Consumer Rights Act 2015 is destroying my business

[John13 0]

Am I alone in thinking this is completely unfair and exceptions should be made with respects to the car trade? I originally ran a successful dealership for 20 years and retired in 2010. I recently started back up in 2015 on a smaller scale (stock around 50 cars) and don't think I can handle this anymore. I took back not a single car in my previous 20 years. I am in my second year of trading and have come back to a completely different ball game, having taken back 5 cars. The finance companies don't take our side at all, and when it's a finance sale the customer actually has 6 months to reject it, in contradiction with the Consumer Rights Act. One customer is currently in the process of rejecting a Ford Kuga because of a DPF fault 4 months after buying it, meanwhile driving around in it, having done 3000 miles and taking his kids to school in a car he claims isn't safe. I've offered to fix the problem but he has never contacted us, he went directly to cf247 and they have taken his word for it that we refused to help. I've also said I refuse to take the car back, to be told they don't need my agreement, they will drop the car off at my premises and pursue me for the cost. The car sold for £9500 in December. I'm having to buy it back still for over £9000 despite it dropping in the book and them now going for around £7000, having an additional owner, and going up in mileage. I also have no doubt he is abusing the car knowing it isn't his anymore. How can he still be allowed to use it after telling the finance company he wants to reject? 

Another customer has dropped a Range Rover off which has a very minor fault with the electric seat adjustment which we're happy to fix, but he has now told MotoNovo he is rejecting it and they are telling us there's nothing we can do to stop this. There was originally 4 grand profit in this deal. He has also completely abused the car in the 1 month he has had it, ripped the leather interior, cracked tail lights, dents etc etc. Does anyone have any advice on how the dealer can win in some of these cases? Or is there simply nothing we can do? Can anyone share any personal experiences with this unfair Act? I just can't believe how unfair it is and everything is against the dealer. Where's my security when their part exchange turns out to be a death trap or the car I bought from auction needs a head gasket?

I'm seriously ready to pack it in, unlike my younger years I find myself thinking that I'm in a position in life where I simply don't need this.

Has anyone else been affected in the same way?

Cheers,
John

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by John13

[MrC 142]

Problem we have is a few clicks on Google and everyone is Rumpole of the Bailey. 

[John13 0]

Hi, thanks for the replies.

I'm more than happy to take these cases to court, what alarms me is the finance company telling me I don't even have that opportunity. They are judge, jury and executioner and will just drop the car off at my premises then come after me for the money they paid me for the car months prior despite the car no longer being worth this. Apparently a customer just needs to lie and say he reported a fault within the first 30 days which I refused to fix, and they will accept this with no proof.

This business model now appears broken to me. Surely this is open to abuse also. What's stopping someone going around financing a new Q7 or X5 every few months, abusing it, creating a fault with the car and pretending they reported this fault within the first 30 days and getting out of the finance agreement? Extreme example but in theory someone can do this.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by John13

[andymc1973 199]

ae you with lawgistics? if not you need to be, you can charge them for use at 26p a miles (I think), you need a legal team behind you with these cases, are the cars PDI'd before they go out? get the punter to sign there are no faults

[Rory RSC 596]

Andy it does not matter about Lawgistics - If you fight the finance companies they just won't deal with you is the background on it.

 

Very frustrating. Finance companies are a bit of a joke tbf with this sort of stuff. 

I have just been through something similar with a finance company.

We have had to issue a full refund on a car we categorically proved faults were not present at point of sale due to a car's tracking not being right and a minor blow to exhaust.. Cause - Once car got returned?

A spring had broken and an exhaust clamp had completely broken off. Simple facts it did not leave my place like that.

With the records and paperwork we keep we would have walked any court case but like pointed out above finance companies are judge, jury and executioner in these things.

 

 

 

[SC Derby 259]

I've had a couple of niggly bits in the last month or so.

One with Close, one with First Response and both have been totally on my side and understood matters.

Close was an interior handle had fallen off after 5 1/2 months and they wanted me to pay! Close basically told them to stop being ridiculous.

FR was intermittent engine light, he booked it in with me twice to diagnose, both times never turned up, drove the car for another 3 months then rang the finance company direct to complain further. They agreed to have it looked at for him at this point and no fault found at all.

[andymc1973 199]

sorry Rory I wasn't aware the finance companies cross you off their list, we could really do with precedent being set as no one has any idea what's happening, is it prime finance as well as the rats?

[grant8064 219]

Not had an issue with our finance company, who are quite decent, but sooner or later a client will want to back a car. It happens. Hopefully when it does they'll be on our side.

If not f**k 'em.

Pretty simple really. I earn the finance company money so they should be on my side. If not i'll go elsewhere and tell every local dealer to do the same. There are loads of lenders wanting to fill their books so don't pay them too much respect.

As for the CRA15...it's a gone too far IMO. You are expected to sell a 8 year old car for 8 year old money but prep it to 1 month old condition. We've signed up with lawgistics recently after a spate of silly requests and threats from a few clients and they have been helpful and prompt with communication. We have decided to take any reasonable case to court when we feel we have acted honestly and properly (which is always). We might still lose but it's important clients know the CRA and the law in general works for everyone not just them,.

[GreenGiant 287]

Is it not the case that the finance companies you refer to are just applying the terms of the contract you signed? It's easy to see the £signs attached to the 'we'll bring you more business' offer, but the devil is always in the detail. These companies are living off your sweat and blood and they're having it away and dumping on you when it gets a bit warm. Because they can.

If you let a fox in the chicken shack to keep warm in winter, you shouldn't really be surprised when it starts eating the chickens.

Just saying...

[jimreidvehicle 255]

10 hours ago, GreenGiant said:

Is it not the case that the finance companies you refer to are just applying the terms of the contract you signed? It's easy to see the £signs attached to the 'we'll bring you more business' offer, but the devil is always in the detail. These companies are living off your sweat and blood and they're having it away and dumping on you when it gets a bit warm. Because they can.

If you let a fox in the chicken shack to keep warm in winter, you shouldn't really be surprised when it starts eating the chickens.

Just saying...

Yip bang on the money! 

 

[betginge 73]

9 hours ago, GreenGiant said:

Is it not the case that the finance companies you refer to are just applying the terms of the contract you signed? It's easy to see the £signs attached to the 'we'll bring you more business' offer, but the devil is always in the detail. These companies are living off your sweat and blood and they're having it away and dumping on you when it gets a bit warm. Because they can.

If you let a fox in the chicken shack to keep warm in winter, you shouldn't really be surprised when it starts eating the chickens.

Just saying...

 

I think your being a little harsh to those who have a genuine concern with finance companies who are not working in the interest of the dealers who supply them work. The point being made is that there should be a proper process for dealing with CRA rejections to finance companies from the customer, Just accepting the customer is right and rejecting the car and asking for the money back is not at all fair for the dealer and even the finance house which seems bizarre to me as they loose the interest on the term of the loan, you would think it would be in there interest to resolve. 

Finance companies simply rejecting cars on a whim as some posters have stated is silly and just to liberal minded to accept the customer is always right, we know that's normally far from the case. as @andymc1973 stated some precedent needs to be set in the upper court from a pissed of dealer who has been forced to return funds. if this was to happen it would make the finance house think twice and apply the same 'is it fit for purpose' and has the dealer had chance to repair been exhausted before issuing rejection.

 

  If Finance houses are being to keen to reject without even having the courtesy of speaking to us dealers we need to name them on this forum with the circumstances, You will soon see them on here trying to defend the stance,  With the exception of AT most firms do not like negative posts on forums as its to easy to be found by internet users and other dealers. Image is a lot to these firms and if there acting wrong they need to be called to book.

 

 

Like wise that goes for finance firms who are dealing with it correctly, always good to praise those  who are being fair and helpful in difficult situations. Glad to hear from @SC Derby that Close brothers and First response are on the ball

[Rory RSC 596]

My example was with a prime finance company. Not Zuto or CF247.

9 year old performance car, has it for months, minor wear and tear issue full refund. 

I am not the only one this company has put the bully boy tactics onto. 

 

 

[betginge 73]

4 minutes ago, Rory RSC said:

My example was with a prime finance company. Not Zuto or CF247.

9 year old performance car, has it for months, minor wear and tear issue full refund. 

I am not the only one this company has put the bully boy tactics onto. 

 

 

 

There are a lot of prime lenders out there to choose from, if they are acting unfair a simple name and shame and boycott is the way, the good thing about an open market place is we can choose who we deal with in some cases. 

[GreenGiant 287]

To be fair, I was only asking the question whether the finance co concerned were just applying the terms of the agreement that the dealer signed. If they are, then there isn't really anyone to blame is there?

If, however, they are riding roughshod over dealers in contravention of those agreements and CRA15, then those dealers need to seek legal advice. I'm ALWAYS in favour of name and shame when someone oversteps the mark and tries to bully their way to gain an unfair advantage. 

It's also good to know that some finance companies understand the relationship with their dealers and their obligations to their partners, as well as their obligations in law.

IIRC, there was a warning posted on this very forum a while back about these indemnity clauses in dealer agreements and how certain finance companies were seeking to absolve themselves of all responsibility for faulty vehicles down the line. The advice, as I recall, was DON'T SIGN.

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Tom 164]

I don't do much finance but when I do it's with close and never had a problem. 

[GreenGiant 287]

There is a recent Lawgistics article online here (hopefully) referring to a similar case that went to court.

The finance company lost and a precedent appears to have been set.

[betginge 73]

5 hours ago, GreenGiant said:

There is a recent Lawgistics article online here (hopefully) referring to a similar case that went to court.

The finance company lost and a precedent appears to have been set.

 

Well spotted @GreenGiant interesting article

This info can be of use for others but unless it was dealt with in a high / divisional court it does not set Precedent which is a shame. 

Am sure this ease of rejection from some of finance firms will change with cases like this finding in favour of dealers

[Barclaywoodmotorco 4]

Have given 3 refunds in 10 days first one a 58 plate Mazda Mx5 done 37000 client complained of a damp spot on the carpets at the back of the seat. (Around the time of the recent storm) she would not leave my office for two hours.

 

54 plate Mini Cooper done 54,000 one owner from new kid left a holding deposit ,came back with his father amateur car dealer did not like the sound of the engine , really !!!!!!

 

cheap Saab turbo was the next dumped its oil , fair enough gave, took that on the chin.

 

you must deduct the mileage used if you have to take back the clients car and you can also charge them for Valeting the car.

i used M I L S motor industry law society for one year they charged me over £2000 for a year subscription and would not recommend them the chap who owns the company harassed me to renew my yearly subscription and when I told him I did not see the value in his service he called me a idiot and put the phone down .

 

i  sell cheaper ticket items now up to £10,000 as anything over the market burn rate slows down considerably.

its a really tough industry to be in the clients do not know the boundaries of when to call I have clients calling me all hours of the day where's the locking wheel nut my heated seats stoped working etc etc .

contemplated just selling vans as the clients are so much easier to deal with.

 

 

[justina3 518]

I find vans just as much hard work as when a fault occurs you get the its costing me £500 a day in lost revenue thrown at you.

[andymc1973 199]

1 hour ago, justina3 said:

I find vans just as much hard work as when a fault occurs you get the its costing me £500 a day in lost revenue thrown at you.

2500 a week? we are in the wrong game

[Ocsltd 133]

7 minutes ago, andymc1973 said:

2500 a week? we are in the wrong game

We are in the wrong game, it is possible for trades people to earn that sort of money. They're usually really good at what they do, or appear on Rogue Traders!! 

[Cornish Guy 45]

Interesting update from Lawgistics here

[Mikey 19]

3 hours ago, Cornish Guy said:

Interesting update from Lawgistics here

Yes I read that on this mornings email... Interestingly worded I thought!

[Rory RSC 596]

Jobs hard enough without having to deal with some Joey sat in a finance complaints department on minimum wage reading some internal flow chart about consumer rights.

Lawgistics see it for what it is.

[betginge 73]

Am sure our discussion has had some influence on that article or it was bloody good timing.  I hope someone will take up their offer to assist if they find themselves in the unfortunate situation the op and others were placed in.