PCH car - dealer registered me as the keeper of the vehicle
Discussion
Having an interesting issue with BMW and was wondering if anyone else has had this happen?
I took out a PCH with BMW dealer in 2020 for 2 years. Double checked road tax was included as part of the agreement and was conformed it was (still have the email proof of this). Flash forward to last Friday when I'm contacted by a debt collection agency looking to chase me for my expired road tax.
As it turns out DVLA sent a reminder letter to my old address sometime after we moved 8 months ago (didn't inform DVLA of address move as didn't think it was needed but did inform the dealer) which I obviously didn't receive.
Phoned BMW who investigated and told me that a junior admin had incorrectly informed DVLA I owned the vehicle not them. I have since dug out the v5 logbook which confirms this.
So after driving around for 6 months or so with no road tax I decided to pay it to give me peace of mind and I'm now pursuing a refund from BMW for it. The dealer has phoned and paid the fine from the debt collection agency.
What I'm interested in is that the car is technically (legally?) mine given I'm the named keeper (DVLA confirmed this for me on the phone), am I within my rights to refuse to send the v5 back to the dealer to change the owner? Could I simply keep the car after the agreement ends and after paying the outstanding balance owed to BMW finance as per the original agreement? Could I claim the entire contract is void given I was never supposed to be the named keeper and have been for 18 months and get a full refund/terminate the contract early?
Would appreciate any insight or thoughts on this...
I took out a PCH with BMW dealer in 2020 for 2 years. Double checked road tax was included as part of the agreement and was conformed it was (still have the email proof of this). Flash forward to last Friday when I'm contacted by a debt collection agency looking to chase me for my expired road tax.
As it turns out DVLA sent a reminder letter to my old address sometime after we moved 8 months ago (didn't inform DVLA of address move as didn't think it was needed but did inform the dealer) which I obviously didn't receive.
Phoned BMW who investigated and told me that a junior admin had incorrectly informed DVLA I owned the vehicle not them. I have since dug out the v5 logbook which confirms this.
So after driving around for 6 months or so with no road tax I decided to pay it to give me peace of mind and I'm now pursuing a refund from BMW for it. The dealer has phoned and paid the fine from the debt collection agency.
What I'm interested in is that the car is technically (legally?) mine given I'm the named keeper (DVLA confirmed this for me on the phone), am I within my rights to refuse to send the v5 back to the dealer to change the owner? Could I simply keep the car after the agreement ends and after paying the outstanding balance owed to BMW finance as per the original agreement? Could I claim the entire contract is void given I was never supposed to be the named keeper and have been for 18 months and get a full refund/terminate the contract early?
Would appreciate any insight or thoughts on this...
BertBert said:
As you have the V5, it'll be relatively easy to read the words on the front about it listing the person named as keeper, nothing to do with owner.
OP - all this means in practice is that you could do a plate change, receive speeding fines, PCNs, etc without paying whatever administrative charge the lease company would’ve wanted to charge you for processing them. The downside, as you’ve found out, is that as RK you’re responsible for taxing it.
It matters not one jot to who the legal owner is, which was and continues to be the lease company.
Edited by Durzel on Friday 26th November 17:48
Easy gents! Wasn't sure exactly how the difference between named owner and keeper would work in this scenario. I understand I don't own the car.
I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
cowboyengineer said:
The only thing you’re responsible for that the dealer should be is the road tax. And they have sorted that out. What exactly are you looking for
They haven't sorted it as of yet. I'm out of pocket 155 quid for the last week and it's likely to be a further week before I see this refunded. You don't think this would represent a breach of contract then no?allymonty said:
Easy gents! Wasn't sure exactly how the difference between named owner and keeper would work in this scenario. I understand I don't own the car.
I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
So you are after monetary compenastion then?I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
It’s an administrative error.
I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
Monkeylegend said:
allymonty said:
Easy gents! Wasn't sure exactly how the difference between named owner and keeper would work in this scenario. I understand I don't own the car.
I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
So you are after monetary compenastion then?I'm not necessarily looking for loopholes, I like the car and was happy to keep it for the remaining 6 months but surely the dealer/BMW has to take some responsibility for a fairly significant error? I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
allymonty said:
I would have thought that me being responsible for all the things listed above for 18 months when I shouldn't have been would represent a fairly significant breach of contract?
You would still be liable and responsible for all fines etc on the car. The one thing you wouldn’t have been responsible for the is the RFL.Errors happen. Let them fix it, move on.
Durzel said:
It’s an administrative error.
I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
Given I specifically asked if road tax was included with the agreement before signing which is directly impacted by the who the RK is I would think it is an aspect I was sold on? I would not have went for the deal had road tax not been included.I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
allymonty said:
Given I specifically asked if road tax was included with the agreement before signing which is directly impacted by the who the RK is I would think it is an aspect I was sold on? I would not have went for the deal had road tax not been included.
It is included. They have paid the fine and are going to refund you. It’s still not clear what outcome you actually are angling for.
allymonty said:
Durzel said:
It’s an administrative error.
I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
Given I specifically asked if road tax was included with the agreement before signing which is directly impacted by the who the RK is I would think it is an aspect I was sold on? I would not have went for the deal had road tax not been included.I’m not totally up on PCH but my assumption is that the tax is always included in the lease contract, because the lease company is usually the RK?
On that basis you could argue you’ve been making overpayments, since they haven’t paid the tax they should have done and had factored into the monthlies. How you would calculate that missing component + the interest I don’t know.
What’s more likely to happen if you push it is that you get some sort of commensurate compensation instead, which is fair.
It’s nowhere near a “significant breach of contract” when whatever they decided to do with the RK was neither part of that contract nor an aspect you were sold on.
Just ask them for the money for the RFL, send them the V5 and be done with it.
allymonty said:
Given I specifically asked if road tax was included with the agreement before signing which is directly impacted by the who the RK is I would think it is an aspect I was sold on? I would not have went for the deal had road tax not been included.
Come on , surely it was the car itself you went for, not just the fact that the vehicle VED was being paid for.You do realise they factor that into the price anyway so you don't actually get it for nowt, you just think you do.
How much is it per month out of interest ?
allymonty said:
Given I specifically asked if road tax was included with the agreement before signing which is directly impacted by the who the RK is I would think it is an aspect I was sold on? I would not have went for the deal had road tax not been included.
Yes, but the road tax was only not included because of the admin cockup, not through any wilful breach. You’d get nowhere trying to argue that BMW breached the contract as the result of a simple mistake like this, in my opinion.What is your desired outcome? Other than the debt collection letter - which isn’t fun to have to deal with - it sounds like it’s in the process of being sorted out? They’ve already paid the debt collector invoice, presumably they just need to compensate you for the road tax?
At a stretch you could ask them to compensate you on the basis that you’ve been making overpayments for a component (the VED) that was actually not included (by mistake), but you’d only be entitled to the interest which - on £155 VED - would be pretty nominal over the term.
What beyond that do you think you are reasonably entitled to?
Durzel said:
Yes, but the road tax was only not included because of the admin cockup, not through any wilful breach. You’d get nowhere trying to argue that BMW breached the contract as the result of a simple mistake like this, in my opinion.
What is your desired outcome? Other than the debt collection letter - which isn’t fun to have to deal with - it sounds like it’s in the process of being sorted out? They’ve already paid the debt collector invoice, presumably they just need to compensate you for the road tax?
What beyond that do you think you are reasonably entitled to?
The car.What is your desired outcome? Other than the debt collection letter - which isn’t fun to have to deal with - it sounds like it’s in the process of being sorted out? They’ve already paid the debt collector invoice, presumably they just need to compensate you for the road tax?
What beyond that do you think you are reasonably entitled to?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff