car repossed with welcome....problems please help : (

[rach0792]

hi all

after reading some threads on this sight i believe im in the right place to get some help but ill try to keep it simple

2007 i got a car from carcraft and it was financed through welcome ( 2 big no no's) jan 2008 i was having problems with payments so went back to carcraft to downsize car and get a cheaper one and get advice on exchanging cars cos its the 1st time id managed to have a car on finance they said to id just have to pay about £500 to which they gave me £300 and to call welcome up to come for the car....so i chose a small car (which they lied about being the only car i could have on finance...just a lil warning abour carcraft) so i did this and welcome came for the car and then sent me a bill for £1500 saying it wasnt half way through my contract (reading over the contract i accepted this as true although carcraft shouldve told me) i couldnt pay so went into the welcome office to try and sort it.

they said the only way was to take a loan over 3yrs at %43 interest (which would be more than the car) i was upset but said ok, however they had new systems installed and couldnt process it so they told me they would contact me.

over the next 2 weeks someone came to my house demanding i pay him a months installment and intially said he knew nothing about me going into the office, and then said i needed to pay in order to process the application, i didnt pay and he went away.....then some women was phoneing me at all hours threating to come and take the car (which they already had )

i decided this unnaceptable and thought it was better to let it go to court and see what they said and at the worst id only have to pay the debt and not all the extra interest : (

they have called me over the last 18mths and left messages to which ive ignored and charged me every time and today a company called COUNTRYWIDE dept recovery and vehicle repossession with just a mobile number to contact them on....i left a message saying i dont want letter just take me to court.....

thing is i dont earn a lot and im going to struggle, i already have a loan with welcome that im paying for 2yrs now and never missed a payment, is this why they are not taking me to court? and this COUNTRYWIDE company hasnt said anything about legal action....i just dont know where i stand but cant afford to take a loan out to pay them....

 

ok sorry this wasnt so short but can anyone please help? :-?

[notreadytogiveupyet]

bump

 

post should be about soon... my situation slightly different but the result is the same...

 

chin up, they cant be allowed to get you down

[Markiemark1]

OK, I think I understand what happene, but need you to just clarify.

 

I think you voluntarily terminated the original agreement - hence the half figure is relevant. Think them getting you into a new loan for the deficit here is very iffy tho.

 

Do you still have any car (the one you downsized to) in your possession? Sorry, bit confused by that bit.

 

Mark

[postggj]

You Would Have Had To Pay 50% Of The Agreement And Have No Arrears On The First Agreement To Do A Vt

 

Country Wide Are The Repo Agents For Welcome Ill Let You Carry On For The Moment Markiemark

 

Heads Spinning With This One And A Bit Confused

[Markiemark1]

Not convinced you have had to pay 1/2 and have no arrears to do a VT, but certainly they would be able to pursue you for this as part of any shortfall claim. I'll dig out my S100 of the Act and have a good read. However, what I'm keen to find out is whether the OP was induced into this, and what induced them to follow this course of action.

 

But yes, I'm a tad confused by this.

[postggj]

The Termination Point Will Be Written In On The Agreement

Has To By Law And I Can Confirm It Is 50%

[postggj]

Looks Like Welcome Being Economical With The Truth Again

[Markiemark1]

You are right, but the point I was making is when I worked for a finance company some years back now, we would accept a VT at any time, but if the customer had paid less than half and/or there were arrears then we would dispose of the vehicle (as the sale proceeds have no bearing on the liability) and seek the liability from the customer. We didn't require them to have paid 1/2 and have no arrears in order to process the VT.

[postggj]

Last Comment Sounds Like A Repo

Or Voluntry Surender As They Like To Call It

Result Is The Same Though

Finance Co Comes After You For The Shortfall

[Markiemark1]

How do you arrive at that comment?

 

The maths is simple. If it's a repo or a Voluntary surrender the car is sold, and the sale proceeds applied to the balance. The finance company then looks to the customer for the shortfall.

 

If it's a VT, then the starting point is 1/2 the total amount paid. From this you deduct anything paid, although obviously if that leaves a minus figure, then you leave it as zero. You then add any arrears at the date of termination. That is the balance the customer would owe.

 

Now I'm no fan of finance companies, hence I tend to do lots of consumer credit work based on fighting them. But the law is the law, and it's much better to use it then go down the all finance companies are scumbags approach.

[postggj]

How do you arrive at that comment?

 

The maths is simple. If it's a repo or a Voluntary surrender the car is sold, and the sale proceeds applied to the balance. The finance company then looks to the customer for the shortfall.

 

CORRECT ON THAT ONE

 

 

If it's a VT, then the starting point is 1/2 the total amount paid. From this you deduct anything paid, although obviously if that leaves a minus figure, then you leave it as zero. You then add any arrears at the date of termination. That is the balance the customer would owe.

 

 

50% OF THE AGREEMENT MUST HAVE BEEN MET FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN DO A VT AND HAVE NO ARREARS

CAR MUST BE IN A SUTIBLE CONDITION FOR ITS AGE A MILAGE

 

 

NOW WHAT FINANCE CO DID YOU USE TO WORK FOE ?

ANY I KNOW

[Markiemark1]

OK, VT's are covered by S100 of the CCA 1974. This is the text of that part of the Act:

 

100.—(1) Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is

terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides

for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the

amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums

paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

(2) Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is

required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total

price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation( the " installation charge")

the reference in subsection (1) to one-half of the total price shall be construed as a

reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one-half of the remainder of

the total price.

56

(3) If in any action the court is satisfied that a sum less than the amount specified

in subsection (1) would be equal to the loss sustained by the creditor in consequence

of the termination of the agreement by the debtor, the court may make an order for the

payment of that sum in lieu of the amount specified in subsection (1).

(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.

(5) Where the debtor, on ,the termination of the agreement. wrongfully retains

possession of goods to which the agreement relates, then. in any action brought by the

creditor to recover possession of the goods from the debtor, the court, unless it is

satisfied that having regard to the circumstances it would not be just to do so, shall

order the goods to be delivered to the creditor without giving the debtor an option to

pay the value of the goods.

 

Nowhere in there does it say it has to be paid prior to termination, it simply refers to being liable for. Furthermore it deals with what would happen if the goods were not in a suitable condition upon their return.

 

I'll PM you the finance company details upon your confirmation that it is kept completely confidential, but suffice to say if what you say was correct then they would never have let anyone VT and would have gone for the balance in full.

 

So enough of the shouting and bold print I think....perhaps we should be back helping the original poster????

[postggj]

ok

ill let you into a secret

 

i had a well known mick mouse car finance co in court over this matter

it was debated, believe me

 

no offence but i take my opinions by the oft and trading standards

 

a finance co will find any excuse for you not to do a vt

its not in there interest, they hate this clause in the cca

this forum is littered with threads on the matter

 

 

you might want to read on paying more than a third and the effects on recession of contract

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/repossessions/150726-car-repossession-welcome.html

Edited August 22, 2009 by postggj

[postggj]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-knowledge/216277-returning-car-finance-company.html

 

ANY COMMENTS

[rach0792]

im reading all this with great interest and for me on my contract it does in fairness say that i can surrender the vehicle after half way with no outstanding debt but i didnt know all this i just trusted the guy for carcraft to be advising me correctly and he said it would be a couple of hundred to pay not £1500 : (......but they have never said how much the car was sold for in fact a few months after someone was phoning me late at night threatening to come and take the car from me which of course they already had DOH!! its not so much paying it back that bothers me its the fact that the only way they will let me pay it back is through a loan at %43 interest which will cost more than the car orignally : ( so i figured to let it go to court and at least i will be paying back a true amount? but they dont seem to want to take me to court......in january its be 2yrs i also have a personal loan that finishes next year and never faltered on a payment.....would i have a case in court?