Advice regarding Arnold Clark Error

[brendenconnolly]

Hi, I wonder if anyone is able to help me make sense here on whether we have any case against Arnold Clark, in light of our recent unpleasant experiences with this dreadful company.

 

On 17th July 2013 my Mum went to the Bishopbriggs branch, and spoke to a salesman (I better not name him), about buying a new Dacia Sandero.(She has bad taste lol) Having gone through all the details, and explained that there was a 3 month or more wait for the vehicle, she decided to go ahead and order one. The finance was all approved by Santander, she paid her deposit, signed the paperwork and all that was left was to await a phone call to say the car has arrived.

 

On 13th November, she received a call from her salesman to say her car would be available for collection on 20th November, and that all was ok. My Mother then arranged with her current finance company to do an early termination agreement on her current car, and return it to them under the terms of that on 20th November.

 

On 19th November she received another call from the salesman at Arnold Clark. They had just realised the agreement was made 3 months ago, and as such Santander required them to re-propose the business. We were surprised at this, since it was all signed and sealed, however they went ahead, and Santander, for reasons known only to them, declined the application.

 

They then went ahead, without permission, and proposed her business to another 5 finance companies, without asking permission, discussing terms, or referring to my Mum in any way - the multiple searches led to multiple declines, and her credit score has reduced as a result of this where credit is now going to be more expensive for her because of the impact of these unauthorised searches of her credit file. This deplorable tactic just stinks of a desperate salesman, but the consequences don't affect him. Or Arnold Clark.

 

Having spoken to Santander, it seems they have done nothing wrong. The terms of their commercial agreement with Arnold Clark stipulates that where a customer waits more than 3 months for a vehicle, the finance will need to be re submitted, but that customers expecting such a delay should be clearly informed at the point of sale. Nothing of any of this was mentioned.

 

My Mum is the sole carer for her elderly mother in law, who has Alzheimers and mobility problems, and relies on the car. She works for an NHS out of hours service inaccessible to public transport, and her car is essential for that. What they are causing her to do is incur considerable expense to rent a car, in order to go about her daily life, while sorting out car finance separate to any dealership, and then finds another car to buy, from anywhere other than Arnold Clark.

 

I spoke to the salesman. He accepts no liability.He was not interested in even speaking. I have spoken to his sales manager and e-mailed him a complaint. He has not answered, and will not take calls from me now, or return calls. On the one occasion I spoke to him, he said he was going to try and arrange a hire car at their expense, but now he will not even communicate. I have spoken to their customer services, who have asked me to e- mail them. I have e-mailed the OFT and spoken to the FCA but still cannot find out if there is any actual legal wrongdoing here that they can be pursued for, it's very difficult.

 

It boils down to the fact that they withheld vital information about a financial product they sold, which has resulted in expense and inconvenience, or have they?

[brendenconnolly]

Apologies to any moderators if I've created a duplicate post - I posted incorrectly elsewhere, and just realised.

 

Hi, I wonder if anyone is able to help me make sense here on whether we have any case against Arnold Clark, in light of our recent unpleasant experiences with this dreadful company.

 

On 17th July 2013 my Mum went to the Bishopbriggs branch, and spoke to a salesman (I better not name him), about buying a new Dacia Sandero.(She has bad taste lol) Having gone through all the details, and explained that there was a 3 month or more wait for the vehicle, she decided to go ahead and order one. The finance was all approved by Santandericon, she paid her deposit, signed the paperwork and all that was left was to await a phone callicon to say the car has arrived.

 

On 13th November, she received a call from her salesman to say her car would be available for collection on 20th November, and that all was ok. My Mother then arranged with her current finance company to do an early termination agreement on her current car, and return it to them under the terms of that on 20th November.

 

On 19th November she received another call from the salesman at Arnold Clark. They had just realised the agreement was made 3 months ago, and as such Santander required them to re-propose the business. We were surprised at this, since it was all signed and sealed, however they went ahead, and Santander, for reasons known only to them, declined the application.

 

They then went ahead, without permission, and proposed her business to another 5 finance companies, without asking permission, discussing terms, or referring to my Mum in any way - the multiple searches led to multiple declines, and her credit score has reduced as a result of this where credit is now going to be more expensive for her because of the impact of these unauthorised searches of her credit file. This deplorable tactic just stinks of a desperate salesman, but the consequences don't affect him. Or Arnold Clark.

