Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: March 8, 2011
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 11 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.
Recently a number of finance companies have been seeking to claim back finance commission payments.
In many cases some smaller dealers have been dropped with little or no notice by the finance companies and are then expected to write a cheque for several thousands of pounds which the finance company believe is owed.
We have now had such a case go to the County Court and the Judge awarded in our clients favour.
The finance company tried to argue that there was a set of ‘implied terms and conditions in the way they and the client did business by ‘custom and trade’, and it was to an ‘industry standard’. The Judge was having none of this smoke screen and pointedly asked the finance company to produce a document which showed our client’s signature in acceptance of such terms. No such document existed.
The case is encouraging since a number of finance companies have sought to imply they have been very successful in such claims before, but we have not seen any such results.
