Car finance - hidden commission payments
Discussion
I keep getting a "Records not found" with Santander despite the agreement being down as Santander consumer on my original agreements so I definitely paid a santaander consumer group!.
I've missed the original (2007) postcode before on requests so wondering if this caused issues for people before?
I've missed the original (2007) postcode before on requests so wondering if this caused issues for people before?
I put in two claims from 2010 and 2015 to VWFS, first one for a HP agreement with ŠKODA when they were doing a VAT free offer and a VW PCP agreement in 2015 with Volkswagen.
Been told that there are no discrepancies with the agreement from 2015 but there might be grounds for investigation with the HP agreement from 2010. At the time I did wonder as I seemed to be paying rather more than expected…..We shall see.
Been told that there are no discrepancies with the agreement from 2015 but there might be grounds for investigation with the HP agreement from 2010. At the time I did wonder as I seemed to be paying rather more than expected…..We shall see.
Hmmm, odd. So out of the 5 DCA emails sent, the latest one (2020) have now come back saying they can't find any details. (Novuna).
This was the latest deal I had, and was the most likely to be affected. But despite taking out the agreement / signing e.t.c I did clear the balance within 28 days. Can't work out if and how this would effect it.
I will have to call the garage and find out what finance company they use as I am sure it was Novuna but now not so sure. The others have all found my agreements and they have been far far older.
This was the latest deal I had, and was the most likely to be affected. But despite taking out the agreement / signing e.t.c I did clear the balance within 28 days. Can't work out if and how this would effect it.
I will have to call the garage and find out what finance company they use as I am sure it was Novuna but now not so sure. The others have all found my agreements and they have been far far older.
pork911 said:
phpe said:
pork911 said:
Can this and the child benefit whinge thread be moved to a sub thread of the council one?
Calling a Porsche a Pork = Councilhttps://shop.porsche.com/us/en-US/p/duffel-bag-917...
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/barclays-l...
The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
PlywoodPascal said:
Wonder if its just a filter to try and fob people off.
I've had one lender saying, "we can't find your email address" - although they have my details, the loan agreement reference and car details.The other wants the V5C, my driving licence and a copy of the agreement, as it's just tripped over 6 years.
They can't have the log book, as the car went 4 years ago..
Stupot123 said:
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/barclays-l...
The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
I would expect a challenge as it will be serious amount of money they stand to lose if they dont. I am not sure what grounds they beleive they can raise a challenge, that will be the test and the article doesn't go into any detail in the article. The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
Finance companies warned to keep adequate capital in case of settlements
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/fca-warns-...
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/fca-warns-...
mcflurry said:
PlywoodPascal said:
Wonder if its just a filter to try and fob people off.
I've had one lender saying, "we can't find your email address" - although they have my details, the loan agreement reference and car details.The other wants the V5C, my driving licence and a copy of the agreement, as it's just tripped over 6 years.
They can't have the log book, as the car went 4 years ago..
sugerbear said:
Stupot123 said:
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/barclays-l...
The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
I would expect a challenge as it will be serious amount of money they stand to lose if they dont. I am not sure what grounds they beleive they can raise a challenge, that will be the test and the article doesn't go into any detail in the article. The lenders look like they aren’t going to take this without court fights.
Interesting.
It's a weak argument as the lender has to claim that the agent selling their product knew and understood the client risk better than them (which isn't plausible) and then defend why the bulk of that additional risk premium was then paid away (negating it's worth as a risk premium).
Frankly, the issue re car debt goes far deeper and for far longer but historically the finance industry has been extremely successful in managing to force the regulator to continue to permit practices that are known to be highly detrimental to all consumers, not just those actually taking out the debt directly and which have been long since banned for all other consumer lending activities.
The simple reality is that there is absolutely no good reason in the 21st century for car dealers to have any involvement in financial services and vice versa. The only reason for this is to allow price manipulation against the consumer and higher costs all round.
The finance element needs to be arranged in advance, in principle by the consumer with a finance house of their own choosing in a wholly separate action ahead of walking into the car dealership where the only focus of the vendor is to compete on the price of their goods to ensure they win the sale of a car over their competitor.
Re the hope of claims, while ethically it is spam dunk the reality is that this practice along with the others were endorsed by the regulator during their consumer credit review at the turn of the last decade.
Personally, I think I'd approach this differently to Lewis and not go to the finance house but instead to their agent and with a request to explain how they complied with TCF regs at the time of their regulated transaction with yourself etc. The reason being that a finance house will fight very hard to defend their ground but let an agent burn quicker than they'd grab hospitality for Wimbledon.
Letter back from Toyota Financial Services re a PCP I had back in 2016. They confirm that this deal WAS affected. Now got to wait until September.
