PCP - Have others been as lucky as us?
Discussion
I guess the whole point of this is to find out whether we would have been better off paying the extra monthly cost for 13,500 miles per year as apposed to paying the lower cost of 6000 miles and seeing what the salesman says this time.
I guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
I guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
Ubishere said:
I guess the whole point of this is to find out whether we would have been better off paying the extra monthly cost for 13,500 miles per year as apposed to paying the lower cost of 6000 miles and seeing what the salesman says this time.
I guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
He will make sure he gets you in a new car at a monthly payment you can afford, and no need to worry about excess miles, you will be fineI guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
Little Lofty said:
You don’t get charged for excess mileage if you sell the car before the term ends. However, the car will be worth less, so you pay one way or another.
this is what I did when I went way over on my mileage. The mileage allowance was 36k over 3 years and I'd done 54k in 2 1/2, I sold it to evans halshaw and had to pay £170 on top of their offer to clear the finance. I've never signed something so fast when they offered what they did 
Deep Thought said:
You didnt say specifically she was trading it in though? You just seem to have created this thread in an inflamatory way just to get a reaction?
The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
Two things;The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
1) Why would a magistrate be involved at any point? Magistrates do not sit in civil cases.
2) How do you know that finance companies litigate 'very often' and win (in front of a 'magistrate'!) 'more often than not'?
I don't know the answer as to whether, in a VT scenario, there has been a definitive ruling on whether excess mileage alone would mean you have not taken reasonable care of the vehicle. If anyone has a case that has set a precedent one way or the other that would be useful to know.
To my mind it's really simple. you sign on the PCP for X miles per year and X pence per mile excess mileage charge. If you go over that, the back stop is you are liable for the excess mileage. I Vt'ed (which is know is to at term end) my car a few years ago - back to BMWFS knowing I'd have to pay the excess mileage which I did. No trouble, no issues etc.
I struggle with people's logic thinking they can get something for free to be honest. The mileage charges are in black and white and as part of the agreement. At PCP term end and you swap into another car of the same make any excess will be gobbled up in the new amazing deal you are offered...
I struggle with people's logic thinking they can get something for free to be honest. The mileage charges are in black and white and as part of the agreement. At PCP term end and you swap into another car of the same make any excess will be gobbled up in the new amazing deal you are offered...
janesmith1950 said:
Deep Thought said:
You didnt say specifically she was trading it in though? You just seem to have created this thread in an inflamatory way just to get a reaction?
The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
Two things;The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
1) Why would a magistrate be involved at any point? Magistrates do not sit in civil cases.
2) How do you know that finance companies litigate 'very often' and win (in front of a 'magistrate'!) 'more often than not'?
I don't know the answer as to whether, in a VT scenario, there has been a definitive ruling on whether excess mileage alone would mean you have not taken reasonable care of the vehicle. If anyone has a case that has set a precedent one way or the other that would be useful to know.
Meoricin said:
janesmith1950 said:
Deep Thought said:
You didnt say specifically she was trading it in though? You just seem to have created this thread in an inflamatory way just to get a reaction?
The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
Two things;The thread is "interesting" per se, but applies when VTing not when handing the car back at the end of the term and isnt strictly true anyway. Finance companies can and very often do pursue for excess miles on a VT and they get it in front of some magistrate who rules in their favour more often than not.
1) Why would a magistrate be involved at any point? Magistrates do not sit in civil cases.
2) How do you know that finance companies litigate 'very often' and win (in front of a 'magistrate'!) 'more often than not'?
I don't know the answer as to whether, in a VT scenario, there has been a definitive ruling on whether excess mileage alone would mean you have not taken reasonable care of the vehicle. If anyone has a case that has set a precedent one way or the other that would be useful to know.
Wholly it.
Ubishere said:
I guess the whole point of this is to find out whether we would have been better off paying the extra monthly cost for 13,500 miles per year as apposed to paying the lower cost of 6000 miles and seeing what the salesman says this time.
I guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
Its worth it in so much as if you put down 15,000 instead of 6,000 miles your payments would be higher and residual lower.I guess a lot will depend on how eager they are to sell us another car and Fiat has usually been pretty eager.
Your residual = balanced owed, so you'd have more equity left / more chance of not having to put cash in.
Its a roll of the dice as to whether it will work or not, but either way the salesman will jig the figures to make it fly - usually with adding some of the discount you'd otherwise get to the value of your car.
I break it out to :-
- Discount on new car
- Value of my car
- APR / Finance deal (if required)
I can only go on personal experience on this one, I have done a VT on a car, in 2009 a time when larger cars suffered sudden heavy depreciation. The car a 4x4 had excess mileage about 4000 and a few marks from wear and tear. The finance company MB finance tried to charge me an excess after a few letters each strangely with a reduced amount to settle and after reading about the VT regs online I decided to write to the finance company and asked about the legalities of their demands for these charges and where they are in the VT finance regulations. A few days later I recieved a letter saying they had decided to drop all excess charges and they also apologised for the previous letters.
Was I just lucky or are the excess mileage charges not legally enforceable under the VT finance regulations?
Was I just lucky or are the excess mileage charges not legally enforceable under the VT finance regulations?
steve_k said:
I can only go on personal experience on this one, I have done a VT on a car, in 2009 a time when larger cars suffered sudden heavy depreciation. The car a 4x4 had excess mileage about 4000 and a few marks from wear and tear. The finance company MB finance tried to charge me an excess after a few letters each strangely with a reduced amount to settle and after reading about the VT regs online I decided to write to the finance company and asked about the legalities of their demands for these charges and where they are in the VT finance regulations. A few days later I recieved a letter saying they had decided to drop all excess charges and they also apologised for the previous letters.
Was I just lucky or are the excess mileage charges not legally enforceable under the VT finance regulations?
That was close to 10 years ago when handing a car back was less prevalent and maybe these companies didnt see an opportunity to recoup lost profit.Was I just lucky or are the excess mileage charges not legally enforceable under the VT finance regulations?
Also 4,000 miles is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
They generally bill for excess miles these days as a matter of course on a VT as well as any wear they can find over and above "fair wear and tear" guidelines. If theres a reasonable amount involved they will pursue it, and take it to a county (magistrates here in NI, not sure on the mainland) court and they often win.
Deep Thought said:
That was close to 10 years ago when handing a car back was less prevalent and maybe these companies didnt see an opportunity to recoup lost profit.
Also 4,000 miles is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
They generally bill for excess miles these days as a matter of course on a VT as well as any wear they can find over and above "fair wear and tear" guidelines. If theres a reasonable amount involved they will pursue it, and take it to a county (magistrates here in NI, not sure on the mainland) court and they often win.
It all comes down to reasonable care, what is reasonable care ?Also 4,000 miles is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
They generally bill for excess miles these days as a matter of course on a VT as well as any wear they can find over and above "fair wear and tear" guidelines. If theres a reasonable amount involved they will pursue it, and take it to a county (magistrates here in NI, not sure on the mainland) court and they often win.
This is probably the most argued point between the lender and the hirer and what I would consider the "grey area". The lender's argument is that it is seeking to recover its loss for "pure economic loss". In other words, financial loss that does not flow from any physical damage due to lack of reasonable care of the goods rather it is loss to the thing itself i.e. diminution in value.
The CCA 1974 clearly states liability will be limited to one half of the total price payable.as long as reasonable care of the goods have taken place.
When I asked these questions to the lender the excess charges were quickly dropped maybe as you say it was 10 years ago and the CCA 1974 section 100 regulations have now changed but I cant find anything to show this has happened so doubt it.
.
steve_k said:
Deep Thought said:
That was close to 10 years ago when handing a car back was less prevalent and maybe these companies didnt see an opportunity to recoup lost profit.
Also 4,000 miles is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
They generally bill for excess miles these days as a matter of course on a VT as well as any wear they can find over and above "fair wear and tear" guidelines. If theres a reasonable amount involved they will pursue it, and take it to a county (magistrates here in NI, not sure on the mainland) court and they often win.
It all comes down to reasonable care, what is reasonable care ?Also 4,000 miles is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
They generally bill for excess miles these days as a matter of course on a VT as well as any wear they can find over and above "fair wear and tear" guidelines. If theres a reasonable amount involved they will pursue it, and take it to a county (magistrates here in NI, not sure on the mainland) court and they often win.
This is probably the most argued point between the lender and the hirer and what I would consider the "grey area". The lender's argument is that it is seeking to recover its loss for "pure economic loss". In other words, financial loss that does not flow from any physical damage due to lack of reasonable care of the goods rather it is loss to the thing itself i.e. diminution in value.
The CCA 1974 clearly states liability will be limited to one half of the total price payable.as long as reasonable care of the goods have taken place.
When I asked these questions to the lender the excess charges were quickly dropped maybe as you say it was 10 years ago and the CCA 1974 section 100 regulations have now changed but I cant find anything to show this has happened so doubt it.
.
With regards to mileage, i will reiterate - again - finance companies can and do pursue people through to county court level to seek the cost of mileage charges and are more often than not winning on that. It depends on the mood of the magistrate on the day, and how well they argue their case (often turning up with a well versed solicitor compared to a self represented customer), and an element of luck on the day.
If someone wants to face the hassle, worry, stress, risk of piling on thousands of extra miles, then taking their chances as a finance company pursues them over an extended time then maybe having to pay out anyway (plus costs), then great - crack on.
Personally, i can live without the hassle frankly.
More and more people are VT'ing - not because they have reached the end of their tether with payments and cant afford them (ie, what the CCA was designed to protect people within) but because they "fancy a change" or have found out they're in negative equity or whatever - ie, they are abusing the purpose of the CCA, and finance companies are now recovering what costs they can.
Very different market.
Monkeylegend said:
ninepoint2 said:
dvs_dave said:
Seems like a lot of folk don’t understand how it works. Literally the ONLY thing the finance company is interested in getting is the outstanding balance (i.e the return value per the contract) on the loan repaid. That’s it.
Excess mileage only becomes an issue if you hand the car back to the finance co, then they have to do the legwork of selling it on. They can then also enforce any excess mileage charges per the contract.
If as part of the OP’s next PX deal, there’s sufficient equity in the trade in for the dealer to pay off the outstanding finance to the finance co, it’s irrelevant what mileage the car has on it. Finance co doesn’t give a s
t as they’ve been paid back and the car is no longer their problem to deal with.
Notwithstanding, the OP is a plonker for going so far over the agreed mileage as he’s opening himself up to a worse deal on his trade in.
That makes three of us so far that seem to understand the issue..well said that man Excess mileage only becomes an issue if you hand the car back to the finance co, then they have to do the legwork of selling it on. They can then also enforce any excess mileage charges per the contract.
If as part of the OP’s next PX deal, there’s sufficient equity in the trade in for the dealer to pay off the outstanding finance to the finance co, it’s irrelevant what mileage the car has on it. Finance co doesn’t give a s
t as they’ve been paid back and the car is no longer their problem to deal with. Notwithstanding, the OP is a plonker for going so far over the agreed mileage as he’s opening himself up to a worse deal on his trade in.
Deep Thought said:
Theres a very clear definition of fair wear and tear provided by the BVRLA that nearly all finance companies adhere to, so no, there is no grey area.
With regards to mileage, i will reiterate - again - finance companies can and do pursue people through to county court level to seek the cost of mileage charges and are more often than not winning on that. It depends on the mood of the magistrate on the day, and how well they argue their case (often turning up with a well versed solicitor compared to a self represented customer), and an element of luck on the day.
If someone wants to face the hassle, worry, stress, risk of piling on thousands of extra miles, then taking their chances as a finance company pursues them over an extended time then maybe having to pay out anyway (plus costs), then great - crack on.
Personally, i can live without the hassle frankly.
More and more people are VT'ing - not because they have reached the end of their tether with payments and cant afford them (ie, what the CCA was designed to protect people within) but because they "fancy a change" or have found out they're in negative equity or whatever - ie, they are abusing the purpose of the CCA, and finance companies are now recovering what costs they can.
Very different market.
Can I ask what the ‘British Vehicle Rental and Lessing Association’ have to do with PCP agreements?With regards to mileage, i will reiterate - again - finance companies can and do pursue people through to county court level to seek the cost of mileage charges and are more often than not winning on that. It depends on the mood of the magistrate on the day, and how well they argue their case (often turning up with a well versed solicitor compared to a self represented customer), and an element of luck on the day.
If someone wants to face the hassle, worry, stress, risk of piling on thousands of extra miles, then taking their chances as a finance company pursues them over an extended time then maybe having to pay out anyway (plus costs), then great - crack on.
Personally, i can live without the hassle frankly.
More and more people are VT'ing - not because they have reached the end of their tether with payments and cant afford them (ie, what the CCA was designed to protect people within) but because they "fancy a change" or have found out they're in negative equity or whatever - ie, they are abusing the purpose of the CCA, and finance companies are now recovering what costs they can.
Very different market.
There’s two things here. First, there’s the excess mileage in the contract.
This has been to the Ombudsman and was deemed ‘fair’ (from another thread)
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx...
If you don’t pay they can take you to court.
But in court you could argue that reasonable care was taken, as that pertains to damage and injury and not the claimants economic loss.
You could also claim that they have to prove their losses. Get an advert for your car being sold on at more than a similar car with lower mileage, how do they prove losses?
talksthetorque said:
Can I ask what the ‘British Vehicle Rental and Lessing Association’ have to do with PCP agreements?
Yes you can. Car finance companies follow BVRLA guidelines for fair wear and tear. It is seen as the industry standard and widely accepted."The aim of the guides is to provide an industry-wide, accepted standard that defines fair wear and tear when vehicles are returned to a BVRLA member at the end of a lease or finance agreement."
https://www.bvrla.co.uk/service/fair-wear-and-tear...
talksthetorque said:
There’s two things here. First, there’s the excess mileage in the contract.
This has been to the Ombudsman and was deemed ‘fair’ (from another thread)
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx...
If you don’t pay they can take you to court.
Correct.This has been to the Ombudsman and was deemed ‘fair’ (from another thread)
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx...
If you don’t pay they can take you to court.
talksthetorque said:
But in court you could argue that reasonable care was taken, as that pertains to damage and injury and not the claimants economic loss.
You could also claim that they have to prove their losses. Get an advert for your car being sold on at more than a similar car with lower mileage, how do they prove losses?
By all means - knock yourself out. Do that. You might win, you might not. Its by no means a foregone conclusion you will.You could also claim that they have to prove their losses. Get an advert for your car being sold on at more than a similar car with lower mileage, how do they prove losses?
In the meantime have a read at this - post #26
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...
Just thought I would update this thread...
Ok, we went back to Fiat today to look at our options and also went to Skoda and Seat to see what they would offer in comparison (all offers below are based on doing 10k miles per year).
Fiat 500 Collezione (£14,610) = £500 deposit from us + £216 a month
Fiat 500 Pop Star (£12,500) = £0 deposit from us + £198 a month
Skoda Citigo LE (£11,270) = £850 deposit from us + £180 a month
Seat Ibiza FR (£17,235) = £500 deposit from us + £265 a month
So Fiat seems like the best deal and also offer a teacher discount which the others didn't.
Fiat valued her car as being in negative equity by about -£1300 and the others by about -£1800
She pays £222 for her current Abarth and we didn't pay any deposit.
However, after having a think and deciding that all the cars were fairly mundane she says she might as well just keep the Abarth and pay the final balloon payment next year with a bank loan (slap head!!).
So in 4 years time, she will completely own her 7-year-old Arbath 595 Tourismo, with about 90k on the clock, hopefully, worth around £4K for a deposit on the next vehicle.
So basically I think we just had got reasonable deals from Fiat in the past and obviously didn't actually beat the system.
Ok, we went back to Fiat today to look at our options and also went to Skoda and Seat to see what they would offer in comparison (all offers below are based on doing 10k miles per year).
Fiat 500 Collezione (£14,610) = £500 deposit from us + £216 a month
Fiat 500 Pop Star (£12,500) = £0 deposit from us + £198 a month
Skoda Citigo LE (£11,270) = £850 deposit from us + £180 a month
Seat Ibiza FR (£17,235) = £500 deposit from us + £265 a month
So Fiat seems like the best deal and also offer a teacher discount which the others didn't.
Fiat valued her car as being in negative equity by about -£1300 and the others by about -£1800
She pays £222 for her current Abarth and we didn't pay any deposit.
However, after having a think and deciding that all the cars were fairly mundane she says she might as well just keep the Abarth and pay the final balloon payment next year with a bank loan (slap head!!).
So in 4 years time, she will completely own her 7-year-old Arbath 595 Tourismo, with about 90k on the clock, hopefully, worth around £4K for a deposit on the next vehicle.
So basically I think we just had got reasonable deals from Fiat in the past and obviously didn't actually beat the system.
Edited by Ubishere on Saturday 10th November 17:47
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff