Advantage Car Finance

[iconoclash]

hi - could they argue that having sold the 3 insurances they used some 'pay-off' for that to then pay the broker? but, as I cancelled two of them within a week and paid nothing against them they surely would not have been able to keep anything they got - which reminds me that in their paperwork I noticed that someone had written on my requests to cancell the PPI and the GAP, and it said that it wasnt possible to cancell ? not that I was out of time or anything but just says "cannot cancell this" - maybe they thought they would just tell me that and then thought better of it - who knows.

[iconoclash]

Hi - Ive never noticed this before but dont think this part of the Agreement can possibly be legal:

 

" Please note that the termination rights set out in this Hire Purchase Agreement only apply to the Hire Purchase goods and to that part of the payments which relate to the goods. If you exercise your right to terminate this agreement, you will be liable to make payments due in respect of any optional insurances that you have chosen."

 

The entire document is CCA regulated and early settlement rebate calcs also apply to insurances in law so if a customer terminates/cancells they are not, in my opinion, obliged to continue with any insurances. This statement is surely false and another example of misrepresentation by this company. Also stated by the DJ as being known 'behaviour' of this company.

[dadofholly]

Camapari this may be worth a read, it s about multiple agreements - such as the one you have.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?171037-Multiple-agreements-falling-within-section-18-CCA-1974

 

Not sure if it is any help for you - it will depend how your agreement is laid out. But it has been used against Welcome - and i know of one case - due to be heard early Feb - that uses these araguments. But that was from an agreement made in 2004.

[iconoclash]

Hi - been through the figs again and the total on the agreement for others (not car) is £4101.60. Some of this I know is invalid as I cancelled stuff but, trying to find out what the position is with using an agreement as the basis for a claim (against me) that shows sums that clearly are no longer valid. If a Dj or another looked at this contract alone they might well believe that I have an obligation to pay over £11k. I have no modifying agreement but payed a reduced rate which is alledged to represent the car cost plus the warranty costs monthly, but, the warranty was for 3 years and the car finance for 4 years. At no time did I receive a statement or letter or notice identifying that the cost for the warranty was now complete and I had forgotten about such details, but think It would have reduced by around £25-30. As it happens I had to reduce the payments anyway due to changed circumstances but did not look into whether I was then being charged extras, so was probably going 'two steps forward and one step back' all the time. And, since there were two 'products' with different interest rates involved, should I ask for separate statements that clearly identify the details. It is very difficult to discover the accounting on this. thanks

[dadofholly]

When we get the info back from your SAR we will have a better idea of what the situation is.

 

You say you cancelled some stuff - what did you cancel - and how long into the agreement .

[iconoclash]

Hi and many thanks for your responses. Can I ask: when a DN is issued and it says Total amount payable under the Agreement xxxx, followed by Less Reabte figure of xxx, then total to be Paid xxxx, does this mean the actual Total due under the Agreement. There is another place in the DN that states an arrears sum due in order to bring the account up to date, but the total given as due under the agreement is now confusing me. Are they required to give only the cost figure or cost remaining? thank you

[dadofholly]

Would need to see it to determine for sure if it is compliant - you can scan and upload it to here if you like - but edit out personal details, agreement numbers and any barcodes.

 

That said it sounds confusing and maybe non compliant.

 

What it should tell you is what you need to do to comply with your DN - for example it should tell you how much you have to pay, and by what date, for you to stop the account being defaulted.

[iconoclash]

Hi - thanks again - I was being stupid and thinking too literally - the sum they quote as due is what they allege is outstanding. I dont think I owe their stated figures as they contain a lot of stuff that I cannot identify but in the meantime I have suggested that I have paid for the car, that the other insurances were cancelled, save for one which had no total true cost disclosed, and no admission of the secret commission: I dont think I am liable for their losses in respect of commissions they paid to the broker, and the contract looking dodgy anyway Ive sent it to the FOS to look at. Been sent another 'costs added to your account' letter and they are operating this as costs for my breaching their contract and making additional charges with extra interest daily.

[dadofholly]

Did you ever get the pasword sorted for the information you had been sent?

[iconoclash]

Hi - yes did that but I have received a response from Advantage now and they refute everything. They say I have seven days to make an offer or they will go back into court. They state that I have not entered into a fiduciary relationship with any third party and that the company data found in their documents relates to a broker for the car dealership and that they dont know how I got my sums. That the Consumer Credit Directive doesnt apply - but the judge accepted it did when I was in court in December. I know there are transisition periods for some adopted legislation but even then, the previous will apply, I think. They also say they wrote to me with the TCC for the warranty separately but I dont have that. And that I cant send it to the FOS as its with the court But its isnt in the court surely if it has been dismissed by the DJ already and they havent restored it.?? help please

[dadofholly]

So who is advantage - is it them that arranged the finance?

 

Who is telling you they will take you to court?

[iconoclash]

Hi - Advantage Finance - that company RCT had all that trouble with. They do have liberty to restore generally - which runs out very soon but I am now looking at these sheets in front of me that have their logos all over them from the broker company - doesnt seem to be working for Perrys.

