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

[Blue Knight]

One other thing that I didn't mention regarding the owner of the Autotrail Apache 634 is that his Sargent power controller failed and it melted his hab batteries.

 

[cornish boy]

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.

The hirer rejects the item being supplied by the finance house using the protective clauses within the agreement. What the finance house then does with the item (in this case a motorhome) is irrelevant, they may try and reject it themselves, or as in this case, just decide to dispose of it and then if appropiate, they would normally chase the supplier for any loss.

The hirer does not need to ensure that the manufacturer or sales agent (dealer) agrees that the item can be rejected by the finance house before initiating the protection clauses.

Every HP agreement has the protection clauses built in. I am aware from conversations with corporate lawyers that some finance houses write their clauses better and tighter than others.


Edit, what I was trying to describe is that under a Hirer purchase agreement, it is the finance house who is legally responsible if there are problems with the item supplied not the dealer or manufacturer.

 

[Basildog]

The hirer rejects the item being supplied by the finance house using the protective clauses within the agreement. What the finance house then does with the item (in this case a motorhome) is irrelevant, they may try and reject it themselves, or as in this case, just decide to dispose of it and then if appropiate, they would normally chase the supplier for any loss.

The hirer does not need to ensure that the manufacturer or sales agent (dealer) agrees that the item can be rejected by the finance house before initiating the protection clauses.

Every HP agreement has the protection clauses built in. I am aware from conversations with corporate lawyers that some finance houses write their clauses better and tighter than others.


Edit, what I was trying to describe is that under a Hirer purchase agreement, it is the finance house who is legally responsible if there are problems with the item supplied not the dealer or manufacturer.

Yes in simple terms the Bod who drives the motorhome is not the customer as until the final payment under the Hire agreement is paid the finance company are the legal owners of the vehicle or goods .

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

 

[Blue Knight]

The guy who rejected the Autotrail Apache 634 has only gone and ordered an Autotrail Scout - stoopid ar$e.

I'm not sure about you guys but I would not be going back to a manufacturer who had produced such shoddy goods to begin with.

 

[Basildog]

The guy who rejected the Autotrail Apache 634 has only gone and ordered an Autotrail Scout - stoopid ar$e.

I'm not sure about you guys but I would not be going back to a manufacturer who had produced such shoddy goods to begin with.

There's nowt as strange as folk ?
As I said the other day I met a couple who had just bought a new motorhome as they said they were fed up with British caravans as they are getting worse .
Nothing funny about that but they were standing next to their new Swift Bessacarr motorhome ?

 

[Cheshirecat57]

C’mon...are you on loop-play with the swift bash
I promise not to buy another one....ok?

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

 

[Blue Knight]

I've read a bit more into this rejection case and I was quite amazed to read the following damp readings which were recorded in the first hab check.

Left side of van: 80%
Right side of van: 90%
.....and damp in the garage.

Following the repair by the Autotrail factory the 2nd damp check was recorded as:

Left side of van: 45%
Right side of van: 65%
Garage: 45%

If those figures are not bad enough the HP company dispatched an independent vehicle engineer to the Autotrail Apache 634 who found the garage reading to be 99.9% damp and not 45% as per the hab check.

 

[Bustup15]

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".

See extract below relevant to the consumer credit act

A regulated consumer credit agreement is defined as an agreement between two parties, one of whom (the debtor) is an individual, and the other of whom (the creditor) is "any other person", in which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000
(this figure was subsequently increased to £25,000 and under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 there is no upper limit).t

 

[peterc10]

See extract below relevant to the consumer credit act

A regulated consumer credit agreement is defined as an agreement between two parties, one of whom (the debtor) is an individual, and the other of whom (the creditor) is "any other person", in which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000
(this figure was subsequently increased to £25,000 and under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 there is no upper limit).t

Not sure that is correct. Can you provide a link please to where you found that.

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

 

[Louis]

I've read a bit more into this rejection case and I was quite amazed to read the following damp readings which were recorded in the first hab check.

Left side of van: 80%
Right side of van: 90%
.....and damp in the garage.

Following the repair by the Autotrail factory the 2nd damp check was recorded as:

Left side of van: 45%
Right side of van: 65%
Garage: 45%

If those figures are not bad enough the HP company dispatched an independent vehicle engineer to the Autotrail Apache 634 who found the garage reading to be 99.9% damp and not 45% as per the hab check.

Error sorry

 

[Bustup15]

Not sure that is correct. Can you provide a link please to where you found that.

I'm not claiming to be correct and a font of knowledge in all the issues highlighted but am merely pointing others to the areas on line that I have taken my information from - I accept that some legislation may have changed but to the best of my knowledge what I have referred to below is current.



Its quite lengthy but section 3 is where the detail of the removal of the £25k limit is detailed and came into effect 2006 - 2008.

I think most confusion arises about a £30k limit as this refers specifically to credit card purchases where the ability to involve the card provider is much easier when things go wrong.

See below extract from https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-credit-act

Additional protection for credit card purchases
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act provides additional protection for credit card purchases costing between £100 and £30,000.

If you have a claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation against the supplier of the goods or services, Section 75 gives you the same claim against the creditor.

This is useful if, for example, the trader you purchased the goods or services from has ceased to trade or if you haven't been able to locate them.

This additional protection only applies to credit card purchases, not debit card purchases.

Breach of contract over £30,000
If the item or service you are buying costs more than £30,000, the protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act won't apply.

Depending on the circumstances though, you may have protection under Section 75A. The price of the item or service must be more than £30,000 and the amount of credit the seller has arranged for you mustn't be more than £60,260.

If something goes wrong then the credit provider could be in breach of contract as long as:

• you can't trace the seller
• you've contacted the seller but they've failed to respond
• the seller has become insolvent
• you've taken reasonable steps to pursue the seller but you haven't obtained satisfaction.

But if something goes wrong and the seller offers you a replacement or compensation which you have accepted, you can't claim under Section 75A.

MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCE AND PROTECTION - reasons to purchase on credit? See Financial Ombudsman extract and link below
The case referred to in the OP referred specifically to rejecting goods that were not fit for purpose and there is an excellent link at bottom of my post that clearly states that the contract is between the 'hirer/customer' and the finance house and NOT with the supplying dealer. I suspect most people (and supplying dealers) will not be aware of this despite the fact most finance houses will try and stay out of any disagreement and persuade the customer to deal with the garage/dealer directly!

Complaints about the quality of the vehicle can only be brought to the ombudsman service as complaints against the provider of the credit, not as complaints against the garage.
Consumers are entitled to expect a brand-new vehicle to be free from even minor faults, including cosmetic ones

putting things right
If we decide that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, and that the credit provider is liable for putting things right, we assess what should be done to put things right in the particular case. To do this, we will consider the individual facts and circumstances - and decide what the fair outcome should be.

For many of the cases we uphold, the fair outcome might include requiring the consumer credit business to do one or more of the following:

• allow the consumer to break the hire purchase agreement and give back the vehicle;
• refund some or all of the payments made under the hire purchase agreement;
• refund some or all of the cost of a vehicle bought with a fixed-sum loan;
• pay some or all of the cost of repairs to the vehicle; and
• pay other financial loss caused to the consumer by the problems with the vehicle (for example, refund necessary taxi or car hire charges).

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org....goods-and-services-bought-with-credit.html#3a

 

[peterc10]

The protection I was referring to was one of breach of contract by the seller as set out in S75 of the 1974 Act. And it is wrong to suggest that that Section only covers credit cards, it covers all credit agreements. It was mainly aimed at the HP sector because at that time there were not many credit cards about, and they could not be used in many places. I know because I got my first Barclaycard in 1972.

The £25,000 limit is for something different.

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

 

[Bustup15]

As I said previously - I'm only relating on line information

The £25,000 limit refers to the Consumer Credit Act and was updated/removed in 2006/8- as per my earlier post.


From Which.co.uk
Your rights under Section 75
Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation by the retailer or trader.

This means it is just as responsible as the retailer or trader for the goods or service supplied, allowing you to also put your claim to the credit card company.

You don't have to reach a stalemate with the retailer or trader before you can contact your credit card provider - you can make a claim to both the retailer and credit card provider simultaneously, although you can't recover your losses from both.

This right is particularly useful if the retailer or trader has gone bust, or it doesn't respond to your letters or phone calls.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act also applies to foreign transactions as well as goods bought online, by telephone or mail order for delivery to the UK from overseas.