bombshell

[New year revolutions...... 197]

posted friday 5thvjune 2020 approx 4.00pm

if you havent watched the lawgistics zoom today you need to lock your doors and watch it now

thank you james and the lawgistics team 

ps all the best next week james remember recount the scalpals in and out

 

12.23pm saturday 6th june 2020

this has now been up  nearly 24 hours and not one reply

I seriously am amazed

I sometimes wonder why james bothers he puts his heart and soul into these interviews but basically zilch feedback

337 views too

Edited June 6, 2020 by New year revolutions......
updated

[Rory RSC 596]

22 hours ago, New year revolutions...... said:

posted friday 5thvjune 2020 approx 4.00pm

if you havent watched the lawgistics zoom today you need to lock your doors and watch it now

thank you james and the lawgistics team 

ps all the best next week james remember recount the scalpals in and out

 

12.23pm saturday 6th june 2020

this has now been up  nearly 24 hours and not one reply

I seriously am amazed

I sometimes wonder why james bothers he puts his heart and soul into these interviews but basically zilch feedback

337 views too

I havent had time for lunch let alone to watch tv will catch up at some point, james does a good job but work mode is re activated for most.

[awc1000 93]

22 hours ago, New year revolutions...... said:

posted friday 5thvjune 2020 approx 4.00pm

if you havent watched the lawgistics zoom today you need to lock your doors and watch it now

thank you james and the lawgistics team 

ps all the best next week james remember recount the scalpals in and out

 

12.23pm saturday 6th june 2020

this has now been up  nearly 24 hours and not one reply

I seriously am amazed

I sometimes wonder why james bothers he puts his heart and soul into these interviews but basically zilch feedback

337 views too

are you referring to the fca new ppi thing that's gaining legs? 

didn't catch how far back these claims could go, any idea?

[Paul C 75]

I saw it live. I appreciate your making forum aware of it (and James' journalism). My refined views on PCP is that for some, it is useful; but that its clearly not for everyone (and not for the 80% or so who have it). Beyond the specific findings and recommendations of the FCA, I am not sure if solicitors and claims management firms have enough to grip onto. After all, a misselling will be difficult to prove if someone in the past bought a car, used it then sold it, since cars depreciate (unlike insurance which wasn't claimable in the PPI scandal). 

Unlike PPI where the banks basically thought "this is fairly generic across pretty much all PPI sold", and thus they decided it wasn't worth contesting. It could be - depending on the details - a fairly narrow area of PCP which the finance houses certainly WILL fight on. One problem might be that car salespeople didn't fully understand the nuances of PCP and more likely missold something; unlike PPI where the bank call centre staff did understand the product better, but were directed from above to sell it (even though it was inapplicable most of the time).

Obviously we need a fairly representative test case, and it go to court (then get appealed...then appealed, etc) to form a legal precedent.

[Autolink100 34]

I watched the interview and the impression I got was that the good folks at Lawgistics think that this is about to become a major ball ache. I don't do that much finance but the commission earned at the end of the year is still a significant amount.

[awc1000 93]

21 minutes ago, Autolink100 said:

I watched the interview and the impression I got was that the good folks at Lawgistics think that this is about to become a major ball ache. I don't do that much finance but the commission earned at the end of the year is still a significant amount.

probably gaining steam due to the fca new rules being due, july? we hear finance rates will be capped, perhaps the legal bods have got wind of results early and think its got legs, problem is the fca report will include "why" in the new rules which in itself gives the issue clout, hopefully these sharks will soon move onto covid pickings rather than chase fca case's.

[trade vet 703]

Lawgistics appear to be touting for business,yet while they should be switched on,on their own admission they are not experts on the FCA rule book.If you are a finance company supporting dealer and advertise their rates and terms alongside your stock,my understanding is that you only need to divulge any advance commission you receive if you are asked.( in the past if a punter has asked me about commission,I have usually told them that we only get to keep it if the finance agreement is eventually honoured )However if you use a broker to obtain finance for your customer  ( you are deemed as forming a specific relationship with your customer )and I think you are now expected to inform/ volunteer to your customer how much commission you will receive.

I may be wrong but might these regulations only apply to member states in the EU/EEA.?

We used to get letters from PPI claims companies referring to deals going back years and years.I used to reply to them enclosing an invoice as company policy for a Document Recovery Fee of £65 +Vat,that used to get rid of them.

[Paul C 75]

1 hour ago, trade vet said:

 you only need to divulge any advance commission you receive if you are asked.

Apologies if what I post isn't 100% accurate - I need to look deeply into the details - but my understanding is there is, and always was, a requirement to inform the fact that commission is received (even if not asked), but not a requirement to reveal the amount of that commission. BUT the crucial factor is, if a motor dealer offers >1 finance offering, or a variable finance offering, they must indicate the best one from the perspective of the customer, not the best one from their £ commission. And it was possible to sell increasing DiC (difference in charges) or decreasing DiC finance, and earn more commission. Put simply, its to do with certain motor dealers being able to unfairly alter the split of money earned between the dealer-finance provider, at the expense of the customer, rather than the market able to function normally and set the cost of finance in a more appropriate fashion.

Larger dealers (think.....big franchises) would act as price-setters, while small car dealers who offer someone else's finance are effectively price-takers.

Somewhere will be a list of the "worst offenders" and I imagine the people who are on the list, know they're on the list. And we'll see over the next few months/years, a gradual increase in the amount of info in the public domain, as claims management firms etc gear up for this latest opportunity.

 

1 hour ago, trade vet said:

 

I may be wrong but might these regulations only apply to member states in the EU/EEA.?

They will apply because historically, when the PCP was sold we were either in the EU, or under the transitional arrangements which basically carried almost everything over for the interim. The rules at the time will always apply to historical agreements, can't make legislation which retrospectively makes something legal or illegal except in exceptional circumstances.....

 

 

[Paul C 75]

All the gory details are here: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/multi-firm-reviews/our-work-on-motor-finance-final-findings.pdf

Upon reading through, I think the situation is worse than a lot of people think it is. The franchise dealers were preparing for an upheaval this summer (then came along CV19) but if enough momentum builds in the claims management sector to go after them for historical issues then I believe we will see a bloodbath.

Put simply, the timeline is something like this:

1. The financial regulators were historically quite weak
2. Banks and credit card providers took the piss and mis-sold PPI
3. A ruling was made, which the consumer groups won. (Then another related test case was also won).
4. The regulators liked the smell of victory and "got teeth"
5. Other areas of retail finance sat up and noticed; but car finance didn't
6. Car finance sector continued mis-selling on an industrial scale

 

I believe another issue - one which CV19 will also 'break' - is the rather cosy relationship between CAP and the auction houses. Effectively they were trying to dampen down the volatility of used car prices, to reduce risk which the finance houses typically carried (because they're financing, and ultimately own, >80% of cars). In an otherwise balanced situation, if they can control supply then supply-demand means the prices stay up. Change demand by a significant amount (CV19, plus the part-collapse of PCP finance market) and their controls become ineffective. I believe we're heading for at least a partial- unravelling of the car finance sector, which is somewhat propping up the car industry.

[BHM 994]

Reading section 1 tells you were this is heading. Rightly so.

38 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I believe we're heading for at least a partial- unravelling of the car finance sector, which is somewhat propping up the car industry.

...and not before time too. 

[awc1000 93]

bad news for everyone, can't see how anyone in this trade will be happy with the findings or new likely capped rates that are coming, whether you use finance or not we are all reliant on the influx of cars that it generates,

the irony in all this is certain lenders may choose to exit this market if they don't see profits worthwhile, the end result being the buyer will have less choice of lenders.

It makes you wonder if certain players in this trade already know what the outcome will be regards capped rates, the supermarket groups currently don't seem bothered and are marching on regardless, strange when they are totally reliant on higher rates / subprime.

[trade vet 703]

50 minutes ago, awc1000 said:

bad news for everyone, can't see how anyone in this trade will be happy with the findings or new likely capped rates that are coming, whether you use finance or not we are all reliant on the influx of cars that it generates,

the irony in all this is certain lenders may choose to exit this market if they don't see profits worthwhile, the end result being the buyer will have less choice of lenders.

It makes you wonder if certain players in this trade already know what the outcome will be regards capped rates, the supermarket groups currently don't seem bothered and are marching on regardless, strange when they are totally reliant on higher rates / subprime.

Supermarkets relying on subprime,are you sure,that is news to me.

[Paul C 75]

Supermarkets (the ones I know) aren't selling to subprime customers. They tend to prefer the stuff that didn't make the grade for franchise dealers but is still new/low mileage. And in any case, subprime aren't really the issue - this one is to do with Increasing DiC commission models which were predominantly sold to middle profile customers. There are some decent graphs in the FCA report.

[awc1000 93]

some of them must be or borderline, i wouldn't say they use the best lenders, their whole model is based around commission kick back and bolt on's, i would say their stock is more reliant on fleet than ex franchise, they wouldn't get by on those alone, one that i know are currently operating on £300 chassis profit then everything else underhand deal bolt on's, finance, overpriced admin, extended warrantys, inflated lifeshine's, steal the swapper as a deposit  etc, it all ads up.

I would rather they all went to the wall rather than survive at the cost of indy's and franchise's, big difference from an indy taking a big finance commission against  a supermarket shafting a customer on the total process of buying a car.

when you work off that model it becomes easy to give £1000 more than everyone else at auction, add in preferential buying / indemnity rates, ghost adverts (reg number hidden) removal of parts before sending the swappers back to auction, it's all bad news for everyone else.

i'm down to only dealing with two these days, they are always slow to pay and give me nothing back in the way of swappers, i'll not be bothered if i loose either.