Historical rejections, finance not romance

legal updates

Finance company auctioned the vehicle off (massively undervalued) and proceeded to pursue the dealer for the difference!

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 recently had a number cases of  submitted to us in relation to historical rejection claims.

These are deals that were done through finance several years ago. What they all have in common is that the consumer rejected the car sometime after purchase. Sometimes the selling dealer was notified and given the chance to remedy the situation, sometimes they were not. The overriding theme however is that the finance companies have accepted the claim from the consumer and at some point ceased contact with the dealer. They have then auctioned the vehicle off (often massively undervalued) and proceeded to pursue the dealer for the difference between original price and auction price. Whilst contractually they may be in the right, procedurally we have found inconsistencies that may aid the dealer when it comes to negotiating a better settlement.

When a car dealer enters an agreement with a finance company, the contract between them will contain indemnity clauses to ensure the finance company are covered by the dealer in the event the finance company take a car back from a customer following a complaint or problem.  The clauses will say the dealer is liable in situations arising in connection with the performance or contemplated performance of the contract and shall cover loss arising out of; a breach of agreement by the dealer, any misrepresentation or statement made by the dealer and of any other act or omission by the dealer, for example.  This liability is also covered by S75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which provides that suppliers and creditors are jointly and severally liable for claims in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract. 

As a car dealer you are liable to give a refund or a repair in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if it is established a car has a fault, present at the point of purchase.  Ideally, if a customer makes a complaint about a car they have purchased on finance, the creditor and the supplier agree a course of action between them depending upon the liability the supplying dealer may or may not have under the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  However, this doesn’t always happen, and finance companies have been known to make arbitrary decisions, without consultation or agreement with the dealer, sell at auction and seek to recover their losses at a later date. 

The Limitations Act provides that a claim for breach of contract can be taken up to six years after the alleged breach, so in answer to your question, yes they can do this three years after the event.  The argument often put forward is that the indemnity in the creditor/supplier contract is the ‘bottom line’, and that the supplier therefore is liable to indemnify them against any loss incurred, however, if your agreement with them specifies the conditions of the loss arising from such as the examples given earlier, you may have a defence if no breach of contract or misrepresentation occurred in the case in which they took back the car.  Therefore nothing occurred to trigger the indemnity and you have no liability to pay their shortfall.  It is also worth noting that where a finance company have accepted a rejection for example where in fact the remedy offered should have been a repair, they may have failed to mitigate their loss in such cases, certainly if a repair would have been the cheaper option. 

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.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Deposit and Fair Contractual Terms

Explore the intricacies of contract commitments and the bounds of consumer rights in our latest analysis, where a £3000 deposit dispute underscores the significance of clear terms and buyer responsibilities.

More of the same from the FCA

Dealing with discretionary commission arrangements and concern that customers are not getting a fair deal on GAP (Guaranteed Asset Protection) insurance products.

Maintaining professionalism in customer disputes

Your emails may be presented to a judge for review to help decide on how you have handled the matter before the court’s involvement.

While We Wait: Preparing for the FCA’s Review on Motor Finance Commissions

As anticipated, the FCA was not particularly helpful when questioned about the various issues of investigating complaints that were outside of the standard retention periods for documentation.

FCA Commission Review: Separating fact from fiction in the wake of scaremongering

Attend a complimentary seminar hosted by the FCA for first-hand information – Scheduled for Wednesday, 24 January 2024.

The FOS reports over 10,000 motor finance complaints: Are we really surprised?

The good news currently is the FCA is focussing its attention on the lender and not our members.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

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.