Hasty payouts by Finance or Credit Card Providers

legal updates

Finance companies like to remind our clients of the so called “6 month reverse burden of proof” rule.

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.

We have seen it a lot recently.  Where customers who have cars on finance (hire purchase) or which have been partly paid for on a credit card, go to their finance provider when something has allegedly gone wrong.  And where that finance provider has simply accepted that there was a defect and paid out directly to the customer, often without the knowledge, yet alone the consent of the car dealer.

Of course, it’s when the finance company or card provider starts asking our clients to refund what they’ve paid to the customer is when we become involved.  Where we feel that there is nothing wrong with the car or too long has passed for the consumer to lawfully reject the car, then we simply respond and state that our client simply isn’t going to roll over without evidence that there has been an actual breach of contract.  They don’t like that!

Finance companies like to remind our clients of the so called “6 month reverse burden of proof” rule. I like it even more when I remind them that the rule simply cannot apply where the finance company have purchased the car from a car trader, even if it is then supplied to a consumer.

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

FCA’s Motor Finance Crackdown: Has the horse already bolted?

The FCA has opened an enforcement investigation into a CMC over motor finance claims, but critics say this should have happened years ago.

Sold a Car and Now They Want a Refund? The Truth About “No Mental Capacity”

A refund demand lands after the sale, claiming the buyer lacked mental capacity. Here’s how to handle these calls, what actually counts as evidence, and when a contract could be void.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

Tripartite Finance Agreements: Why dealers don’t have to accept a Hobson’s Choice

Finance houses are pushing ‘tripartite’ agreements that look like a Hobson’s choice for dealers.

To strike or not to strike

Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim or defence, even where there are procedural breaches. Here’s when CPR 3.4(2) genuinely applies, why summary judgment under Part 24 may be a better route, and what judges look for before taking the drastic step.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

Written Authority Wins the Day: Dealer Beats Finance Company in Release Row

A finance company tried to claw back the price of a car after telling the dealer the buyer could collect.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.