Big Motoring World/BMW PCP Finance/Warranties 2000 - Range rover Evoque timing chain fail at 76k

[theoldrouge]

To VT total required 11848

By my quick calc you have paid 

 

30 months at 340 (10200 )plus your deposit 500 (10700) the loan payments don’t count so still around 1150 short which you would have to make up

The agreements as posted still seem to be incomplete 

Your battle at the moment is to get the finance co to honor the useless warranty 

 

[theoldrouge]

That’s just the loan agreement 

What is needed is the original 

finance agreement that you signed for the car finance not a later one that was sent 

Given the t and c’s I can foresee a real battle ahead with VT

At this stage I would be insisting that the useless warranty was honored pronto 

[theoldrouge]

SAR to the dealer and Creation

Gather as much info as possible 

You believed you were signing a PCP but apparently ended up with HP with balloon which is quite common ,but mileage clause rare as hens teeth ,not to mention the myriad of goods return clauses all common to PCP

Formal complaint the right way to go demanding car be fixed as you have done 

[theoldrouge]

Creation reply seems to be addressed to someone acting on your behalf? “Your client?”

Anyway if they refuse to help

you are going to need an Independent Engineers Report 

then off to the FOS

All this of course will take time 

so you may well have to hire a vehicle if you need a car sadly you need to be prepared to lay out money whilst awaiting any FOS decisions 

Due to the car being a non runner 

and given their t and c’s I can foresee a VT being a huge battle 

but if you cannot afford the hire etc and can’t wait on the FOS it maybe the only option 

[theoldrouge]

Please clarify why in Creations reply you are being referred to as 

“Your Client “Who’s Client?

Regarding ceasing warranty payments, what you are actually paying is a loan payment with which you purchased the warranty. To cease payment would trash your credit file 

As to the VT I very much doubt that they would accept a non runner as fair wear and tear

although with an independent report,depending on the results,it may be possible to put forward a convincing case

In view of the complexities of Creation rejecting  your complaints 

I would favor the FOS route over Court

Edited April 29, 2022 by theoldrouge
Spelling

[theoldrouge]

Thanks for clarifying just goes to show the numpties that you are dealing with 

Lets see what they come back with 

[theoldrouge]

Let’s have ALL the documentation in one place please 

Lets see the PCI and the FULL agreement that you signed 

PLUS the SAR comms log

Lets get the full information

[theoldrouge]

shame no pre contract info included

As to the header,

because PCP was not around when CCA1974 was written, the term Hire Purchase Agreement is used as standard

this does of course lead to substantial confusion

The difference being with HP you are increasing your equity in the vehicle with each months payments

With PCP you are merely paying the estimated depreciation of the vehicle, in your case in excess of £10k depreciation (I hate PCP with a vengeance )

Now as to your FOS Complaint, a two pronged attack if it were me

 

First obtain an independent engineers report, and complain as regards the useless warranty that you were sold for your peace of mind,but in effect was sold it for the dealers commission

Second insist you thought you were signing an HP agreement, the facts regarding PCP were never explained to you (the depreciation payments)

You thought that your payments were going towards purchasing the vehicle on a monthly basis nothing was explained to you

As a result you have been totally mislead and misold PCP, and require the agreement to be rendered void, and you want all your monies returned

[theoldrouge]

Excellent all looking very promising 

[theoldrouge]

No need for further delay One rejection was enough, just get on with it 

[theoldrouge]

At a later stage when you are asked for more information 

Then you can flesh it out and claim the moral high ground (how you have continued to comply with your legal obligations in this matter despite being deprived of your vehicle etc

Bullet points only at this stage

plus as dx above

[theoldrouge]

For some reason I can only see the FOS letter not the two reports

As regards the difference between hp and pcp use the explanation that I have already given you ( paying depreciation v increasing your equity in the vehicle) just fluff it out abit

I don’t see the FOS letter as particularly negative, it’s the reports I need to see

[theoldrouge]

And just to add that the very basic difference is at the end of the hp agreement you own the vehicle,at the end of the pcp you pay the substantial balloon payment if you wish to own the vehicle 

You did not receive pci at the time of purchase and none of this was ever explained to you 

[theoldrouge]

dx makes a good point about the different noise from a Diesel engine 
You had the vehicle professional serviced about 4000 miles prior to the breakdown and no concerns were raised at the time of the service so negating their argument 
A chain breaking is a sudden event with no noticeable loss of engine performance prior to the event 

[theoldrouge]

Seems like a pretty satisfactory outcome so far
Cant see they will get very far by not agreeing, their report was a pretty substandard effort imo

[theoldrouge]

Agee with @BankFodderyou need clarification from the Ombudsman 
But otherwise the result is pretty positive 

[theoldrouge]

I think you have gone as far as you are going to get with the FOS
I would accept the decision and get the car inspected by such as the RAC/AA after it is repaired before accepting the repair 
Meanwhile carefully work out all the financial implications of purchasing and then selling the vehicle on to see if that works for you 
Car buying websites will give you a pretty good idea as to what you are going to be able to achieve price wise

[theoldrouge]

N322A but see what happens from the letter first 
Probably due to incompetence on Creations part

[theoldrouge]

tbh I found your last post rather confusing 

What is this letter received from section 75?
It would seem that they are going to comply with the fos ruling?

So if they fix the car and then you end the agreement there will be no argument over condition etc at the end of the agreement 

so nothing to gain/lose by having it put back in roadworthy condition at their expense

They will have to contact you re the end of the agreement, personally I wouldn’t complicate matters

Please reiterate again to save wading through the thread the financial details the fos have told them to expedite 

[theoldrouge]

Nope clear as mud I’m afraid 
As dx says scan the letters up
AND set out in detail the Financial aspects of the FOS ruling as requested 
IMO what you are dealing with is gross incompetence on the part of Creation (rather like Moneybarn)
They should in theory set out and explain your options at the end of the agreement and may well yet do so
But let’s get to the actual facts and when we can actually understand what is happening, we can then advise on a letter to send if necessary (no template will cover your particular case)