Hire Purchase – do finance companies actually know the law?

legal updates

The customer called upon the so called “reversed burden of proof” concept found in the Sale of Goods Act. We totally disagreed and challenged this.

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.

The writer has noticed this several times and was recently challenged on a finance companies’ interpretation of a consumer’s rights when receiving a car on hire purchase (and this article should be restricted only to hire purchase).

The Finance Company (FC) were advancing the argument that,  for the first 6 months , it was our client  (a car dealer) who was responsible for proving that the alleged defect was not present at the point of handing the vehicle over. 

It was submitted by the FC that their customer could call upon the so called “reversed burden of proof” concept found in the Sale of Goods Act.  We totally disagreed and challenged this on two grounds:

a)    Being a contract of hire-purchase, the FC were, until in receipt of their customer’s final payment, only hiring the vehicle on an ongoing basis.  They had not sold the car to their customer because they had legal ownership (title).  As there was no sale to their customer that contract between them and their customer was not a “sale” as required by the Sale of Goods Act and therefore the burden of proving defect or otherwise could not move away from their customer and onto our client.

b)    Whilst there was a contract of sale under the Sale of Goods Act between our client and the FC, the FC themselves could not benefit from this 6 month reversed burden of proof rule either.  Simply because such an additional right is available only to private consumers who buy and not to those buyers, such as FC’s, who buy cars from garages in the course of their trade or business.  

Something tells me that this is the start and not the end of this particular legal argument however!

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Major changes to UK Consumer Law have landed

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has introduced sweeping updates to UK consumer law, including powerful new enforcement tools for the CMA.

When principle costs you the case

What started as a bold claim ‘on principle’ quickly unravelled into a costly courtroom lesson in getting your facts, and your legal standing, straight.

The etiquette of handling consumer complaints

It is always best practice to get involved while you have the chance and follow the correct process at the very beginning.

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

The omni-channel approach and distance sales

The conclusion of a contract when purchasing a vehicle occurs when a deposit or the full purchase price is paid.

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.