Rejecting A 2-Yr Old MoHo via Black Horse Finance (1 Viewer)

[Blue Knight]

Morning Funsters,

My wife is a member of two MoHo Facebook clubs and yesterday evening she read an interesting post whereby a chap has just successfully rejected his MoHo at the 2-year point of ownership, via Black Horse Finance, due to a number of extreme damp levels being present in the van.

This got me thinking about the finance option to MoHo purchases and how it could potentially help safeguard a consumer should something go wrong during the financed period of ownership i.e. since the topics of motorhome warranties and dealer support can sometimes be fairly dodgy at best.

Like many on the forum we bought our MoHo outright from the wee money pile stashed under the shed at the bottom of the garden but, after hearing about the article I'm now wondering if the finance option gives you better leverage in the event of a problem arising.

The guy on the forum did not mention the brand of motorhome being rejected but he did say that he was intending to keep the umbrella that came mounted in the hab door.

All the best,

Andrew

 

[Geo]

Wonder how much its cost him to reject it. plenty i suspect and they'll charge him for the missing equipment

 

[Blue Knight]

Wonder how much its cost him to reject it. plenty i suspect and they'll charge him for the missing equipment

There may be more info on the FB thread but I'll have to wait for the boss to access her account tonight.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ashypants]

I don’t think you are rejecting per se just invoking your right to end the agreement 1/2 way through. This is one of the ‘selling points’ that the dealer will tell you about when trying to push PCP - it’s also another way of them getting you to buy a new van early. The person would still have to honor all the payments up until that point, and will likely have to pay an early end surcharge - obviously nowhere near the full amount of the finance but still money for nothing (apart from 2 years ownership of a moho). It’s probably not the most cost effective way to go with a motorhome - but as with everything everyone has their own personal circumstance so may work for some and not for others.

 

[jdk62]

When I had serious quality issues with our new Motorhome, after many arguements and lack of action from the dealer or manufacturer, I decided to seek legal redress.

Whilst speaking with my solicitor, he said had I financed the purchase via credit rather than we paying cash, I would have been able to reject the Motorhome to the Finance Company....They would then step in and ensure action from the Manufacturer...

Crazy world....

 

[peterc10]

Legal rights under S75 of Credit Act only apply to purchases between £100 and £30,000.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[cornish boy]

Legal rights under S75 of Credit Act only apply to purchases between £100 and £30,000.

I am fairly sure that is not the legislation used in this instance as I am making the asumption that the motorhome is subject to a Hire Purchase agreement. Section 75 from memory is based around credit card purchases.

It is the Hire Purchase agreement that 'the owner' terminates with the finance house and the motorhome is returned to the finance house (in this instance, Black Horse). It is one of those weird situations where the 'Owner' is only actually hiring the motorhome from the finance house who were the purchaser and are the actual 'real owner'.
There are a number of protective clauses available to the 'hirer' but for obvious reasons, the process for termination are very clearly defined and can be a tightrope to navigate. The hirer will also pay for the service delivered so far (normally the monthly payments made to date) and depending on clauses, can run the risk of losing any deposit put down and any equity value left in the motorhome.

Of course, the finance house will put huge pressure on getting a solution from the manufacturer and/or dealer, not because they are being helpful, but simply because they don't want the agreement to be terminated and end up being straddled with the motorhome, lose a finance agreement/customer and suffer the resultant loss of profit.

 

[cornish boy]

Wonder how much its cost him to reject it. plenty i suspect and they'll charge him for the missing equipment

Only if the umbrella was listed in the hire purchase agreement...

 

[The Wino]

Be interesting to see who the dealer is if this became more common they would have to up the aftersales care a bit ours charged for 2 rubber bungs from the hob that dropped out after a couple of months!!!!!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peterc10]

I am fairly sure that is not the legislation used in this instance as I am making the asumption that the motorhome is subject to a Hire Purchase agreement. Section 75 from memory is based around credit card purchases.

I.

S75 covers any type of consumer credit arrangement including hire purchase and credit cards. Indeed when this legislation first came out it was aimed mainly at HP, because there were very few credit cards about in 1974.

 

[cornish boy]

S75 covers any type of consumer credit arrangement including hire purchase and credit cards. Indeed when this legislation first came out it was aimed mainly at HP, because there were very few credit cards about in 1974.

Ah, ok didn't realise that.

 

[DaveandJen]

When purchasing a new Motorhome it’s always best to raise all concerns instantly when they happen with the dealer via email and letter keeping a copy. Should it turn out to be nothing no charge is made but you have raised the problem and should the problem become bigger in the future that date you raised the problem (with the dealer) will be very important if you need to go legal to sort it out the problem if the dealer decides to give you a hard time regarding warranty work which in some cases is normal.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Blue Knight]

Be interesting to see who the dealer is if this became more common they would have to up the aftersales care a bit ours charged for 2 rubber bungs from the hob that dropped out after a couple of months!!!!!

I'm just following it via my wife's facebook account and 'Camper Vans UK'.

The van is an Autotrail Apache 634 purchased from Brownhills. It looks as if it was collected today from the guys house and has gone for disposal at auction. The two chaps collecting it checked the outside for damage only and nothing else.

 

[Lenny HB]

Buying a German van has got to be cheaper than paying interest on finance

 

[Blue Knight]

The van was bought in April 2016 from Brownhills and then succumbed to a serious damp check failure during its first annual hab check. It was then returned to the Autotrail factory in Grimsby for repair but then had a further significant damp failure for its second annual hab check; incidentally to the same place that was fixed by Autotrail!!

The owner has advised that you first need to give the dealer/manufacturer one chance to affect a repair but if it's a major repair and that repair fails then you are able to claim under the consumer credit regs.

(According to the OP): Since the van is only ever hab checked annually then that's the reason why it took two years to initiate the rejection process.

Very interesting indeed.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Basildog]

I imagine that this is very true and the hirer may well actually get pretty much all his money back, a salesman for another dealer was telling me that they had a customer doing the same but was known for having done it before !
He also said that the commission from the finance companies used to be massive at Brownhills years ago being in the region of £250 k just at the NEC .
These days hardly a single motorhome is sold on finance according to the same salesman.

 

[jdk62]

I am fairly sure that is not the legislation used in this instance as I am making the asumption that the motorhome is subject to a Hire Purchase agreement. Section 75 from memory is based around credit card purchases.

It is the Hire Purchase agreement that 'the owner' terminates with the finance house and the motorhome is returned to the finance house (in this instance, Black Horse). It is one of those weird situations where the 'Owner' is only actually hiring the motorhome from the finance house who were the purchaser and are the actual 'real owner'.
There are a number of protective clauses available to the 'hirer' but for obvious reasons, the process for termination are very clearly defined and can be a tightrope to navigate. The hirer will also pay for the service delivered so far (normally the monthly payments made to date) and depending on clauses, can run the risk of losing any deposit put down and any equity value left in the motorhome.

Of course, the finance house will put huge pressure on getting a solution from the manufacturer and/or dealer, not because they are being helpful, but simply because they don't want the agreement to be terminated and end up being straddled with the motorhome, lose a finance agreement/customer and suffer the resultant loss of profit.

Absolutely right.

 

[PeteH]

I am informed that even just making the holding deposit on a credit card can give you protection for the whole value of the sale.? (S 75?)

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peterc10]

I am informed that even just making the holding deposit on a credit card can give you protection for the whole value of the sale.? (S 75?)

Yes that is correct. The Act applies if any part of the payment is made using a credit arrangement. But only covers sales up to £30,000 so no good for new motorhomes.

 

[PeteH]

Yes that is correct. The Act applies if any part of the payment is made using a credit arrangement. But only covers sales up to £30,000 so no good for new motorhomes.

£30K!!!. You are talking to a Pensioner here!!!. . But to be serious, would that be the WHOLE value?, Or JUST that covered by the "hire agreement". ie; if you part exchange and the Financed "Ballance" was under 30K. You would then be covered?.

 

[Jagtazman]

£30K!!!. You are talking to a Pensioner here!!!. . But to be serious, would that be the WHOLE value?, Or JUST that covered by the "hire agreement". ie; if you part exchange and the Financed "Ballance" was under 30K. You would then be covered?.

No the total sale needs to be sub 30k not just the part financed

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peterc10]

£30K!!!. You are talking to a Pensioner here!!!. . But to be serious, would that be the WHOLE value?, Or JUST that covered by the "hire agreement". ie; if you part exchange and the Financed "Ballance" was under 30K. You would then be covered?.

The £30,000 applies to the full value of the sale. If part of that is "paid" by a P/X that will be irrelevant.

 

[Nicepix]

When we were looking to buy a newer S/H motorhome in France we found that typically the guarantee for the age of vehicles we were looking at ran from 3 months to 12 months. There is an option to extend the guarantee for €19 per month but only if you take out finance and then only for the finance period. So technically you could take out a guarantee for ten years if you took out finance for that period. The vehicle would have to be serviced as per the manufacturer's schedule and have annual damp tests at an approved dealership.

We had issues with our van in that the brake pad warning light came on before we had done 1,000km. When I reported that to the dealer they weren't interested at all, stating that it was a wearing part. They did not even want to check the vehicle to see what the problem actually was. He stated that because it had not been picked up on the Controle Technique it would have been OK when we took over the vehicle. When I had a look it was obvious that the brake pads were at their limit and given its mileage - 73,000 km / 46,000 miles they were probably the originals from 2006. Also, the wiper blades were in poor condition and that also should be an advisory on the CT. Yet the vehicle has no advisories when we picked it up. Perhaps the technician had been kind to the previous owner knowing he was trading it in.

Things came to a head when the control box failed meaning that we had no 12v electrics. The manager failed to answer repeated e-mails sent over a two week period. His secretary who is a lovely woman confirmed that she had passed on the messages, but the manager blanked us. It looked like the guarantee wasn't worth the paper it was written on. And, to be fair customer service in France is very patchy. I know of many people who have bought cars, lawnmowers and other items only to find that they were on their own when things went wrong.

Anyway, I ramped up the anti firing an e-mail off to the group director who's details I found on the Internet and also to Burstner as the dealership has that franchise. Also in the mean time a French friend of ours who lives in Bordeaux through the week and takes no chit from anybody phoned the company, gave them a bollocking and got a promise for us to take the MH in for a new control box to be fitted. This was after they first said that because the repair date was outside the guarantee we would have to pay for it despite the fault being reported 6 weeks inside the guarantee period!

Yesterday I received a phone call from the manager who was very contrite and apologised profusely for the delay claiming that he had been off work for three weeks. He hadn't as his secretary had confirmed that she had passed on the messages to him. It just so happens that our recorded delivery letters to him and the group director landed yesterday morning.

Upshot is that I can now get the brakes sorted locally and they will re-imburse me (so I am having the lot done), the new control box is ordered and will be changed on the 27th, again without charge to us.

I don't know whether it was the group director, Burstner, our friend Eric or a combination, but something certainly worked.

I didn't have to use the ultimate sanction which is the legal cover on our insurance that would have allowed us to hire a solicitor to take the company to court for breach of contract and sue for re-reimbursement. And that option could be available to you in the UK if you have legal cover and have the sort of problems I had.

 

[Blue Knight]

Right chaps, just so that I'm clear here:

The Autotrail Apache 634 has a current forecourt price of circa £53-56,000 so regardless of how we look at it the total cost is way in excess of the £30,000 figure mentioned above.

If I were to take out an HP loan on such a vehicle then, no matter what my debt-to-equity balance was, the HP company would still own the vehicle until the loan balance reached zero.

.....so in this scenario I assume that Black Horse Finance, as the owner, has rejected the vehicle as being unfit for propose. In this instance what will be the likely level of financial reimbursement that is returned to the guy who ordered the Autotrail.

EDIT: It does seem that having the backing of an HP agreement does help significantly with the likes of warranties and claims etc.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Langtoftlad]

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
Surely there is a case to be made for that £30k limit to be increased?
Back in 1974 when this protection was introduced, £30k was a huge amount [worth about £300k according to one online inflation calculator].
But I guess the banks would fight tooth & nail to prevent any increase .

The Autotrail Apache 634 has a current forecourt price of circa £53-56,000 so regardless of how we look at it the total cost is way in excess of the £30,000 figure mentioned above.

However - heads up, might be useful for some MH buyers;
Section 75a introduced in 2010 can in some cases increase that protection to £60,260
...the loan or finance must have a demonstrable link to the purchase - so a generic bank loan won't be sufficient, and you must first be unsuccessful at getting your money back from the dealership [if still in business]
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases/#over30k

So in this case - if the MH had been bought for less than £60,260 from Brownhills with a loan arranged through them - then Section 75a would apply

 

[Basildog]

Right chaps, just so that I'm clear here:

The Autotrail Apache 634 has a current forecourt price of circa £53-56,000 so regardless of how we look at it the total cost is way in excess of the £30,000 figure mentioned above.

If I were to take out an HP loan on such a vehicle then, no matter what my debt-to-equity balance was, the HP company would still own the vehicle until the loan balance reached zero.

.....so in this scenario I assume that Black Horse Finance, as the owner, has rejected the vehicle as being unfit for propose. In this instance what will be the likely level of financial reimbursement that is returned to the guy who ordered the Autotrail.

EDIT: It does seem that having the backing of an HP agreement does help significantly with the likes of warranties and claims etc.

As far as I am aware the 30k limit is on credit cards not a Hire Purchase agreement and as the hirer you have a lot of rights with the finance company.

 

[Blue Knight]

However - heads up, might be useful for some MH buyers;
Section 75a introduced in 2010 can in some cases increase that protection to £60,260
...the loan or finance must have a demonstrable link to the purchase - so a generic bank loan won't be sufficient, and you must first be unsuccessful at getting your money back from the dealership [if still in business]
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases/#over30k

So in this case - if the MH had been bought for less that £60,260 from Brownhills with a loan arranged through them - then Section 75a would apply

That's a great post

I have extracted a paragraph from MSE (below) as I'm keen to know what a person's rights would be if they were to sign an HP contract with a lender for a MoHo in excess of £60,260.

If, as an example, a person were to purchase a MoHo costing £150,000 (a nice wholesome figure) then would that person have stronger legal consumer rights if they deposited £125k and borrowed the rest against an official 'debtor-creditor-supplier' arrangement. If the factory warranty of the £150k MoHo was 5-years and the HP agreement was also taken over 5-years then would this help maximise the protection level to the customer over the warranty period or not.

MSE Quote for S75a Credit Agreements Only: "This protection comes under Section 75a and introduces an upper limit for claims of £60,260. The legislation gets complex for Section 75a, because for a purchase to be covered, the finance must be properly linked to an item (known as a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement) so the finance company can see a clear relationship between the money and the goods".

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Blue Knight]

As far as I am aware the 30k limit is on credit cards not a Hire Purchase agreement and as the hirer you have a lot of rights with the finance company.

Interesting stuff In that case could I assume that if the Autotrail Apache 634 had experienced extreme damp problems in hab years 3&4 or 4&5, instead of 1&2 as per the original example, then the HP company would still invoke the same rejection process.

 

[Langtoftlad]

If, as an example, a person were to purchase a MoHo costing £150,000 (a nice wholesome figure) then would that person have stronger legal consumer rights if they deposited £125k and borrowed the rest against an official 'debtor-creditor-supplier' arrangement. If the factory warranty of the £150k MoHo was 5-years and the HP agreement was also taken over 5-years then would this help maximise the protection level to the customer over the warranty period or not.

Sadly I don't imagine that would work.
All I think you'd achieve is give all parties enough 'wriggle' room to deny liability.
I think that Section 75a can only be relied upon for MH purchases up to £60k made with a specific loan arrangement.

 

[Blue Knight]

Sadly I don't imagine that would work.
All I think you'd achieve is give all parties enough 'wriggle' room to deny liability.
I think that Section 75a can only be relied upon for MH purchases up to £60k made with a specific loan arrangement.

Thanks Stephen - I suspected as much but not knowing the system as I do then your input is very much appreciated.

My trust in dealers and converters is not great so I for one would certainly consider a small HP agreement if it was in the interest of me securing a better level of consumer protection over the designated warranty period.

Many thanks

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}