 

Having spoken to Santander, it seems they have done nothing wrong. The terms of their commercial agreement with Arnold Clark stipulates that where a customer waits more than 3 months for a vehicle, the finance will need to be re submitted, but that customers expecting such a delay should be clearly informed at the point of sale. Nothing of any of this was mentioned.

 

My Mum is the sole carer for her elderly mother in law, who has Alzheimers and mobility problems, and relies on the car. She works for an NHS out of hours service inaccessible to public transport, and her car is essential for that. What they are causing her to do is incur considerable expense to rent a car, in order to go about her daily life, while sorting out car finance separate to any dealership, and then finds another car to buy, from anywhere other than Arnold Clark.

 

I spoke to the salesman. He accepts no liability.He was not interested in even speaking. I have spoken to his sales manager and e-mailed him a complaint. He has not answered, and will not take calls from me now, or return calls. On the one occasion I spoke to him, he said he was going to try and arrange a hire car at their expense, but now he will not even communicate. I have spoken to their customer services, who have asked me to e- mail them. I have e-mailed the OFT and spoken to the FCA but still cannot find out if there is any actual legal wrongdoing here that they can be pursued for, it's very difficult.

 

It boils down to the fact that they withheld vital information about a financial product they sold, which has resulted in expense and inconvenience, or have they?

[scaniaman]

Was it the salesman or someone else in the branch that did the finance for your mum??? VIP, as only properly trained staff are allowed to carry out finance agreements.

In most branches of AS, at least one member of staff is qualified to transact finance agreements.

 

 

 

Arnold Shark---NEVER AGAIN.

[brendenconnolly]

Hi ScaniaMan, the person who sold the finance and conducted the transaction was the salesman who approached (or accosted) her as she entered the showroom. Is that not the way it's meant to be?

 

The thing is that the finance he sold was not fit for purpose because the agreement would be invalid before the vehicle was delivered, and the sale concluded. They are supposed to be duty bound to explain these things.

 

Obviously we don't want a car from them now. Neither myself, my Mum, or any of our family will buy from Arnold Clark again. I can count 12 brand new cars in the immediate family that have been purchased from them in the last 3 years - that's off the top of my head, there might be more. If they would speak to us, explain, apologise, or something then it wouldn't be so bad - but to do what they have done and leave her in this situation, and then ignore us, I want to find the best way to cause them as much trouble as they have caused us - We don't want money or anything else from them - we want an apology, or if there is a legal case, we want to pursue it to cause them maximum inconvenience and cost, the same as they have done to us.

[scaniaman]

Right Brenden, one or two points here:-

Firstly,Dacia's were available either off the shelf or very short waiting times up in Inverness in summer---AS LONG AS THEY WERE WHITE!!!!!!! (friend bought one).

Secondly, my previous forray (and definately my last) with AS was in 2008. At this time, to be a licensed credit broker, you had to have certain qualifications or training. In multi branch franchises , it only required one person to be accredited, so to speak. Therefore, in my case, a salesman made the sale, but i was transferred to this other guy (salesman) to complete the finance. I asked for HP, but when things went wrong and i contacted Santander, i found out i had a "Motor Loan", which is a trade term for a personal loan.

Complained to FSA, but they said it was OK---been at them since to review this terminology as it is not clear to purchaser. (certain main differences between hp and personal loan).

Now, you haven't said if clarkie returned your mums deposit or not???

Reason that this is important is that in law, when money changes hands, a "Contract" is said to exist.

I really think that you should consult a lawyer on this point---some lawyers do first hour free??

Lastly, as far as getting back at AS is concerned, don't bother as they don't give a monkeys what adverse publicity they attract. They are so big that losing a handfull of customers here and there makes no difference to them (see last years trading results---millions in profit).

What i did was to make large stickers ( on computer) for rear window of cars (gave many away).

These stickers were made in Yellow and Black (ARNOLD SHARK) and also in RED ( NEVER AGAIN).

The one on my car has attracted comments from 180 people before i stopped counting.

In regards OFT, i recommend that you report your story to your MP and let him/her forward it to FSA. I would emphisise to MP that they put in their letter that you know of several other complaints forwarded to FSA by MP's and ask when they intend to take action against clark.

A good lawyer, or financial consultant, should be able to inform you if they contraviened any laws on the credit side of the transaction. If they have, report to MP and get them to raise matter with someone very senior in the FSA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arnold Shark---NEVER AGAIN

[scaniaman]

Pity about your position in regards PM's.

[brendenconnolly]

Pity about your position in regards PM's.

 

You've lost me with that one lol

[brendenconnolly]

Lot's of good advice there, thanks for that. I submitted, after lots of work, a formal complaint to AC yesterday afternoon, and have pasted a copy below, with personally identifiable information removed, to prevent any possible legal issues arising as a result of my inclination to discuss their bad practices publicly.

 

What really surprises me is that, while looking into this matter that we have become embroiled in, there are SO MANY complaints about the selling practices of AC, and the way they procure finance, and the dreadful situations they have left many customers in. When you read some of the other stories, it seems maybe my Mum actually got away lightly, because she will never need to be involved with them again - some people have had ongoing problems for years. However, if they will not meet the out of pocket expenses incurred, then we will go to the FOS immediately we get a final response to the below letter - at the very least, they will have to pay the FOS to investigate, and we can make lots of noise about it.

 

I'm also baffled as to how a multi millionaire, geriatric, car selling conman gets a knighthood. I bet it has something to do with the Multi Millionaire part. These organisations and individuals think their money allows them to do as they please.

I have tried to resolve the following matter at a local level via the salesman and sales manager at Bishopbriggs, and since I have been ignored, after the sales manager promised to arrange a rental car, I am left with no option but to issue this e-mail as a formal complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act, since it is our assertion that your salesman, ***** **** breached section 55a of the Consumer Credit Act, contrary to the provisions of your licence to act as an intermediary of credit facilities.

 

I will now outline the circumstances of my complaint, which I have been advised by the FOS is perfectly valid, and which they will be happy to become involved with should an amicable solution not be reached with you directly, and resultant of this complaint.

 

On or around the 17th July 2013, my Mother, Ms.***** ****, and her partner, Mr. ****** *******, approached your Bishopbriggs branch with an interest in purchasing a Dacia Sandero. They were met on arrival by a sales representative by the name of ***** ****.Following discussions about the car, and the finance option with Santander, she agreed to proceed with a purchase of a Dacia Sandero Stepway. She was informed there was a delivery period of 3 - 4 months.

 

It is clear from conversations with Santander that they have a policy where credit has to be reproposed if 3 or more months have passed without delivery being taken. It is also clear from conversations with Santander and the FOS, and following guidance from The Office of Fair trading,and the Citizens Advice Bureau, that your sales staff are supposed to inform customers of this critical aspect of the deal. ***** ****, on behalf of Arnold Clark, failed to do this. As a result of this failure in his duty, Ms.******* has suffered excessive and undue stress, and has been left out of pocket, and I will explain why.

 

On 13th November Mr. **** called to say the vehicle would be ready to be collected on 20th November. At this point, he confirmed everything was OK, it was just a simple matter of picking the car up. This information was entirely incorrect. More than 3 months had already passed since the vehicle was ordered, Mr. **** was clearly well aware the finance would need to be re applied for. However, on the basis of what he told Ms *******, she arranged an Early Termination Agreement with her current financiers, RCI and to return her car to them on 20th November. The same day she was to collect her new car.

 

The day before collection, on 19th November, Mr. **** called to tell Ms. ******* of this 3 month rule with Santander. This was the first we had heard of it. Anyway, to keep to the salient points, he claimed to have "Just realised" it needed re submitted. "Just realising" is not good enough. He deals with finance every day. He must, or should, know his products. In exasperation, since we thought it was already a done deal, we agreed to allow this re application to keep things simple. Santander then declined the application. Her old car was being collected, and the agreement to terminate couldn't be reversed.

 

Arnold Clark left her without a car because they couldn't be bothered doing their job properly. Whilst being negligent they have, we believe, breached the terms of Arnold Clark's Consumer Credit Licence by failing to supply an adequate explanation of the finance product they were selling, and that this is contrary to section 55a of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Further, as though this disgraceful behaviour wasn't bad enough, Mr. **** then, of his own volition, with no reference to Ms. *******, no discussion of alternatives, and certainly with no permission, written, implied or otherwise, decided to present an application for finance on her behalf to every lender Arnold Clark use, in a desperate attempt not to lose his sale, and not to keep his customer informed of what he was doing. In spite of the fact that his failure to disclose key features of a financial product you are licensed to sell was at the heart of this matter, and the cause of all the problems, he was doing it again by desperately trying to get anyone to accept this application. Ms.******* has been left in a weaker position than when she started this transaction, because the unauthorised credit searches have taken an adverse effect on her score.

 

If she had the correct information, she would never have terminated the finance on her old car, until she knew everything was accepted and definite with Santander.

 

Santander are not at fault. They are free to decide who to lend to, and to vary their criteria.

 

Arnold Clark failed to describe the Santander product appropriately, resulting directly in considerable loss and suffering. This suffering has extended beyond Ms. ******, and affected her elderly Mother In Law, who has Alzheimers and mobility problems, it has affected her work because she is employed by the NHS in a location inaccessible to public transport, during her shifts which are always out of hours. The financial aspect is that, at considerable, unforeseen cost she has been forced to rent a car, to fulfil her daily duties, she has her £100 deposit to Arnold Clark still outstanding, and she is out of pocket through having to make 2 unnecessary amendments to her insurance, followed by a cancellation charge now that she has no vehicle whatsoever and was mid-term. These costs amount to an additional £90. We don't yet know what the final figure will be on a rental vehicle, because of the weakened position Ms. ******* has been left in by Arnold Clark's unauthorised instigation of credit searches by various finance houses, finding an appropriate and affordable finance product to buy another vehicle is expected to take longer than one would normally expect.

 

When I spoke to Mr **** he avoided all responsibility, and tried to blame Ms. ******. He can't even accept when a mistake has been made. When I spoke to his manager, he was so sickeningly apologetic I thought we might resolve this locally, but after promising to arrange and cover at least some of the cost of a rental car to help out, he has scurried away, and won't return calls, won't accept my calls, and will not reply to an e-mail I sent him yesterday. I find it galling that ANY business, far less a supposedly reputable, and huge car dealership should have their staff behave in such a way, and with seeming impunity, for when I spoke with your customer service department, I felt I might have had many more productive conversations with my dog. I have never in my life spoken to someone so disinterested in a genuine grievance, and who refused to provide their name. So in every area, with every member of staff, and with every communication since this deal was no longer in your favour, we have been met with rudeness, ignorance, and diversion of blame. Not to mention downright incompetence, and failure to adhere to correct selling practices. One has to wonder where you recruit from.

 

We believe Arnold Clark should agree to meet all of these costs, and offer a payment of some kind in apology for the suffering their divisive and dishonest business practices have taken upon Ms. *******.

 

I await your acknowledgement and response.

[scaniaman]

Reference my post 5 Brenden, i had other info to pass on but can't post it here. When i tried to PM you, it came up that you either did not want PM's or for some reason you were not allowed them.

The stonewalling of AS customers who complain is common practice, and someone put a naughty picture on here about it some time ago.

Did your mum pay deposit by credit card or Visa debit card---if so she can contact them and ask for "Chargeback".

Incompetence is standard, despite what they say about salesmen being fully trained. In my case they knew i needed a Disabled road tax, ans so went locally to get one. When they eventually found out this required a change to the V5, we had to wait half a day+ until they went to a DVLA office and got the correct licence. And all this from a Motability trained salesman!!!!!!!!!!

At the end of the day, if you can't get satisfaction, have you considered contacting the Press?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arnold Shark ---NEVER AGAIN

[ploddertom]

Reference my post 5 Brenden, i had other info to pass on but can't post it here. When i tried to PM you, it came up that you either did not want PM's or for some reason you were not allowed them.

 

Post count of 30 needed for PMs.

[brendenconnolly]

Ah that's the problem then - you are welcome to e-mail me direct if you wish - (Removed) hope that is allowed lol

 

The plot thickens. And worsens. Arnold Clark customer services got back to me, seeking my mothers authorisation for me to deal with this complaint on her behalf. So, she phoned up and gave this. I then got the following e-mail. Check out the spelling and grammar - particularly page 2. I'm not saying we should all be gramatically correct, and be able to spell every word, but if you work for the complaints department of a national company, then surely your writing skills are a big part of a job like that - here it is though.

 

Dear Mr Connolly,

 

We have received your Mothers authorisation, there has been a case file raised for the issues that you have raised in your email, Reference number is xxxxx.

 

Customer Service will know have to lease with the General and Sales Manager at the relevant dealership. If we require any paperwork from the branch we will have this faxed through to ourselves.

 

Customer Service try to work towards a 2 business day turn around, but where every case is different it may take longer to resolve your case,to a satisfactory standard. Due to the amount of information that has been included.

 

Kind regards

Arnold Clark Customer Services

 

Now, following this acknowledgement, I received the following e-mail, from the sales manager of the branch.

 

Mr Connolly

 

 

As discussed on Wednesday, I have managed to speak to our hire drive manager and she has agreed to provide you with a hire car at a discounted staff rate. Due to the unfortunate set of circumstances surrounding Mrs ******** car purchase, whilst there is nothing that we can do, our hire drive department can supply you with an economy car from now until the 11th December for a discounted £280.

 

 

I hope this is of help and we will look forward to seeing you in the coming months.

 

 

 

***** *********

SALES MANAGER

ARNOLD CLARK BISHOPBRIGGS RENAULT

01417726481

Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited is a company registered in Scotland No. 036386. Registered Office: 134 Nithsdale Drive, Glasgow G41 2PP. VAT Registration Number: GB 334331879.

 

His offer refers to an economy car. and his £280 is meant to be a "Discounted rate". However, we have already rented a Ford Focus, 2 stages up from an economy car, for the duration required for £220 direct with Avis. I phoned AC, at that branch, using another name, to get a price for rental, for the same period, of an economy car, and lo and behold, they quoted just UNDER £280. They are halfwits.

 

I have contacted head office complaining this guy never got back to me when he had the chance to sort it out at local level, but now a formal complaint has been made, he is sending me offers which turn out not to be offers, more expensive than the AVIS! I have suggested it would be inappropriate for any further contact to be made from the branch given that I am awaiting a final response, more so that I can advance to the FOS when they produce one.

 

I have indeed considered the press - but I would rather wait until they have shot themselves in the foot with their final written response, because no-one at AC seems to understand the complaints, far less be able to produce acceptable reasons for their behaviour, although I have no doubt they will try!

Edited November 23, 2013 by ploddertom
Removed email address

[brendenconnolly]

Oh, I forgot - she paid the deposit in cash, and they keep saying it will come back to her, but as yet hasn't. This has been mentioned throughout the complaint. especially that, when cash changes hands, a deal is done, but they are in no hurry to return it. It was only £100, but we want it back - not letting them keep any of my Mum's money to line their millionaire, geriatric conman of a bosses already overstuffed pockets! lol

[silverfox1961]

Hi Brenden,

I have removed the reference number you posted above just in case it is a real number.

[brendenconnolly]

Hi Brenden,

I have removed the reference number you posted above just in case it is a real number.

 

Thank you very much for that - It was a real number, and I clearly forgot to remove it - apologies for that, and thank's for removing it!

[citizenB]

Sadly, both they and consumers tend do most of their communicating on the telephone nowadays, so perhaps they don't require "writing skills" after all

[scaniaman]

Brenden, i note that there is no signature of the AS Cust Services---there used to be a guy called Alisdair came on this site but has not been heard of for a long time.

In regards to your "Bargin" car hire, they offered to give me a special deal on a pre reg car but this was £1100 HIGHER than other UK main dealers were advertising the same car. I have known of other AS bargins which were no bargins at all. After i emailed them proof of the price from other main dealers thats when they stonewalled me forever. I had a family member phone them asking about the SAME car and they were offered this car at a lower price than my bargin!!!

Apart from hounding them for the return of mums deposit, i think you may have to employ professional advice in order to reinstate mums credit rating because i am 100% sure that clark won't act to rectify THEIR mistakes.

You started off my mentioning the educational standards of the Cust Rel Staff LOL. Whilst i can't comment on the staff at Bishopbriggs, the branch i dealt with employed a general manager that admitted that he had virtually no mechanical experience, so how could he resolve my complaint which was of a highly technical nature.

What the sly basrad did was to wait until i returned home from a meeting at branch, then he phoned me with a choice of resolutions. Needless to say none of these were in anyway acceptable. But, again on the phone, he STERNLY warned me NEVER to phone any of his staff again. Any further contact must be directly with him.

In all honesty, i don't think you will get very far with this dreadful situation apart from getting the deposit back.

IMHO, you will have to hammer the OFT and FSO to get anything done for the future.

Unfortunately, there is a far sinister situation developed because of the rapid expansion of AS. I have been informed that several people who knew of clark's reputation, and would prefer not to deal with them, have in fact had to buy cars from them simply because the cars they wanted were not available from any other source ie no competition left, especially in certain locations.

I don't know if this will help you but i am given to understand that it is clarks son in law who is actually the "Top Man" in the firm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arnold Shark---NEVER AGAIN

[micra2010]

just to say, i also bought a car from AC bishopbriggs. i didnt like the extras they tried to push you to buy and go for their extended warranty and car service plan. once they have sold you the car, they dont want anything to do with you or the problems the car may have. wouldnt recommend that branch to anyone.