[iconoclash]

Hi - back again - have rung the dealership and they dont agree that the broker worked for them - they do their own finance - why would they get someone else in between them and the finance company -it doesnt make sense. So, am attempting to attach the copies here and really hope that this will help to show what has really gone on, as I dont understand how they can say that the broker company was never paid anything - who would have paid them if not the finance company? thanks:???:

[dadofholly]

Ok lets step back a moment - did you arrange the finance yourself or did the garage do it for you?

 

was the loan with welcome finance? or am i geting confused?

[iconoclash]

Hi - I found the broker on the internet (that the Jim Mcguire bit) and he said go and find the car and the agreement was made with Advantage Finance Ltd, who I had never heard of until we actually signed up. I rang the garage (dealership: Perrys) today and they confirmed that they did not arrange any of it but went through the process and are now asking me if I want another car - lol.

[dadofholly]

Then Hurstanger & Wilson comes into play - There was a broker who was acting for you - and he received commission that was secret.

[iconoclash]

Hi -okay I think they are trying to scare me off with all this new stuff about me not understanding the law of agency, but i thought that related to commercial contracts? they say there is no third party? if this was their case why wasnt it in their original claim? Law of agency seems to say that an agent brings together two others to form a contract - the person they act for being the principal and third party being me but in this scenario surely i would be both ? cant see a judge taking that argument but it is confusing. I still dont believe that the brokers did it all for love despite the finance company saying that they did not pay the sum quoted, but, noticed that they dont state that didnt pay any sum at all.

[dadofholly]

Do you have evidence that a payment was made?

[iconoclash]

hi - its on the thumbnails i posted up - couldnt work out how to get them in larger, sorry. meantime - as advantage finance are keen to state in court that cash drive do not work for them and Perrys Dealership also state they did not work for them Ive found them to be a pheonix company now, changed their registered address etc and have an active web site - seems they are still trading despite being dissolved last July.. Now I can do a SAR and get their files but really fed up that I have to spend what little money I have just to discover the truth about this deal.

Edited February 2, 2012 by iconoclash
extra info

[iconoclash]

Hi - back again. Been talking to the Finance & Leasing Association, which this lot are members of, and they say tha the Office of Fair Trading Guidance clearly states:

Hire Purchase Agreements: Remedies in the Sale of Goods Act do not apply to hire purchase vehicles as the Legal Rights are against the finance company.

 

So I think I could be wasting my time chasing the broker company when this would be seen by a judge as the responsibility of the finance company. They should have made sure that everything was done properly by both the intermediary, in terms of pre-contract disclosure etc., and the dealership, in terms of checking quality and history of car etc., and their own practices in terms of disclosure, contract etc.

 

Would you agree? thanks

[dadofholly]

You can claim the commission back from the broker only.

 

As for who the broker worked for thats simple - they worked for you - if you asked them to find a loan for you - it is to you they owed the fiduciary duty. The fact that they recieved a large commission shows that they were not acting in your interest but in their own - by finding the best commission for them, and keeping it secret from you.

 

Any issues regarding the agreement should be with the finance provider.

[iconoclash]

hi - havent been back on here as i am now fighting my local police who have targetted my son amongst a group of teens, using heresay etc. He has EBD etc and I am struggling to get full details out of them also freezing my butt off as my boiler has gone caputt again - british gas wont come out even though i thought they were meant to guarantee their work for 12 months - so depressing. so - re the car - the finance company timescales do not allow for me to get the responses from the dealership and broker company and say they will take this back into court. i think i will have to accept that and take it up with the judge again at that time. too busy slipping off the bottom rung....

[iconoclash]

Hi - to quote Advantage Finance - they say that at the time of entering into my agreement (Sept 2008) there was no requirement for them to disclose the existence of a commission and all their practices are legal and will stand up in court. And that I have no actual evidence to support my defence. Also that Hurstanger wont apply as the clients paid the broker whereas I did not. The broker is proving difficult as they voluntarily liquidated but were part of Motaloan who are still in existence. I have written to Motaloan for the files but no response so far. The motor dealership have responded and confirm that they had a contractual relationship with the broker and that they were offered a finance brokerage service. But, I contacted the brokers myself before any other company's were involved so I do still believe that they were meant to be working for me, and owed a duty to me. Meantime I cannot get the finance company to remove all their excessive charges and interest and agree a proper figure due bearing in mind I have paid for the car already plus some. any help welcome.

[dadofholly]

Advantage are talking nonsense - the fact you did not pay the broker is irrelevant - you sourced the broker to act for you. you will go round in circles - they will not settle unless you go legal.

[iconoclash]

hi - having failed to reach any agreement with the finance company, who were not really negotiating at all but challenging everything in my original defence, they have now followed up with a request to court to restore their claim. This was pretty much expected but I wonder if you can just clarify a couple of points for me please: the original claim of theirs was dismissed, but with liberty to restore. (I thought that liberty to restore only lasted for 56 days?) They ask court for: 1. Restoration of their claim, stay lifted. 2. Revised particulars attached be accepted. 3. Service of amended particulars be dispensed with. 4. Costs in the case. 5. To remove to fast track. They also state that they want to kill two birds with one stone. ! Wow. I think they are pulling a flanker on me with all this and I think there are implications for the judge allowing this stuff if they do - could anyone please alert me to the potential pitfalls here. many thanks.