End of PCP repairs - more issues!

[silentbrown]

Rawwr said:

If someone buys their house with a mortgage, are they renting their house?

Great analogy! Except, with a mortgage, you own the house. With a PCP, you don't own the car.

[daemon]

silentbrown said:

Rawwr said:

If someone buys their house with a mortgage, are they renting their house?

Great analogy! Except, with a mortgage, you own the house. With a PCP, you don't own the car.

Try missing a few mortgage payments and see how that pans out.

PCP is just like HP, you dont own the car until the last payment either.

Only the small minded / those with a chip on their shoulder harp on about it though to make a feeble point.

(and i dont have a car on PCP)

Edited by daemon on Tuesday 26th September 12:54

[milkbackwards]

I think that if you stopped paying the mortgage you would soon find out who owned the house.

[daemon]

milkbackwards said:

I think that if you stopped paying the mortgage you would soon find out who owned the house.

[Mandat]

HedgeyGedgey said:

Rawwr said:

grumpy52 said:

I do love how if anybody says even the slightest thing against sombody renting a car then all the renters jump on the guy .
It does make me chuckle .
Yes they are renting them .

If someone buys their house with a mortgage, are they renting their house?

MIND. BLOWN.

Not really the same though is it. Mortgage you own the property after its paid off. Pcp you dont unless you buy it at the end of the agreement

Actually, it is very much the same.

With a mortgage the finance company have security over the asset until you pay off the loan, in the same way that on a PCP, the finance company also have security over the asset until you pay off the loan.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

With so many people struggling to comprahend what a PCP is and what it isn't, perhaps it is no surprise that PCP is getting a bad press lately.

Edited by Mandat on Tuesday 26th September 14:46

[Jonno02]

Mandat said:

Actually, it is very much the same.

With a mortgage the finance company have security over the asset until you pay of the loan, in the same way that on a PCP, the finance company also have security over the asset until you pay of the loan.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

With so many people struggling to comprahend what a PCP is and what it isn't, perhaps it is no surprise that PCP is getting a bad press lately.

But it doesn't fit their point of view, so fingers in the ears and LA LA LA.

[daemon]

Mandat said:

HedgeyGedgey said:

Rawwr said:

grumpy52 said:

I do love how if anybody says even the slightest thing against sombody renting a car then all the renters jump on the guy .
It does make me chuckle .
Yes they are renting them .

If someone buys their house with a mortgage, are they renting their house?

MIND. BLOWN.

Not really the same though is it. Mortgage you own the property after its paid off. Pcp you dont unless you buy it at the end of the agreement

Actually, it is very much the same.

With a mortgage the finance company have security over the asset until you pay of the loan, in the same way that on a PCP, the finance company also have security over the asset until you pay of the loan.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

With so many people struggling to comprahend what a PCP is and what it isn't, perhaps it is no surprise that PCP is getting a bad press lately.

Lets be honest, it suits some people to attempt to be smug about what PCP is or isnt, quite conveniently forgetting that straightforward HP is effectively the same, and also forgetting their bank or building society has lien over their house until its paid off.

[daemon]

Jonno02 said:

Mandat said:

Actually, it is very much the same.

With a mortgage the finance company have security over the asset until you pay of the loan, in the same way that on a PCP, the finance company also have security over the asset until you pay of the loan.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

With so many people struggling to comprahend what a PCP is and what it isn't, perhaps it is no surprise that PCP is getting a bad press lately.

But it doesn't fit their point of view, so fingers in the ears and LA LA LA.

[Rawwr]

silentbrown said:

Rawwr said:

If someone buys their house with a mortgage, are they renting their house?

Great analogy! Except, with a mortgage, you own the house. With a PCP, you don't own the car.

You do when it's paid off.

You can apply that statement to both the car and the house.

[Rawwr]

I'm sure a big part of the finance snobbery is just fuelled by pure ignorance, with the 'cash is king' crowd not actually understanding the difference between HP, PCP, PCH or any other option.

[Mandat]

silentbrown said:

Great analogy! Except, with a mortgage, you own the house. With a PCP, you don't own the car.

[bad company]

milkbackwards said:

I think that if you stopped paying the mortgage you would soon find out who owned the house.

And if you stopped making the PCP payments you would find out who owned the car.

[Car-Matt]

Mandat said:

Were they really suggesting a VT, or were they suggesting a part exchange into a new car? The two are not the same.

It was Skoda suggesting VT. No confusion. Salesmans words were......."Given how much you've paid and the value of the car we are prepared to offer compared to your finance outstanding then a VT is the best course of action and start a new agreement for the new car".

I assume the current value of the car makes it worth their while plus the new sale they get from it.

For those doubting it as a sales technique I can supply the dealer and the salesmans name to corroborate via PM if absolutely necessary

Edited by Car-Matt on Tuesday 26th September 14:18

[liner33]

Car-Matt said:

It was Skoda suggesting VT. No confusion. Salesmans words were......."Given how much you've paid and the value of the car we are prepared to offer compared to your finance outstanding then a VT is the best course of action and start a new agreement for the new car".

I assume the current value of the car makes it worth their while plus the new sale they get from it.

For those doubting it as a sales technique I can supply the dealer and the salesmans name to corroborate via PM if absolutely necessary

Edited by Car-Matt on Tuesday 26th September 14:18

I didnt think you got any value from the car on a VT , just a case of calling it quits, you hand the car back and walk away.

I guess you are lucky that 2.5 years into a 4 year term you are even at the point of 50% of total amount borrowed thats pretty late into the term in most cases

[Car-Matt]

liner33 said:

I didnt think you got any value from the car on a VT , just a case of calling it quits, you hand the car back and walk away.

I guess you are lucky that 2.5 years into a 4 year term you are even at the point of 50% of total amount borrowed thats pretty late into the term in most cases

They weren't offering me any value to VT. It was cheaper to VT and start a fresh PCP than to roll up the return and new car into a new PCP as in their eyes the current car was worth less than the settlement.

If I just traded before the end of PCP according to them i'd be in negative equity (as IMO they suppress the buy back price to get you to VT, then they can sell the original PCP car and make some decent cash on it before the residual value drops too much AND get the new sale) so they were advising me to VT and start another PCP.

[deason]

Fonzey said:

Ugh, not looking forward to this. We currently have four cars in the household - two are bought, two are personal leases.

The first one (Vauxhall) goes back next month, and I've just had a handful of repairs done on it. There was a scuff low down on the front bumper (suspected high curb), second was a dent/scratch in the drivers door (wind snapped the door from my hand, smashed it into a gatepost...) and the final was a scuff on the rear bumper (suspected carpark/trolley incident).

Local paintshop fixed all three, he's done work for me before - normally very good and he's approved by a number of insurance companies... but this job wasn't the best, I can see a couple of imperfections in the lacquer so I'm inspecting it to raise eyebrows. It's been back to him for a machine polish, which has made it somewhat better - but I don't hold my breath when it's inspection time.

I wish now that I just handed the car back as it is, and just stomached whatever bill they throw at us.

If you have anything that looks like "dirt in paint" take it back and get it fixed, they will probably charge you, certainly if you can notice it.

The BCA guy noticed things I didn't, it's his FT job.

Lot of people stating about VT incentives....remember the dealership is a franchise not the manufacture/finance company, they don't care about finance company or even dare I say the manufacture they sell products for.

Shortfall is never present, they'd have had nearly 75% of a term of interest paid anyway, plus, the finance company sell on an asset and recoup funds. Mine was due a service...say what you like, the price i'd had pay won't be what they will...

I think the process here only becomes a problem when cars don't sell through ...oh wait that's happening isn't it

I do wonder how long it will be until they revisit VT rights tbh.

[daemon]

bad company said:

milkbackwards said:

I think that if you stopped paying the mortgage you would soon find out who owned the house.

And if you stopped making the PCP payments you would find out who owned the car.

Exactly, however neither having a PCP finance deal or a mortgage makes you a "renter"

[Fonzey]

It's more like a dimple in the lacquer. It may pass as a stonechip, but I doubt it - based on this thread it would only encourage the inspector to whip out a paint depth gauge and confirm either way.

Still considering my options, car has been back once - been machine polished back down which significantly improved the situation but it's still not bang on.

deason said:

If you have anything that looks like "dirt in paint" take it back and get it fixed, they will probably charge you, certainly if you can notice it.

The BCA guy noticed things I didn't, it's his FT job.

Lot of people stating about VT incentives....remember the dealership is a franchise not the manufacture/finance company, they don't care about finance company or even dare I say the manufacture they sell products for.

Shortfall is never present, they'd have had nearly 75% of a term of interest paid anyway, plus, the finance company sell on an asset and recoup funds. Mine was due a service...say what you like, the price i'd had pay won't be what they will...

I think the process here only becomes a problem when cars don't sell through ...oh wait that's happening isn't it

I do wonder how long it will be until they revisit VT rights tbh.

[bad company]

daemon said:

bad company said:

milkbackwards said:

I think that if you stopped paying the mortgage you would soon find out who owned the house.

And if you stopped making the PCP payments you would find out who owned the car.

Exactly, however neither having a PCP finance deal or a mortgage makes you a "renter"

I have a BMW on a PCP. I regard it as a rental, I intend keeping the car for the term of the agreement then either part ex or return it depending on it's value at the time. I have no intention of paying the balloon and keeping hence for me it's a rental.

[liner33]

bad company said:

I have a BMW on a PCP. I regard it as a rental, I intend keeping the car for the term of the agreement then either part ex or return it depending on it's value at the time. I have no intention of paying the balloon and keeping hence for me it's a rental.

Would be little different to the person who buys a BMW outright with cash, keeps it for three years and then uses the residual value as a deposit for the next one, you gain very little each way apart from a sense of superiority.