Finance question (probably stupid)
Discussion
Hey,
So I bought a Vauxhall Insignia a little while back on finance (had no other option) and I've still got a little bit to go before it's all paid off.
Now then my question is, can I make some simple mods to it? Air filter, new alloys? without invalidating the Conditional Sale finance agreement with Santander? I have already checked the contract terms & conditions but it doesn't mention it.
So I bought a Vauxhall Insignia a little while back on finance (had no other option) and I've still got a little bit to go before it's all paid off.
Now then my question is, can I make some simple mods to it? Air filter, new alloys? without invalidating the Conditional Sale finance agreement with Santander? I have already checked the contract terms & conditions but it doesn't mention it.
No, you cannot modify it in any way until the full amount is paid.
However,
They only tell you to not modify it incase they have to take it back off you due to non payment and you have horribly scarred it with modifications. I would just do it and wouldnt worry to be honest as long as you have full intentions of paying it off fully.
Oh and make sure you declare it to your insurance.
However,
They only tell you to not modify it incase they have to take it back off you due to non payment and you have horribly scarred it with modifications. I would just do it and wouldnt worry to be honest as long as you have full intentions of paying it off fully.
Oh and make sure you declare it to your insurance.
If the contract terms don't say anything about it, there's no way that a court would ever imply an obligation not to modify a car. Santander is big enough and ugly enough to draft its own terms and conditions, so if it cared, it would have done so.
If you were somehow in breach of contract, they have various remedies available to them but it can't be a penalty so that they're better off because you breached the contract than if you'd complied. For instance, if it were a term and you'd devalued the car by modding it, then you'd be in breach, you could be liable for any loss in addition to any finance shortfall (as long as the total amount didn't exceed the amount you would owe plus any charges, fees, default interest, etc.)
Even if modding is allowed, they would still technically have an interest in the correct wheels and air filter so don't chuck them.
If you were in breach, What they definitely couldn't do is repossess the car without a court order (assuming you've paid off one third of the car) and they would be extremely unlikely to get one. They could claim that the whole amount was suddenly payable if they somehow found out that the car was modded, but I think that's a stretch.
If you wanted to be ultra-cautious you could borrow money from the bank over the same term, with the same monthly payments, and use that to pay back the finance. In fact if the bank loan has a lower rate than the finance, you should do that anyway. Alternatively you could just use the cash you were going to spend on alloys and use it to shorten the remaining term.
Oh and as stated above, you've got much more to worry about with your insurance, who are more likely to care and more likely to find out if you turn it into a hunk of twisted metal.
If you were somehow in breach of contract, they have various remedies available to them but it can't be a penalty so that they're better off because you breached the contract than if you'd complied. For instance, if it were a term and you'd devalued the car by modding it, then you'd be in breach, you could be liable for any loss in addition to any finance shortfall (as long as the total amount didn't exceed the amount you would owe plus any charges, fees, default interest, etc.)
Even if modding is allowed, they would still technically have an interest in the correct wheels and air filter so don't chuck them.
If you were in breach, What they definitely couldn't do is repossess the car without a court order (assuming you've paid off one third of the car) and they would be extremely unlikely to get one. They could claim that the whole amount was suddenly payable if they somehow found out that the car was modded, but I think that's a stretch.
If you wanted to be ultra-cautious you could borrow money from the bank over the same term, with the same monthly payments, and use that to pay back the finance. In fact if the bank loan has a lower rate than the finance, you should do that anyway. Alternatively you could just use the cash you were going to spend on alloys and use it to shorten the remaining term.
Oh and as stated above, you've got much more to worry about with your insurance, who are more likely to care and more likely to find out if you turn it into a hunk of twisted metal.
Edited by CYMR0 on Wednesday 10th September 20:07
CYMR0 said:
If the contract terms don't say anything about it, there's no way that a court would ever imply an obligation not to modify a car. Santander is big enough and ugly enough to draft its own terms and conditions, so if it cared, it would have done so.
If you were somehow in breach of contract, they have various remedies available to them but it can't be a penalty so that they're better off because you breached the contract than if you'd complied. For instance, if it were a term and you'd devalued the car by modding it, then you'd be in breach, you could be liable for any loss in addition to any finance shortfall (as long as the total amount didn't exceed the amount you would owe plus any charges, fees, default interest, etc.)
Even if modding is allowed, they would still technically have an interest in the correct wheels and air filter so don't chuck them.
If you were in breach, What they definitely couldn't do is repossess the car without a court order (assuming you've paid off one third of the car) and they would be extremely unlikely to get one. They could claim that the whole amount was suddenly payable if they somehow found out that the car was modded, but I think that's a stretch.
If you wanted to be ultra-cautious you could borrow money from the bank over the same term, with the same monthly payments, and use that to pay back the finance. In fact if the bank loan has a lower rate than the finance, you should do that anyway. Alternatively you could just use the cash you were going to spend on alloys and use it to shorten the remaining term.
Oh and as stated above, you've got much more to worry about with your insurance, who are more likely to care and more likely to find out if you turn it into a hunk of twisted metal.
Title has not passed to the OP. He does not own the car so definitely cannot start pissing about with it. You don't need an express provision to stop someone altering a car that they don't own. If you were somehow in breach of contract, they have various remedies available to them but it can't be a penalty so that they're better off because you breached the contract than if you'd complied. For instance, if it were a term and you'd devalued the car by modding it, then you'd be in breach, you could be liable for any loss in addition to any finance shortfall (as long as the total amount didn't exceed the amount you would owe plus any charges, fees, default interest, etc.)
Even if modding is allowed, they would still technically have an interest in the correct wheels and air filter so don't chuck them.
If you were in breach, What they definitely couldn't do is repossess the car without a court order (assuming you've paid off one third of the car) and they would be extremely unlikely to get one. They could claim that the whole amount was suddenly payable if they somehow found out that the car was modded, but I think that's a stretch.
If you wanted to be ultra-cautious you could borrow money from the bank over the same term, with the same monthly payments, and use that to pay back the finance. In fact if the bank loan has a lower rate than the finance, you should do that anyway. Alternatively you could just use the cash you were going to spend on alloys and use it to shorten the remaining term.
Oh and as stated above, you've got much more to worry about with your insurance, who are more likely to care and more likely to find out if you turn it into a hunk of twisted metal.
Edited by CYMR0 on Wednesday 10th September 20:07
ORD said:
Title has not passed to the OP. He does not own the car so definitely cannot start pissing about with it. You don't need an express provision to stop someone altering a car that they don't own.
With so few payments left he has a larger interest in the car than the finance company. He's not leasing it, and to most insurance companies he is considered the owner. Do as you wish OP. Look at it another way. Until you pay off your house and own it you can't put pictures up or change the curtains. Doesn't sound right does it? Your still considered a home owner with a huge mortgage, if you rent it's not that different to leasing and you could never be considered the owner.
Simples?
ORD said:
Title has not passed to the OP. He does not own the car so definitely cannot start pissing about with it. You don't need an express provision to stop someone altering a car that they don't own.
I think you've missed the point. Namely the difference between what he "can" do and what he "shouldn't" do.For instance, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of people who've taken a domestic mortgage and then rented out the house...
LukeR94 said:
They only tell you to not modify it incase they have to take it back off you due to non payment and you have horribly scarred it with modifications. I would just do it and wouldnt worry to be honest as long as you have full intentions of paying it off fully.
Oh and make sure you declare it to your insurance.
Oh good, I have every intention of paying it off and am in a good place to do so, and I always declare my mods, luckily Admiral have been quite good to me in that respect.Oh and make sure you declare it to your insurance.
BlueMeganeII said:
ORD said:
Title has not passed to the OP. He does not own the car so definitely cannot start pissing about with it. You don't need an express provision to stop someone altering a car that they don't own.
With so few payments left he has a larger interest in the car than the finance company. He's not leasing it, and to most insurance companies he is considered the owner. Do as you wish OP. Look at it another way. Until you pay off your house and own it you can't put pictures up or change the curtains. Doesn't sound right does it? Your still considered a home owner with a huge mortgage, if you rent it's not that different to leasing and you could never be considered the owner.
Simples?
Law is simple enough, if you know any. Internet lawyers are pretty dangerous things.
BlueMeganeII said:
ORD said:
Title has not passed to the OP. He does not own the car so definitely cannot start pissing about with it. You don't need an express provision to stop someone altering a car that they don't own.
With so few payments left he has a larger interest in the car than the finance company. He's not leasing it, and to most insurance companies he is considered the owner. Do as you wish OP. Look at it another way. Until you pay off your house and own it you can't put pictures up or change the curtains. Doesn't sound right does it? Your still considered a home owner with a huge mortgage, if you rent it's not that different to leasing and you could never be considered the owner.
Simples?
So, it would depend on the mods you were planning I would guess.
Wacky Racer said:
I see where you are coming from, obviously putting a new bath in or new curtains will not concern the lenders, but say you decided to put a 30foot extension on the back, and cowboy builders fooked it up, I'm sure the lenders would have something to say.
So, it would depend on the mods you were planning I would guess.
I would totally agree. Common sense seems to apply to most threads on pistonheads, it's just rarely used. So, it would depend on the mods you were planning I would guess.
.I'll try once more. In all likelihood, the OP does not own the car; the finance company does. There is no analogy whatsoever with a mortgaged house.
The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
ORD said:
I'll try once more. In all likelihood, the OP does not own the car; the finance company does. There is no analogy whatsoever with a mortgaged house.
The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
So if the mortgage payments stop, do they take the house or do they simply try and collect for the value of the house (well...outstanding payments)?The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
This really gets me, people with mortgages going on about home ownership. They don't own the home until the mortgage is paid. Its just like car finance to me. The only difference is property is generally an appreciating asset.
crosseyedlion said:
So if the mortgage payments stop, do they take the house or do they simply try and collect for the value of the house (well...outstanding payments)?
This really gets me, people with mortgages going on about home ownership. They don't own the home until the mortgage is paid. Its just like car finance to me. The only difference is property is generally an appreciating asset.
no, they own the home and they have a loan which is secured against the home. It is not like HP.This really gets me, people with mortgages going on about home ownership. They don't own the home until the mortgage is paid. Its just like car finance to me. The only difference is property is generally an appreciating asset.
crosseyedlion said:
ORD said:
I'll try once more. In all likelihood, the OP does not own the car; the finance company does. There is no analogy whatsoever with a mortgaged house.
The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
So if the mortgage payments stop, do they take the house or do they simply try and collect for the value of the house (well...outstanding payments)?The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
This really gets me, people with mortgages going on about home ownership. They don't own the home until the mortgage is paid. Its just like car finance to me. The only difference is property is generally an appreciating asset.
Your example is a good one. The bank cannot prevent you paying off the mortgage (although you may incur charges in lieu of interest). The reason that they cannot prefer instead to take the house is that you own the house whereas their only interest is as a secured lender.
ORD said:
You do own the house.
Your example is a good one. The bank cannot prevent you paying off the mortgage (although you may incur charges in lieu of interest). The reason that they cannot prefer instead to take the house is that you own the house whereas their only interest is as a secured lender.
So what in your view would be the lender's remedy if the OP's car, with say 25% of the total credit price outstanding, ended up looking like the second coming of this but he was up-to-date with the payments?Your example is a good one. The bank cannot prevent you paying off the mortgage (although you may incur charges in lieu of interest). The reason that they cannot prefer instead to take the house is that you own the house whereas their only interest is as a secured lender.
ORD said:
I'll try once more. In all likelihood, the OP does not own the car; the finance company does. There is no analogy whatsoever with a mortgaged house.
The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
To be honest that's really just splitting hairs. It doesn't matter who "owns" the thing - what matters is what the mortgage or car lease document says.The thing about law is that there are often right answers, or at least wrong answers, and just having a stab on the basis of your own theory of how things should be isn't going to help anyone.
In both cases the words probably say, "don't do it".
In both cases it only becomes an issue if and when you get found out.
In both cases they might try to get more money off you.
In both cases if you've got no money you won't be paying.
In both cases - you're not going to be sent to jail.
Claudia Skies said:
To be honest that's really just splitting hairs. It doesn't matter who "owns" the thing - what matters is what the mortgage or car lease document says.
In both cases the words probably say, "don't do it".
In both cases it only becomes an issue if and when you get found out.
In both cases they might try to get more money off you.
In both cases if you've got no money you won't be paying.
In both cases - you're not going to be sent to jail.
Hmmmm. You know what happens if you actually screw with one of these outfits? They'll sue, obtain default judgment and then enforce against your possessions.In both cases the words probably say, "don't do it".
In both cases it only becomes an issue if and when you get found out.
In both cases they might try to get more money off you.
In both cases if you've got no money you won't be paying.
In both cases - you're not going to be sent to jail.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff