery and there was no settlement rebate sum either. Sorry this is a bit messy but having paid more than half I wonder what a settlement offer from me should look like now??

[dadofholly]

Who issued the claim against you? If it was Welcome i will be surprised if they do re-issue.

 

Did you arrange the finance yourself or was it arranged via a broker?

 

Have you made a formal CCA request?

 

You mention the insurances - were they cancelled at the outset of the agreement or did you make any payments?

[iconoclash]

hi - i did a SAR when they started to get offensive - this showed commission paid by the lender to the broker but the broker company name meant nothing to me and research shows them to gone bust - I rang a company advertising on the web re car finance who simply said to go and find the car and they would sort out the rest. The name isnt the same and the documents were given to me at the dealership to sign. A week later I realised I didnt need GAP insurance or PPI and cancelled so didnt ever pay those but kept the warranty going. The mthly payments were reduced accordingly and I never knew the total figure for it. A large part of what they say I still owe them is for charges e.g. £7.50 for a text message to a mobile I no longer own - huh - letters sent unnecessarily saying I havent responded when I had and by Recorded Delivery at £35 each charge, plus interest on top, then extra interest from issue of DN. I have paid for the car value and more and there's over £1200 been paid to Cash Drive UK by them so this must be out of my pocket somehow.

I think I will do some sums and try to figure what has been paid exactly and in the meantime the contract term has expired. thanks

[dadofholly]

Is the £1200 paid to the cash drive uk commission?

 

Did you know that any commission would be paid?

 

Have you got proof that this commission was paid? (If you can prove this point it will help you greatly).

 

When they sent you the SAR paperwork did they include a full statement of account?

 

How much do the extra charges add up to - you will be able to claim these back and reduce the balance..

 

(Would be worth you googling Hurstanger V Wilson)

[iconoclash]

hi - i only found out about this in their response to my SAR and I wrote and asked them who heck is *** and why did he get paid that money - their answer was that its none of my business ! but then it doesnt appear on the agreement anywhere. will get some other info together as whatever i do i think i should have rubber stamped by the court. thanks,

[dadofholly]

That info that is not your business - actually is your business - as it sounds like a secret and undeclared commission, which is a big no no.

 

If you have evidence of this you are entitled to claim that money back - and it invalidates the agreement. Welcome have recentley lost a case on this issue.

 

See also Hurstanger v Wilson.

[IainHL]

An agreement cannot be terminated on the back of a faulty DN - so the agreement is still live. Forget the unlawfull recission arguement.

 

Ian - i understand Mr Mould would disagree - but my advice is based on case law - Mr Moulds is, as yet, only his opinion, unless someone can quote me case law that says otherwise.. Untill Case law backs up his arguements my advice is to go with current case law - as decided on by both the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

 

DoH, intesting you say there is case law and it has been to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. I was unaware of this. Please can you post links, or citation numbers, or names of parties so I can go and take a look? Thanks.

[dadofholly]

Agreed that Hurstanger v Wilson remains good law, although how you establish a car dealer was acting as a fiduciary for you remains a mystery.

.

 

The finance was arranged through a broker not a car dealer - thats how a fiduciary duty was owed.

 

I got my commission back from a Broker in almost exact same circumstances.

 

As for the agreement it is clear if a broker was involved, and they were, and the commission was undecalred and secret, and it was, then the OP can use Hurstanger.

 

Not sure WFS have lost a case on this point, but I am aware of a case (and so are you) where it has been referred back to the county court to be reconsidered. I maintain that therefore that case remains ongoing and has not, in the cold light of day, been won.

 

Wrong case - but as you bring it up thats another one. Though as you aware the Judge stated in the hearing prior to the final hearing, and not contested by the sols for the other side, that if a secret commision had been paid then the agreement would be unenforceable.

Edited January 12, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

DoH, intesting you say there is case law and it has been to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. I was unaware of this. Please can you post links, or citation numbers, or names of parties so I can go and take a look? Thanks.

 

Harrison v Link Financial

Amex v Brandon (The final appeal judgement was handed down recentley you should be able to find threads to it on this site).

 

The DN must be correct - that is statute.

 

I am unable to show any cases in regards to Moulds arguements as there are none to my knowledge.

[dadofholly]

Amex v Brandon is an interesting case to read. From that case you must have 14 days to rectify the breach. What is not obvious from that case is whether or not a date has to be stated. It would appear sufficient for the creditor to say 14 days from when the dn is received. It is not beyond the wit of creditors to send such important docs by recorded delivery and add the charges to debtors account.

 

Harrison v Black Horse is also an interesting case, worth reading from para 44 to 58.

 

The Amex v Brandon is not Rocket science realy - the CCA clearly states what a creditor must do, and how to lay out a DN - with all the resources they have at their disposal it should not be hard - all they have to do is comply with statute. Sending it by recorded delivery and adding a couple of quid to the account is no big deal.

 

Harrison v BH has been quoted to me in the past as some sort of defence for undeclared commissions - usually by creditors trying to put people off - but as i am forever pointing out - there was no broker inolved in this case - and Hurstanger v Wilson deals with secret commissions to a broker, who owed a fiduciary duty to the borrower. That being the case it i classified as a special category of fraud for which no motive needs proving, and holds both the lender and the broker liable.

[iconoclash]

HI - this is taking me some time as the finance company sent the data on a passworded disk that i have to enter for every single page each time and download to the PC - but -meantime, yes there was a broker in between me and the finance house - I did not choose them the broker did - had never heard of them til signing up and had no copies in advance. I have to read those other cases again to understand properly but do thank you so much for the advice. I have found this bit of Latin when searching around which seems appropriate re DJ's making choices. The fear of getting someone who wont listen to a LIP etc., if it goes that way that is.

'Stare Decisis' when used in a legal context means 'let the decision stand' and is apparently used to express the idea that a prior court decision on a specific issue MUST be recognised as a precedant on that issue.

I think this is going to be more complicated than I first thought which is a bit frightening. So tied up with fighting my son's school too so please forgive my delays in answering at times. I have the internal broker/dealer booking sheet and their internal invoice for vehicle.

thanks

Edited January 13, 2012 by iconoclash
extra info

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

The finance was arranged through a broker not a car dealer - thats how a fiduciary duty was owed.

 

I got my commission back from a Broker in almost exact same circumstances.

 

As for the agreement it is clear if a broker was involved, and they were, and the commission was undecalred and secret, and it was, then the OP can use Hurstanger.

 

 

 

Wrong case - but as you bring it up thats another one. Though as you aware the Judge stated in the hearing prior to the final hearing, and not contested by the sols for the other side, that if a secret commision had been paid then the agreement would be unenforceable.

 

Cool! Tell us about the other case they lost

[iconoclash]

hi - sorry been ill, but re this claim against me: they claimed total £4804.05 made up balance, interest inclusive as pre-determined at start, charges, plus interest from April 2011, plus court fees. They claim against an agreement that shows a total liability of: £11,171.36, being for the car and three insurances and acceptance fee. Car value = £3994.00. I have paid £4192 approx. ( x 2 ins. cancelled ).

I have a letter from AA Warranty asking if I want to renew with them and their quote is £419.00 for 24 months with a 0% APR, so the AA Warranty the finance company sold me was 36 mths for £695.00 but their interest rate: 34.10 so cost a lot more, actual figure unknown as the TCC is combined with other things. Then the broker got £1468.60, so I'm wondering where this was applied? Dont think they paid it out of the goodness of their hearts. Should I take that from my balance and if so, what about the interest on that @ 36.46 which is the rate on the car part of the agreement. And I think if I didnt know the TCC on the Warranty I should deduct that. I am not trying to get something for nothing but feel unhappy about all the charges when they knew I was on benefits and just wanted to negotiate but they were so rude and I know I've paid for the car already its the rest of the deal that I think is dodgy, especially when they didnt fix the *** bleeping due to a faulty component somewhere and still living with that infernal noise - grrrrrr.

[dadofholly]

Cool! Tell us about the other case they lost

 

There are actually two - but both settled prior to a final hearing - and confidentiality agreements are in place, (wonder why). Thats why i was so surprised they whent all the way with yours - but glad they did as it i all out and in the public domain now.

 

They had been trying to get round the Hurstanger case, on which they had lost before, and had frightened a few off i believe. Think they got to confident they could get round it and kept bringing up different cases - but none of them include a broker acting for the consumer in the same way as hurstanger - and the way Welcome operated.

 

One of the individuals who won was Andie303 who can be found on this thread - I provided her with a witness statement and a copy of an underwriting sheet i have showing commission payments to brokers. Not sure where she comes in on the thread but it's over 10,000 posts long

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?109794-Welcome-Finance/page35

[iconoclash]

Hi - re DN - I was able to show that the Consumer Credit Directive Regulation 33 applies and that their notice did not conform, and it was this that the DJ said found their case against me invalid as they had not therefore issued a DN and could not be in court. As for getting my money back from the broker - they dissolved in July 2011 so have to go for the finance house - is that right? ta.

[funb0b1]

Thats why i was so surprised they went all the way with yours - but glad they did as it i all out and in the public domain now

 

Yeah they picked the wrong one to mess with LOL. And their arrogance is going to cost them very dearly, very dearly indeed.

[dadofholly]

campari - have you got evidence that Welcome paid commissions to the broker?

 

Were you informed by the broker that they would recieve this commission - and how much they would get?

 

Did the broker inform you that is was Welcome that the loan would be through? and at what stage did you find this out?

 

As it stands you may own nothing.

[iconoclash]

Hi - yes I do have evidence of the payment from Advantage to Cash Drive UK Ltd - this came to my attention when they complied with my SAR and not before. I wrote to them and asked for the KEY code to decipher their diary comments, and to explain who this guy was and why does it say: "Underwriter = automated approval [92] Dealer Name = Please take this from dealer offer warranty. Sales Source= Other broker." Payment = £1468.60. Their response was that it was nothing to do with me as it doesnt appear on the agreement. ??

[dadofholly]

Nothing to do with you They do make me laugh.

 

Did the Broker offer you alternatives or was it just Welcome?

 

Would suggest you Google Hurstanger v Wilson - it could be good reading for you.

[iconoclash]

oh - only just noticed that - my title doesnt say "dismissed" does it - says dimissed instead - what a plonker - wonder if i can change that? lol

[iconoclash]

Would suggest you Google Hurstanger v Wilson - it could be good reading for you

.

 

hi - so looking at Hurstanger I also noted other stuff about Sealey but, this further confirms my position I think, as although there is talk about whether the broker was a specific agent for the consumer, in my case I found the broker and the broker found the finance - surely that qualifies as representing me. So it was that I should find a car, enny, enny enny car....and he would sort it out, so no, no other deal or option available.

Edited January 18, 2012 by iconoclash
extra info

[dadofholly]

Don't worry about Sealy - they may throw that and others at you as a red herring - the fact is that in Sealy the borrowers were informed a commission would be paid just not how much it would be.

 

Hurstanger v Wilson deals with 'secret' and 'undeclared' commissions for one - and secondly that in the non status market - that welcome deals in - that the declaration of the amount of commission is necessary to be able to give you an informed choice.

 

The fact is you - and others - were given no alternatives.

 

Hurstanger is relevant - not just to you - but all these deals were a thrid party broker was used by the customer.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

There are actually two - but both settled prior to a final hearing - and confidentiality agreements are in place, (wonder why). Thats why i was so surprised they whent all the way with yours - but glad they did as it i all out and in the public domain now.

 

They had been trying to get round the Hurstanger case, on which they had lost before, and had frightened a few off i believe. Think they got to confident they could get round it and kept bringing up different cases - but none of them include a broker acting for the consumer in the same way as hurstanger - and the way Welcome operated.

 

One of the individuals who won was Andie303 who can be found on this thread - I provided her with a witness statement and a copy of an underwriting sheet i have showing commission payments to brokers. Not sure where she comes in on the thread but it's over 10,000 posts long

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?109794-Welcome-Finance/page35

 

Oh yes I remember Andie's story! The funny thing is that welcome are now saying something completely different to how they started off. Apparently they are now claiming that not only did they pay a commission to a broker but they also received a commission from the underwriter. They get a massive chunk from the insurers for selling their product, they keep half of it and pay the other half to a broker. The broker then has a healthy inducement to sell the policy to the customer. Simples

 

There is still a bit of a grey area between what they 'donate' in a lump sum to the underwriter and what they actually charge the customer regarding the actual price of the policy. Oh well, I'm sure it will all come out in the wash.....

[dadofholly]

Well the facts are that Welcome pay an undeclared, secret, commission to the broker - thats all the Court needs to know.