Unreasonable Finance Company terms and conditions

[Autolink100 34]

Does anyone else study the small print on the dealer warranty terms that some of the finance companies send out. I have just got the following through from Credit Plus and don't like the look of it. My interpretation is that they want me to fix any faults that crop up within 6 months!. Its dead quiet for us at the moment and I need any deals we can get but I'm not signing this.

"16. As the supplying dealer we agree to rectify any quality assurance issues on the vehicle deemed to be in line with the consumer credit supply of goods act, which covers a 6 month period after the date of sale.

18. I/We the supplying dealer agree to return the funds in full if during the consumer rights period the vehicle is deemed to be unfit for purpose or the customer exercises their right to reject the vehicle."

What does everyone think, Am I being a bit over cautious ?

[Mark101 536]

18. Warranty or not, this is your obligation.

and 

16. (In a nutshell and not wishing to open that can of worms). You are ultimately liable to fix faults for 6 months under CRA, so they're not stipulating anything that you don't or shouldn't already be doing.

The only hope is that this "insurance" will go somewhere near to paying towards and failure post sale.

[EPV 631]

Looks pretty standard to me and nothing the CRA doesn’t already state.  

[Autolink100 34]

I'm not sure where the CRA stipulates I have to fix all faults on a car within 6 months. It's actually only for faults that were present on the car at the point of sale and surely a good PDi would take care of that

[EPV 631]

33 minutes ago, Autolink100 said:

I'm not sure where the CRA stipulates I have to fix all faults on a car within 6 months. It's actually only for faults that were present on the car at the point of sale and surely a good PDi would take care of that

That’s a grey area. How can you prove that a gearbox wasn’t failing gradually or a set of rings weren’t deteriorating gradually? 

I wouldn’t hang your hat on that one. 

But yes, I agree, you shouldn’t be fixing all faults carte Blanche so if that’s the wording, best avoided imo. 

[Mark101 536]

35 minutes ago, Autolink100 said:

I'm not sure where the CRA stipulates I have to fix all faults on a car within 6 months. It's actually only for faults that were present on the car at the point of sale and surely a good PDi would take care of that

I disagree with this - I hope everyone that has interpreted the CRA as you have are correct because that would be awesome.

Every car I sell is either 100% right at POS or noted on the PDI (things like aircon, radio etc) as not working.  If you're correct, I would not be liable for anything - that just simply cannot be the case can it and even if it is the case, I would still be looking to fix genuine faults, whatever they may be, for 3 months, 3,000 miles.  My only exclusion is tyres.

 

[EPV 631]

5 minutes ago, Mark101 said:

I disagree with this - I hope everyone that has interpreted the CRA as you have are correct because that would be awesome.

Every car I sell is either 100% right at POS or noted on the PDI (things like aircon, radio etc) as not working.  If you're correct, I would not be liable for anything - that just simply cannot be the case can it and even if it is the case, I would still be looking to fix genuine faults, whatever they may be, for 3 months, 3,000 miles.  My only exclusion is tyres.

 

You’re a little bit awry on this one mate. 

If you can prove (and I mean prove beyond doubt) that the car did not have the fault at the POS then you’re not liable to provide a fix. Forget warranties and goodwill and customer service for now, i’m talking what the law says. 

Of course, proving it isn’t simple. A gearbox could be failing before sale, during the sale, 2 months after the sale before it gets to the point it becomes undrivable. 

A car stalling because of a faulty idle regulator (i’m not a mechanic don’t quote me on the finer points) that clearly wasn’t stalling when sold and hasn’t stalled for 4 months is a fault that has developed and you’re not liable. The customer has been unlucky. 

Again, forget whether you would as a course of goodwill or customer relations or guilt, fix it for them. I’m speaking purely about entitlement under the law. 

[EPV 631]

Actually I have a live example of what I mean. 

I sold a 2008 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI with 80k on 6 weeks ago. Chap gets in contact to say he’s using/losing oil/coolant. I point out to him that even Audi themselves state these engines use oil but that doesn’t explain the coolant. I ask him to check for smoke (nothing) then to put a piece of cardboard under his engine bay for a weekend and to give me a call on Monday and if it’s leaking i’ll get him booked in to my garage for a look. He doesn’t have a formal warranty with me by the way. 

He also mentions that the heater/ac blower has stopped working.

Now, in theory i could easily point this out as working on the PDI and now 6 weeks later it doesn’t. The heater blower either works or it doesn’t. It did, now it doesn’t. I’m not liable to fix this as it’s clearly a fault that has developed and the consumer has been unlucky that it’s packed up. I believe I would stand an excellent chance of winning in court based on the age/mileage and pre sale process. 

I will of course, fix it for him, especially as he’s likely had an unpleasant shock at how much oil his engine uses and how he’s going to have to live with it, me fixing his blower will make him feel better. 

But strictly speaking from the law side of things, i’m confident i’m Not liable. 

[NOACROSS 414]

Would be nice to know what the car is and age/miles etc?

But yes, I think you’re being over worried. Get it sold! 

You should hopefully have faith in your stock and prep right, with new no-advisory MOT, service, PDi etc. so it’s unlikely to cause you future grief?

However, it’s all a punt in this game. 

We spell out to the punter at sale and handover, what the warranty covers and get them to sign the warranty form, Pdi and customer satisfaction form etc. 

It doesn’t absolve us of the CRA requirements, nor would I wish it to. However, it does save a lot of agro and limits the chancers.

Also, your customer I’m Sure won’t be reading the small print like you have?

[Tony F 38]

10 minutes ago, EPV said:

I sold a 2008 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI with 80k on 6 weeks ago. Chap gets in contact to say he’s using/losing oil/coolant. I point out to him that even Audi themselves state these engines use oil but that doesn’t explain the coolant. I ask him to check for smoke (nothing) then to put a piece of cardboard under his engine bay for a weekend and to give me a call on Monday and if it’s leaking i’ll get him booked in to my garage for a look. He doesn’t have a formal warranty with me by the way.

I don't mean to alarm you EPV, but this is a known issue by Audi on some of these engines. We had an A5 using 1 litre of oil every 150 miles, with no visible signs of smoking about 4 yrears ago. We bought the car back from customer. The car had full Audi history, and I kicked up with Audi customer care about it. Luckily for us bbc Watchdog highlighted this issue the previous week. Audi booked us in and we got a five and a half grand engine rebuild foc. good luck mate

[EPV 631]

1 minute ago, Tony F said:

I don't mean to alarm you EPV, but this is a known issue by Audi on some of these engines. We had an A5 using 1 litre of oil every 150 miles, with no visible signs of smoking about 4 yrears ago. We bought the car back from customer. The car had full Audi history, and I kicked up with Audi customer care about it. Luckily for us bbc Watchdog highlighted this issue the previous week. Audi booked us in and we got a five and a half grand engine rebuild foc. good luck mate

Thanks mate, i’m not alarmed as Audi themselves stated in a press release that pre 2011 tfsi engines are known to use oil. In fact it states in the handbook that it used 1 litre per 1,000 miles. Customer claims to have done a couple of long runs and has spent £90 on oil which at a guess seems a higher rate of usage than the manufacturer say to allow for but still nothing like 1 litre for 150 miles. 

Appreciate the warning though, cheers. 

[Mark101 536]

5 minutes ago, EPV said:

Thanks mate, i’m not alarmed as Audi themselves stated in a press release that pre 2011 tfsi engines are known to use oil. In fact it states in the handbook that it used 1 litre per 1,000 miles. Customer claims to have done a couple of long runs and has spent £90 on oil which at a guess seems a higher rate of usage than the manufacturer say to allow for but still nothing like 1 litre for 150 miles. 

Appreciate the warning though, cheers. 

Sounds like I'm taking the piss but I am not.

Explan it is a characteristic of that engine, as documented by Audi themselves.  Offer him a gallon of 0w30 or 15w30 (whatever they reccomend) as goodwill and then tell him he can buy more directly from you at probably 50% of what he is paying retail - you'll still make some money too.

Downside being that he will be in regular contact with you and mentioning every future fault I suppose.

[Mojo121 229]

18 minutes ago, EPV said:

Thanks mate, i’m not alarmed as Audi themselves stated in a press release that pre 2011 tfsi engines are known to use oil. In fact it states in the handbook that it used 1 litre per 1,000 miles. Customer claims to have done a couple of long runs and has spent £90 on oil which at a guess seems a higher rate of usage than the manufacturer say to allow for but still nothing like 1 litre for 150 miles. 

Appreciate the warning though, cheers. 

A LITRE PER 1,000 MILES? They actually put that in their service book? That's horrendous.

[David Ayers 171]

2 hours ago, Autolink100 said:

or the customer exercises their right to reject the vehicle

I would be worried about this.

If the customer tells finanace company he wishes to reject, for whatever reason how hard are they going to fight. Finance compamies are worried about complaints going to the Financial Ombusman. I think they get 24 complaints "free" before every complaint costs something like £550 whether it is a valid complaint or not.

The finance comopany will then be straight on the phone to you asking for their money. You won't have a chance to argue whether he is entitled to reject it!

[Brunswick 10]

I saved this link some time ago highlighting exactly this situation.  Worth a read.

 

http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/read-news/947#sthash.LPmrSkaw.dpbs

[EPV 631]

16 minutes ago, Mojo121 said:

A LITRE PER 1,000 MILES? They actually put that in their service book? That's horrendous.

http://casestudies.atlanticmotorcar.com/audi-engine-oil-consumption-correction/

 

American but likely to be the same. 

37 minutes ago, Mark101 said:

Sounds like I'm taking the piss but I am not.

Explan it is a characteristic of that engine, as documented by Audi themselves.  Offer him a gallon of 0w30 or 15w30 (whatever they reccomend) as goodwill and then tell him he can buy more directly from you at probably 50% of what he is paying retail - you'll still make some money too.

Downside being that he will be in regular contact with you and mentioning every future fault I suppose.

I’ve already sent him the link above mate, unless there’s a leak or it smokes he can suffer it i’m afraid, I didn’t build the bloody engine. 

He was already aware of the characteristics of the 1.8 engine and he thought it wasn’t the same for the 2.0. I don’t know why. Probably read PistonHeads. 

[Tony F 38]

Quite a few manufactures actually quote 1 litre per every 1000 kilometers and not miles as acceptable usage. Had a case last year on a Peugeot 207, customer thought car was using oil, but when we checked the handbook it stated the above consumption figures. Even some of the older stuff, again identical case on a 2003 BMW 330 coupe about 8 years ago. Customer threatening all sorts of legal action, until we asked him to read the owners manual, 1 litre per 1000 kilometers.

[EPV 631]

19 minutes ago, tradex said:

I thought it a litre every 1,000km's?

Could be actually. 

[trade vet 697]

4 hours ago, Autolink100 said:

Does anyone else study the small print on the dealer warranty terms that some of the finance companies send out. I have just got the following through from Credit Plus and don't like the look of it. My interpretation is that they want me to fix any faults that crop up within 6 months!. Its dead quiet for us at the moment and I need any deals we can get but I'm not signing this.

"16. As the supplying dealer we agree to rectify any quality assurance issues on the vehicle deemed to be in line with the consumer credit supply of goods act, which covers a 6 month period after the date of sale.

18. I/We the supplying dealer agree to return the funds in full if during the consumer rights period the vehicle is deemed to be unfit for purpose or the customer exercises their right to reject the vehicle."

What does everyone think, Am I being a bit over cautious ?

I think you are right to be cautious.Lets say the hirer defaults within 6 months and there is a reposesion.Your broker will be out of pocket and their commission will be clawed back by the lender.They could in theory then claim that the lender had examined the car and a quality assurance issue was found (which should be easy.)Then without informing you until after it has been sold off cheaply at auction ,in theory you could be legally bound to cough up the outstanding balance including interest.

16) I would add to this.......which covers a 6 month period after the date of sale which have not been caused by misuse or neglect and were promptly notified by the hirer at the time.

or on those lines otherwise you could get stitched up.

I used the same major finance company for years but probably like most banks they sometimes slipped something in to our annual rates and terms contract which did not mean how it read......Try....If the hirer fails to make 3 instalments etc....( fair enough you get your commission clawed back) However I recall one regular punter calling in and he still had his car.So I just asked him about missing his payments. What happened was that on several occasions over the term his D/D had been delayed by a day or two because of glitches in the banking system resulting in us getting our commission clawed back.

[Autolink100 34]

Lawgistics have been banging on about this for a while now which is why I am always cautious about these clauses. We told CF247 we wouldn't sign theirs and they just said OK just send an invoice so it will be interesting to see how we get on with Credit Plus. They actually sent two for us to sign, one from themselves and another from the lender which is Moneybarn, not sure why, I can only sell it to one of them FFS.

It's one thing with our regular lender which is Close, we are actually earning something out of the deal but they don't ask us to sign our life away like this mob and of couse we are not earning a bean in commission. My interpretation of those two clauses is

16. They want me to agree to fix ANY faults which crop up with in six months.

18. They want me to afford them the protection of the CRA in respect of the rights of rejection when the CRA does not apply because they are a finance company and not a consumer.

Anyhow we told them we are not going to sign it, by the way it's a 3 year old pick up truck that has done 116,000 mile and I want to be able to sleep at night!

[Brunswick 10]

A friend of mine went on a course regarding MOT's or something or other a few weeks back, anyway he got talking to a service manager of a Audi main dealer based somewhere in the midlands who said that his dealership were replacing 7, 2.0Tfsi engines a week due to excessive oil use.  Cars up to 7 years old with service history, not necessarily with Audi with 100% parts and labour contribution.  I was always lead to believe that this issue had been solved on cars post 2012 but apparently not.  For once I'm glad I have only Tdi's in stock.

[DCS01 27]

I always try and fix things even if they are quite minor and the person is local. 

I have learnt over the years (even though we are all in the same trade) someone is more than happy to throw you under the bus and point out any minor issues with the car. 

[Dave2302 387]

Isn't that the truth

And the ones that will always do the slagging off will be the worst offenders when it comes to selling crap or doing bodged repairs

[Rory RSC 596]

6 minutes ago, Dave2302 said:

Isn't that the truth

And the ones that will always do the slagging off will be the worst offenders when it comes to selling crap or doing bodged repairs

Specialists. Always SPECIALISTS. This would never pass an MOT etc etc ok so do you do MOT's....no  But you are a tester you just don't currently do them.....no?