Car Finance Rights Problem

[dboxking]

I am looking for help on behalf of my father who I think was conned into taking a car. He is entitled to a mobility vehicle but the salesman warned him off it and conned him into taking more finance. My dad is 65 and he just listened to the salesman as he made out he was trying to help him, usual tactics for a salesman:evil:. I am livid as I did not know this was going on, i'v just found out nearly a year after he took out the finance. The car is only worth £8500 now but the finance settlement is £11,100. I dont know if my dad has any rights as the vehicle was mis sold, or if there is any way of ending this finance:confused:. My dad does not keep well and is starting to do silly things, like this! and he cannot afford to keep these payments on either. He asked the salesman, "who was a mobility specialist" about mobility cars but the salesman talked him out of it and right into a 5 year finance agreement where he obviously made good commision.

I would be grateful of any advice given as I am not knowledgable on this subject and dont know where to begin.

 

Many Thanks

[dboxking]

:confused:Does anyone have any advice??

[lookinforinfo]

I don't know a lot about the Motability schemes but there are a few things that

might be a reason for the hire purchase scheme to be better.

 

Under the Motability scheme using Contract hire,it must be a new car and the loan has to be repaid in 3 years. if your dad has to have the car adapted for his use, he will have to pay for the adaptation when the car is delivered and at the end of three years when he has to dispose of the car and get a new one. Once again having to pay for his new car to be adapted. The maximum mileage allowance is 60,000 over the three years.

 

Under the Hire Purchase scheme, he can buy a second handcar if he wants and he can spread the payments over a longer period. It follows that if his car needs adapting that it will be cheaper to do it every five years rather than three. and of course spreading payments over 5 years anyway would be cheaper than the 3 years with the other scheme.

 

Against that is your Dad has to pay for his insurance and servicing while it is included in the price with Contract hire.

Edited February 20, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

double posting.

[dboxking]

It works out cheaper and better off for my dad to have a mobility car. He doesn't need any adaptations to the car. I'm looking to find out if he has any rights as to cancelling this finance as I believe the veh was mis sold to him as he went in initially asking for a mobility veh and ended up with finance.

[lookinforinfo]

Well, he can still offset some of the premium against his mobility allowance.

Perhaps your Father couldn't afford the car he really wanted over a 3 year period, but could when the payments were stretched over 5 years.

You would really need to ask your Father on what grounds he was talked out of the Mobility Contract hire.

If he cannot afford the monthly repayment terms over 5 years, then he couldn't afford the same car over 3 years either.

[dboxking]

My dad didnt want a particular car, the salesman advised him to buy the car he has even though he was asking for a mobility vehicle. The mobility car he would have got would have worked out cheaper than what he's paying now. He's just had to pay out for 2 new tyres as well as new discs and pads all round even though he's not even had the car a year. If you had read my first post, I said my dad is doing silly things now as he's getting older and he trusted a salesman who's only intent was shifting a car for his commisiony, when my dad went in asking for a mobility car. I am looking for advice on how I can cancel this finance as I believe the veh was mis sold.

[dboxking]

sorry, i didnt say that in my first post. my dad is doing silly things and this is how he's ended up in this situation but he didnt want to tell me. i'v jus found out.

[lookinforinfo]

Yes I understand what you are trying to do. But I am asking you questions to see if he was missold the car as it is far from clear at the moment.

 

There are two ways of buying car under the Mobility scheme-contract hire or higher purchase. Now if you are saying that he is not getting any Mobility relief on his payments, then you could have a case of misselling.

 

As I said on my first post, I don't know the Motabiliity scheme that well, but your Father should be able to get a reduction on his monthly premium because of his Mobility allowance. What I am unsure about is how that allowance is carried out. Does it reduce his monthly payment, or does the allowance get paid into his bank account? If he is not getting the allowance at all, is that because your father has not, or does not know how to claim it;or has the salesman perhaps not completed the agreement correctly?

[dboxking]

i'm not 100% sure about how his benefit works but he claims mobility an i think he gets an allowance, i'd need to check, but he went in an asked about gettin a mobility veh an the salesman just brushed it off an talked him into buyin a car they were lookin to get rid of. Has he just been conned and now he has to keep his car? Or is there anythin i can do?

[lookinforinfo]

I don't know if you have looked at these sites but they do give you an idea of how the Motability sheme works. The last URL below does explain how the Hire Purchase plan works. It does have the advantage that the car does belong to your Dad at the end of the 5 years.

 

 

The Motability Scheme: options for buying or hiring a car : Directgov - Disabled people

 

motability

 

Motability Car Scheme - Hire Purchase Rates

[kwaks]

i'm not 100% sure about how his benefit works but he claims mobility an i think he gets an allowance, i'd need to check, but he went in an asked about gettin a mobility veh an the salesman just brushed it off an talked him into buyin a car they were lookin to get rid of. Has he just been conned and now he has to keep his car? Or is there anythin i can do?

 

Now you simply do not know that. You were not privy to the conversation between your father and the salesman, you do not know what info the salesman made his reccomendation on.

 

If your father has low useage of the vehicle it may have simply been put to him to use the 5 yr HP option (lower payments or better model) with the benefit that he owns the car outright at the end, allowing him to sell or pass it on and restarting a new agreement. In many cases this CAN be the best option, as the costs in maintining the vehicle are more than recovered in the sale price after 5 yrs. Could be his annual mileage is over 15k, in which case the HP option is the best.

 

Not good to go around accusing the salesman of misselling when it is patently obvious you do not have all the facts or are even aware of the options and rules of the motability scheme.

[lookinforinfo]

To be fair to dboxking all the Motability websites state that the Contract Hire option is the more suitable one for the majority of people.

And if his Father is not getting the allowance he is entitled to, the difference in the payments between the two schemes, it will make it look as if his Father was misled.

[kwaks]

To be fair to dboxking all the Motability websites state that the Contract Hire option is the more suitable one for the majority of people.

And if his Father is not getting the allowance he is entitled to, the difference in the payments between the two schemes, it will make it look as if his Father was misled.

 

May be so, and dboxking may be under that impression, however to slate off the salsman in almost every post when the salesman DOES know about the mobility scheme, the salesman has more to gain by the contract hire (replaced every 3 yrs rather than 5 in this case) is completely uncalled for.

 

From what I have seen so far there is nothing to say his father was misled, and so critising a salesman is unfair to the man who might have been doing his father a favour.

[kwaks]

OP has accused the saleman on five occasions of illegal/questionable practice despite not having all the facts to hand and not being privy to a conversation a year previous.

[lookinforinfo]

By the same token Kwaks, we don't know that the rep didn't turn his Dad over.

[kwaks]

No we don't, and as such I think repeated accusations wihout evidence either way are too much.

 

Whilst I understand the OP might feel this way, and in his anger is ready to accuse, I feel this is doing him (and others) a disservice. If the OP wants out of the finance agreement then it would suit him better to look at the agreement and understand it rather than assume it was missold.

 

I am not a salesman of any sort (although used to be albeit not cars) and it infuriates me when the salesman is blamed 100%. As I have said, without at least circumstantial evidence to show that the owner of the vehicle would have been better on contract hire and this could have been determined at POS then the salesman has no case to answer.

 

IF it is simply a case of the OP wants out the finance, he would be better served looking at his options with that rather than accusing the salesman of any misdoings, at the end of the day this salesman might be the one who can help him.