Buyer has paid finance off but disappeared
Discussion
[quote]How do you know he has not paid it with a hacked account and this whole thread was started to try and make it look like someone else paid it?
[/quote]
Yeah I did wonder this and I made comment somewhere early on that he might well have done this himself....
Anywho - lets see if we get another update - going off the time between updates we are due one in about 18 months..
[/quote]
Yeah I did wonder this and I made comment somewhere early on that he might well have done this himself....
Anywho - lets see if we get another update - going off the time between updates we are due one in about 18 months..
gizlaroc said:
The finance company won't even know where that money has come from, no clue what so ever, all they know is what agreement to match it against.
They don't know it has come from a third party, they just know it is paid.
Then they're in breach of FCA rules. It may happen, but it isn't right. They have to make reasonable efforts to establish the source of funds, and knowing who the third party is is the most fundamental check to perform. This should (and I suspect was) done by the finance company. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and be happy as long as you have money in your account. They don't know it has come from a third party, they just know it is paid.
Just because a finance company is negligent in its duty it doesn't mean it can expect the customer to be liable if it goes sour (if it indeed does).
I'm interested to see how this turns out. If the OP has a letter stating the finance has been paid off in full, and he has made more than reasonable efforts to confirm the situation and have the source verified, he has little to worry about. He may be taken to court, but if the series of events are as described, I'd be confident the court would find in his favour. I'd be filing a complaint with the FCA about their conduct, which is likely to cost the finance company more than £15k to respond to.
Fourmotion said:
Then they're in breach of FCA rules. It may happen, but it isn't right. They have to make reasonable efforts to establish the source of funds, and knowing who the third party is is the most fundamental check to perform. This should (and I suspect was) done by the finance company. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and be happy as long as you have money in your account.
Just because a finance company is negligent in its duty it doesn't mean it can expect the customer to be liable if it goes sour (if it indeed does).
I'm interested to see how this turns out. If the OP has a letter stating the finance has been paid off in full, and he has made more than reasonable efforts to confirm the situation and have the source verified, he has little to worry about. He may be taken to court, but if the series of events are as described, I'd be confident the court would find in his favour. I'd be filing a complaint with the FCA about their conduct, which is likely to cost the finance company more than £15k to respond to.
OK, for a start. Just because a finance company is negligent in its duty it doesn't mean it can expect the customer to be liable if it goes sour (if it indeed does).
I'm interested to see how this turns out. If the OP has a letter stating the finance has been paid off in full, and he has made more than reasonable efforts to confirm the situation and have the source verified, he has little to worry about. He may be taken to court, but if the series of events are as described, I'd be confident the court would find in his favour. I'd be filing a complaint with the FCA about their conduct, which is likely to cost the finance company more than £15k to respond to.
if you want someone else to pay the finance company, they will call you first and get you to agree to the third party is 'acting on your behalf'.
However, many do not do this and simply allow the dealer, WBAC etc. to settle the finance with no prior agreement, using the method above. Which, as you point out, is not exactly correct, but it happens every day and 999 times out of 1000 is fine, and so it continues.
However, the finance company are not in breech of anything if the account holder didn't tell them that was happening.
They are pretty much covered either way.
Based on all the comments it seems that letting someone else pay off finance is not a sensible option as a seller, but as a buyer expecting the seller to do so is also not sensible. Which basically means if you have finance on a car you can't sell it privately with any degree of safety.
In the case of the OP none of this long discussion would have been relevant had the buyer paid off the finance as he did and then turned up the next day with the remaining cash. The OP would not have been suspicious and nor would anyone else. But for the next 12 months he would be in danger of having a call from the finance company asking for their money back because they didn't check fully the money they received.
Makes a great advert for WBAC. I might just pitch the idea to them!
In the case of the OP none of this long discussion would have been relevant had the buyer paid off the finance as he did and then turned up the next day with the remaining cash. The OP would not have been suspicious and nor would anyone else. But for the next 12 months he would be in danger of having a call from the finance company asking for their money back because they didn't check fully the money they received.
Makes a great advert for WBAC. I might just pitch the idea to them!
gizlaroc said:
OK, for a start.
if you want someone else to pay the finance company, they will call you first and get you to agree to the third party is 'acting on your behalf'.
However, many do not do this and simply allow the dealer, WBAC etc. to settle the finance with no prior agreement, using the method above. Which, as you point out, is not exactly correct, but it happens every day and 999 times out of 1000 is fine, and so it continues.
However, the finance company are not in breech of anything if the account holder didn't tell them that was happening.
They are pretty much covered either way.
I’m willing to believe it happens that often, it must be cheaper to write off the odd fraudulent transaction than administer a fit and proper checking regime. But the fines they can face will outweigh that, so I’d question whether it really does. if you want someone else to pay the finance company, they will call you first and get you to agree to the third party is 'acting on your behalf'.
However, many do not do this and simply allow the dealer, WBAC etc. to settle the finance with no prior agreement, using the method above. Which, as you point out, is not exactly correct, but it happens every day and 999 times out of 1000 is fine, and so it continues.
However, the finance company are not in breech of anything if the account holder didn't tell them that was happening.
They are pretty much covered either way.
My point is they're obligated to question a transaction to an account they weren't expecting to receive one on. If they don't they are in breach of their duty as a financial regulated institution. They can’t just claim ignorance. I’m not willing to believe they haven’t checked. I’m not saying the transaction isn’t fraudulent but from a legitimate account, but they have to question who has paid it. They are in no way covered if they having conducted that check.
Much like the countless threads on here where someone has received funds that they weren’t expecting. The advice is always don't spend it unless you know the source and are sure it’s yours. You're liable. In this instance that liability falls upon the finance company. If they've paid it on, in this case releasing the OP from an obligation, then they're at fault if it goes tits up having supplied that letter to the OP.
Fourmotion said:
My point is they're obligated to question a transaction to an account they weren't expecting to receive one on.
But they are expecting a payment, as the OP has to get a settlement figure on that day to know the exact amount needed to clear off the balance. At which point the payment is made.rallycross said:
Fourmotion said:
My point is they're obligated to question a transaction to an account they weren't expecting to receive one on.
But they are expecting a payment, as the OP has to get a settlement figure on that day to know the exact amount needed to clear off the balance. At which point the payment is made.In this case the OP could have advised the finance company, but they're still obligated to check it's not being sent by Mr B.O.Mber of Syria* (*insert any other embargoed country).
Fourmotion said:
That was in response to the gizlaroc saying "WBAC etc. to settle the finance with no prior agreement".
In this case the OP could have advised the finance company, but they're still obligated to check it's not being sent by Mr B.O.Mber of Syria* (*insert any other embargoed country).
But of course they are expecting it, the account holder will have asked for a settlement figure, and thus they know they account may be settled before that settlement figure expires. In this case the OP could have advised the finance company, but they're still obligated to check it's not being sent by Mr B.O.Mber of Syria* (*insert any other embargoed country).
Why would they think anything was up?
As said, something smells fishy here!
If the original poster is telling the truth (from his side) that you deserve to be chased for that money later on for acting like a moron! End of the day, you don't just had £12k to a guy you have never met! I would have taken legal advice about - wouldn't have been that much advice, but now you have literally pulled down your pants to be bummed by the Finance Company/Police.
I would really like to see what happens in a few months but who knows if we will or not....
If the original poster is telling the truth (from his side) that you deserve to be chased for that money later on for acting like a moron! End of the day, you don't just had £12k to a guy you have never met! I would have taken legal advice about - wouldn't have been that much advice, but now you have literally pulled down your pants to be bummed by the Finance Company/Police.
I would really like to see what happens in a few months but who knows if we will or not....
Let's suppose you found yourself in this position and the story was true - what are you supposed to do?
You can't just think "great, I've got a free car". You could end up in a right mess as you've sold a car which you don't own as you've already sold it to someone else, and you kept the money.
You can't just think "great, I've got a free car". You could end up in a right mess as you've sold a car which you don't own as you've already sold it to someone else, and you kept the money.
Ved said:
Magog said:
Did anyone else scroll through the Facebook friends and notice one or two worked for Haymarket...
I don't follow. Does this have any relevance?Magog said:
Ved said:
Magog said:
Did anyone else scroll through the Facebook friends and notice one or two worked for Haymarket...
I don't follow. Does this have any relevance?
EVERYBODY GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS ON QUICK! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff