PCP - Have others been as lucky as us?
Discussion
Deep Thought said:
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...
The issue is relatively simple. The legislation states that [as far as is relevant here], the contract may be unilaterally terminated by the consumer, with nothing more to pay, once at least 50% of the overall agreement amount has been paid. The consumer may be liable to pay more, if they have failed to take reasonable care of the goods subject to the agreement.
The contract cannot override the legislation so, if there is a VT event, the contract cannot impose terms that contravene it and ask the consumer to pay more (including terms relating to excess mileage).
I would have thought, for the Finance Co to claim based upon excess mileage, they need to rely on the argument that, as the vehicle has been returned with higher mileage than the contract anticipated, the consumer has not taken reasonable care of it. This is a claim under the legislation rather than a specific term of the contract.
In which case, absent an authority from the higher courts to rely on (there might well be one), it's going to turn, court by court, on whether it accepts excess mileage as failure by the consumer to take reasonable care of the goods. On the same set of facts, one judge one day may make a different ruling than another.
It's also worth pointing out that, when drafted, this legislation wasn't and isn't specific to vehicle finance agreements. It's perfectly reasonable an argument to say the legislation is unfit for purpose, which it may well be in this case.
Edited by janesmith1950 on Sunday 11th November 12:14
janesmith1950 said:
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...
The BVRLA guidance is irrelevant to the discussion around excess mileage charges. If you were relying on that guidance to argue excess mileage in and of itself is beyond reasonable wear and tear, you'd be on a sticky wicket, as it doesn't say that, as far as I can see."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...
The issue is relatively simple. The legislation states that [as far as is relevant here], the contract may be unilaterally terminated by the consumer, with nothing more to pay, once at least 50% of the overall agreement amount has been paid. The consumer may be liable to pay more, if they have failed to take reasonable care of the goods subject to the agreement.
The contract cannot override the legislation so, if there is a VT event, the contract cannot impose terms that contravene it and ask the consumer to pay more (including terms relating to excess mileage).
I would have thought, for the Finance Co to claim based upon excess mileage, they need to rely on the argument that, as the vehicle has been returned with higher mileage than the contract anticipated, the consumer has not taken reasonable care of it. This is a claim under the legislation rather than a specific term of the contract.
In which case, absent an authority from the higher courts to rely on (there might well be one), it's going to turn, court by court, on whether it accepts excess mileage as failure by the consumer to take reasonable care of the goods. On the same set of facts, one judge one day may make a different ruling than another.
It's also worth pointing out that, when drafted, this legislation wasn't and isn't specific to vehicle finance agreements. It's perfectly reasonable an argument to say the legislation is unfit for purpose, which it may well be in this case.
You can postulate around that all you like but thats the truth of the matter. It would be wrong to advise people that they can VT and not expect to be pursued for mileage. In theory - as you say - they dont "have" to pay it, but it could end up in court and you could lose.
People need to be aware of that risk. It is wholly wrong to say there is no risk.
Did you read the link i posted?
Post #26 is the one of interest
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...
Edited by Deep Thought on Sunday 11th November 12:29
Edited by Deep Thought on Sunday 11th November 12:35
Deep Thought said:
You can postulate around that all you like but thats the truth of the matter. It would be wrong to advise people that they can VT and not expect to be pursued for mileage. In theory - as you say - they dont "have" to pay it, but it could end up in court and you could lose.
People need to be aware of that risk. It is wholly wrong to say there is no risk.
Did you read the link i posted?
Post #26 is the one of interest
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...
Postulating is exactly what courts have to do in the absence of clarity.People need to be aware of that risk. It is wholly wrong to say there is no risk.
Did you read the link i posted?
Post #26 is the one of interest
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forum...
As for advising people one way or another, I have done no such thing. Not only have I avoided giving any advice, I have also failed entirely to say, directly or indirectly, there is no risk. You just plain made that up.
You are mistaking me for being partisan in this conversation. I am not.
As it stands, without being pointed to an authority (which does not include county courts), the position relating to excess mileage is actually unclear, which is of little benefit to either consumers or finance companies alike.
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.
What's it got to with the magistrates?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.
Deeper thought needed here
Stella Tortoise 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.
What's it got to with the magistrates?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.
Deeper thought needed here
janesmith1950 said:
I would have thought, for the Finance Co to claim based upon excess mileage, they need to rely on the argument that, as the vehicle has been returned with higher mileage than the contract anticipated, the consumer has not taken reasonable care of it. This is a claim under the legislation rather than a specific term of the contract.
Ombudsman agreesOmbudsman said:
I have considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what is fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I do not uphold the
complaint.
Mr T does not dispute that he was liable for the £58 damage charge and he has already sent
FGA this payment. However, Mr T says that the excess mileage charge is invalid as he had
paid over 50% of the finance agreement and in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act;
he has nothing further to pay.
Section 100(4) of the Act merely says that reasonable care must have been taken of the
goods; I consider that in addition to damage beyond wear and tear, mileage limitation is also
a fair measure of what is ‘reasonable care’ of a car. Therefore, it follows that I do not
consider excess mileage charges to be contrary to the Act.
I am satisfied that the hire purchase agreement which Mr T has signed clearly states an
excess mileage charge of 12p per mile will be payable should he exceed 27,000 miles per
year. I am also satisfied that Mr T would have had a fair opportunity to inspect the hire
purchase agreement before agreeing to be bound by its terms. I do not consider this
particular mileage limitation term to be unfair, and had Mr T been unhappy with it he could
have decided not to enter the agreement.
Overall, I am not satisfied that the charges are unreasonable or contrary to the Act. I also
agree with the adjudicator that the charges have been fairly applied. Whilst I note that FGA
did not inform Mr T that it had not accepted his cheque in full and final settlement of the
agreement; I do not consider that there are any grounds for me to instruct FGA to waiver the
additional mileage charges. It follows that I have no grounds to instruct the FGA to pay any
legal costs incurred by Mr T, pursuant to his complaint.
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I do not uphold the
complaint.
Mr T does not dispute that he was liable for the £58 damage charge and he has already sent
FGA this payment. However, Mr T says that the excess mileage charge is invalid as he had
paid over 50% of the finance agreement and in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act;
he has nothing further to pay.
Section 100(4) of the Act merely says that reasonable care must have been taken of the
goods; I consider that in addition to damage beyond wear and tear, mileage limitation is also
a fair measure of what is ‘reasonable care’ of a car. Therefore, it follows that I do not
consider excess mileage charges to be contrary to the Act.
I am satisfied that the hire purchase agreement which Mr T has signed clearly states an
excess mileage charge of 12p per mile will be payable should he exceed 27,000 miles per
year. I am also satisfied that Mr T would have had a fair opportunity to inspect the hire
purchase agreement before agreeing to be bound by its terms. I do not consider this
particular mileage limitation term to be unfair, and had Mr T been unhappy with it he could
have decided not to enter the agreement.
Overall, I am not satisfied that the charges are unreasonable or contrary to the Act. I also
agree with the adjudicator that the charges have been fairly applied. Whilst I note that FGA
did not inform Mr T that it had not accepted his cheque in full and final settlement of the
agreement; I do not consider that there are any grounds for me to instruct FGA to waiver the
additional mileage charges. It follows that I have no grounds to instruct the FGA to pay any
legal costs incurred by Mr T, pursuant to his complaint.
Deep Thought said:
Magistrates / County Court - whatever you call it over on the mainland. In NI its Magistrates court. I guess it translates to County Court level.
I'm not sure about that, you do have county courts in NI as well as magistrates.You are coming across as someone with lots of opinions and liitle knowledge.
Sorry.
Stella Tortoise said:
Deep Thought said:
Magistrates / County Court - whatever you call it over on the mainland. In NI its Magistrates court. I guess it translates to County Court level.
I'm not sure about that, you do have county courts in NI as well as magistrates.You are coming across as someone with lots of opinions and liitle knowledge.
Sorry.
However you seem to be wildly missing the point that i was making at the time, and trying to nit pick.
Finance companies pursuing people through the courts for excess miles on a VT and winning is not an opinion, its a fact.
Regards
Edited by Deep Thought on Monday 12th November 20:16
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff