Part 2 in the case of the dealer who bought a car which was not HPI finance clear

legal updates

We were able to fight the case on 2 technicalities and come to a deal with the finance company reducing the liability down from £12,000 to £5000.

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.

Last year we reported on a case where our client was taken to court by a finance company. Our client had bought a car from a consumer and then sold it on without realising there was outstanding HP:

https://www.lawgistics.co.uk/legal_updates/court-wins-sometimes-come-down-to-a-technicality-or-two/

As the above link explains, we were able to fight the case on 2 technicalities and come to a deal with the finance company reducing the liability down from £12,000 to £5000. This still left our client out of pocket and so we helped our client bring a claim for that amount against the consumer who sold the car to him claiming it to be finance free. Our case was based on the fact that the consumer did not have title to the car (it was still owned by the finance company) and so he had created a breach under The Sale Of Goods Act 1979.

The consumer did not want to hand over any money and so we had to issue a court claim to get the matter resolved. This action resulted in a deal meaning that for the price of a Lawgistics membership and one court issue fee of £185, he was able to substantially reduce his initial potential loss of £12,000 to just £1000. If the matter had ended up in a hearing, our client would have probably clawed back the lot but they took a commercial decision to get it resolved early and put the matter to bed.  Job done.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

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.

Double Finance Danger: Don’t get caught out!

Do not simply accept what the seller advises and drill down into any finance outstanding.

Honest guv, it was a mistake!

It is useful to know that if an employee has made a mistake, it is not that employee who is deemed liable.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

Did you know that finance companies and brokers are psychic?

Our advice is don’t be bullied by them. But, that advice comes with a warning too.

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.