It was a lazy purchase on my behalf, buying a newly released model so there was no discount on the price at all..I asked for best deal, was offered PCP and took it. In hindsight, I could probably have shopped around but it kept everything under one roof. I remember lots of paperwork. At end of 48 month PCP I bought the car outright paying the balloon.
I keep records on everything and Toyota were well organised in their response. The dealership in question has gone now. I think customers migrated away from them forcing them to close.
I must practice my compo face now.
It was a lazy purchase on my behalf, buying a newly released model so there was no discount on the price at all..I asked for best deal, was offered PCP and took it. In hindsight, I could probably have shopped around but it kept everything under one roof. I remember lots of paperwork. At end of 48 month PCP I bought the car outright paying the balloon.
I keep records on everything and Toyota were well organised in their response. The dealership in question has gone now. I think customers migrated away from them forcing them to close.
I must practice my compo face now.
It shouldn't matter whether you were bone idle, thick as mince or put the effort in, at no point should the goods vendor ever have anything to do with the lending activity. It is just fundamentally wrong. Even the revised system of group rates and the finance specialist being put behind a wall, as if there is any evidence in the history of financial services that either somehow mystically creates an honest environment.
In the U.K. an absolute numpty should be able to buy both a car and a finance deal without being robbed. And the whole 'dealer contribution' fraud is just a disgrace on the FCA for being lobbied to allow a single industry to maintain a practice that has been banned in all other consumer lending because of its toxicity.
In the U.K. an absolute numpty should be able to buy both a car and a finance deal without being robbed. And the whole 'dealer contribution' fraud is just a disgrace on the FCA for being lobbied to allow a single industry to maintain a practice that has been banned in all other consumer lending because of its toxicity.
TUS373 said:
Letter back from Toyota Financial Services re a PCP I had back in 2016. They confirm that this deal WAS affected. Now got to wait until September.
It was a lazy purchase on my behalf, buying a newly released model so there was no discount on the price at all..I asked for best deal, was offered PCP and took it. In hindsight, I could probably have shopped around but it kept everything under one roof. I remember lots of paperwork. At end of 48 month PCP I bought the car outright paying the balloon.
I keep records on everything and Toyota were well organised in their response. The dealership in question has gone now. I think customers migrated away from them forcing them to close.
I must practice my compo face now.
How long to reply for Toyota? Its been 2 months now and nothing back from them.It was a lazy purchase on my behalf, buying a newly released model so there was no discount on the price at all..I asked for best deal, was offered PCP and took it. In hindsight, I could probably have shopped around but it kept everything under one roof. I remember lots of paperwork. At end of 48 month PCP I bought the car outright paying the balloon.
I keep records on everything and Toyota were well organised in their response. The dealership in question has gone now. I think customers migrated away from them forcing them to close.
I must practice my compo face now.
DonkeyApple said:
It shouldn't matter whether you were bone idle, thick as mince or put the effort in, at no point should the goods vendor ever have anything to do with the lending activity. It is just fundamentally wrong. Even the revised system of group rates and the finance specialist being put behind a wall, as if there is any evidence in the history of financial services that either somehow mystically creates an honest environment.
In the U.K. an absolute numpty should be able to buy both a car and a finance deal without being robbed. And the whole 'dealer contribution' fraud is just a disgrace on the FCA for being lobbied to allow a single industry to maintain a practice that has been banned in all other consumer lending because of its toxicity.
Valid.In the U.K. an absolute numpty should be able to buy both a car and a finance deal without being robbed. And the whole 'dealer contribution' fraud is just a disgrace on the FCA for being lobbied to allow a single industry to maintain a practice that has been banned in all other consumer lending because of its toxicity.
Given the FCA were fully aware of how the industry worked, and at the time endorsed the previous set up and actually implemented the current, if its now retrospectively deemed to be wrong, who is really at fault, should it be the Finance Houses paying any compo?
Stupot123 said:
Valid.
Given the FCA were fully aware of how the industry worked, and at the time endorsed the previous set up and actually implemented the current, if its now retrospectively deemed to be wrong, who is really at fault, should it be the Finance Houses paying any compo?
The FCA was under the stewardship of the numpty that is Bailey. Which meant there was none, as borne out by the absolute pensions fiasco and numerous events which have destroyed consumer investment wealth. It was an era when the FCA refused to listen to any domestic regulated entity, carried out reviews using teams of people who were proven incompetents and only really reacted to phone calls from the FBI, Interpol and ESMA. Given the FCA were fully aware of how the industry worked, and at the time endorsed the previous set up and actually implemented the current, if its now retrospectively deemed to be wrong, who is really at fault, should it be the Finance Houses paying any compo?
Should the lenders pay? Well there are two arguments, the first is that they were acting precisely as allowed to so no, the second is that they knew it was a pisstake bonanza so yes.
. Regardless of either, if there are to be payments backed to consumers who were ripped off then only the lenders have the means to cover those payments so it will be booked to them. Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff