Author: Nona Bowkis
Published: February 17, 2016
Reading time: 2 minutes
This article is 6 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
Hot on the heels of our discussions about the potential negative implications of contracts between dealers and finance companies, we have this week seen a finance company try and make a claim against our client under Section 75 (2) of the Consumer Credit Act.
In this scenario, customer made a complaint, dealer considered but rejected the complaint. This resulted in customer going off to the finance company, who, you guessed it rolled over on the customer’s word.
Said finance company now want the money they paid out back from our client and are suggesting that Section 75 (2) applies. I am not so sure that it does. For Section 75 (2) to apply there has to be a creditor-debtor-supplier agreement consistent with Section 12 (b) or (c) of the Consumer Credit Act. I won’t go into the legal technicalities but in short, I believe they are barking up the wrong tree.
If the matter goes to court, it will be an interesting argument. The last time I zoned in on a similar technical Consumer Credit Act point, the matter ended in the Court of Appeal with, of course, my clients on the winning side.
We suspect we will see more of these cases and so with it more finance companies trying to tie in our dealers with onerous contractual obligations. We will keep you updated.
Lawgistics members can get advice on contracts or dealing with an unreasonable claim from a finance company.