Legal advice please – cancelling a new car dispute

For some reason I have an image of some Hyenas trying to bring down a massive Bison and failing miserably 🙂

I can see that. I’m in front of a Street Fighter II cab.

This thread really has brought the best out of some people. Not.

Am I Legally qualified? Yes.
Are you? No

Am I a contract law specialist? Yes.
Are you? No

You and poopy continue to spew unsubstantiated verbiage;.

So ner ner ne ner ner.

aracerr – yet another boring windbag.
In court, I would piss all over you.

How many times have you been held in contempt for doing that? 😯

I’m a spaceman and I’ve been to the moon three times. Also, I’m writing this whilst performing backflips in zero G. The internet is awesome because you can pretend you have any career!

Dare I say 50 pages. Does anybody have a graph they can post? Or should we now kill this thread as it’s been Lingering for far too long,

Probably someone else has spotted this is the last gazillion posts, but isn’t it obvious that Ling is Chewy? It’s the website and the Gateshead connection that give it away.

Nah not enough zombie maggots.

…plenty of maggots but no zombies

RichPenny – Member
Looks pretty black and white to me .
That was an obvious pun on lings web design, which you missed because you are stupid.

You should make sure you know what a pun is before you start throwing the insults around .

sorry, was a bit drunk.

It seems most of STW gets hammered around 11pm on a Sunday.

Also, Cougar is on his hollibobs.

wow…. that got good again.

IANAL but I have dealt with a fair number of albeit commercial contracts in my time. And one thing I would add is that in the end lawyers don’t decide right or wrong, they have opinions based on their interpretation of the facts as they see them which they then argue; others interpret them differently and argue differently. So all those lined up behind one of of our resident lawyers, and those lining up behind Frank (if he is a lawyer), they don’t 100.000% know they’re ‘right’ – in the end and if necessary a court would decide.

It might be clear cut – but then again it was in the parking case Beavis vs Parkingeye, yet the judges there ruled that although they know what the law ‘says’ that it needed to be interpreted differently to deal with these cases.

Blimey, that escalated quickly…..

I haven’t been nasty to the OP, or any other poster on this thread, and despite the OP doing multiple quotes a couple of pages back, my point still stands.
When the options for acquiring a new, tricked out car were slim, you were happy enough to sign up to the deal to get that vehicle, but not bothered so much about it, that you wanted to clarify the finer details, such as the actual cost of the ‘cancellation fee’, yet when your circumstances changed, you came on here to freely admit that you were looking for a way to circumnavigate the ‘contract’ you signed. Is that fair to say?
Then, when someone with the relevant legal knowledge, points out details that were not legal within the document that you were happy to sign, thus giving you the get out that you wanted, you come out on the offensive, as if you are completely innocent, and have been wronged. Would that also be fair to say?
I’m really not having a pop, as it’s none of my business, but by you posting stuff ‘on here’, I feel compelled to write this. I don’t know any of the people involved, and I hate bullying tactics used by companies…..but, if it’s yellow, has a bill, and goes ‘quack’, it’s probably a duck.

outofbreath » IME this thread is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone suggest timewaster buyers have the moral highground on the grounds that timewasting is legal.

aracer » Except they haven’t even done that here – anybody dealing with ling has the moral highground given she appears to have totally vacated that.

So you agree that every other time the OP has done this he wasn’t on the moral high ground?

Difficult to argue with Stedlock’s summary

theotherjonv – Member
wow…. that got good again.

Thought you’d flounced of this thread 🙂

This has to contain the most flouncebounces eva!!

I did reserve the right to come back in – you did read my smallprint, didn’t you – and by not picking me up on it that’s tacit approval of the T&C’s.

In fact for the sheer temerity of accusing me of flouncebouncing, I’m charging you for the time spent rebuffing you. But…. how much can i reasonably bill you……?

Dare I say 50 pages. Does anybody have a graph they can post? Or should we now kill this thread as it’s been Lingering for far too long,

*looking back wistfully at the japes and hi-jinks of the teens pages*

I’ve monetised this thread. Every time someone makes a ling pun, I get a quid.

So far got £8.

Keeps going like this I might take a lease out on that Delorean.

Given the number of bikes, cars, vans and whatever that the OP has got through in the last few years, he sounds like both a crazed spendthrift and marvellous absorber of hiked new prices, allowing those more financially astute to benefit from some healthy second hand reductions.

Go you, OP!

Every time someone makes a ling pun, I get a quid.

Fingers crossed you get enough to earn some Bling

So far got £8.

Plus VAT?

Frank I’d be interested in your argument as the why The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, don’t apply to lings business model , and why you think a cancellation clause claiming an unspecified sum may fall due in unspecified circumstances is contractually binding.

Also Frank an apology for the pissing in court comment might not go amiss.

Fingers crossed you get enough to earn some Bling

Ker-ching! Ker-ling!

Difficult to argue with Stedlock’s summary

but, if it’s yellow, has a bill, and goes ‘quack’, it’s probably a duck.

Except, of course, that ducks aren’t yellow

ducks aren’t yellow

and the vast majority of them don’t go quack.

ducks aren’t yellow

Sure?

Tomhoward that is an irrelevant picture. You’ve merely used a modified image of an occasion where the Chinese authorities tried to ride roughshod over the tights of the people

😆

Everyone seems to have forgotten some key facts here…

The customer/applicant for the £30,000+ new Skoda is NOT the OP; in fact, as far as I can see, the REAL customer has not posted a single word on this forum. You are all discussing with a person (Mick) who wanted to use the car, when in fact it was being financed by another person (Simon – MY CUSTOMER).

The reason that Mick did not finance the car was that the finance company wouldn’t have accepted the risk, due to his personal circumstances or credit risk, depending on the facts he represents from time to time. Whatever.

He hasn’t mentioned, because (probably) he hasn’t seen it, that the finance agreement contains the clause: “Restrictions relating to the Vehicle: 4.1 You must keep the Vehicle in your possession and control.” However, the customer has seen it.

Put simply, if the person applying for car finance is not the main driver of the vehicle, then this is called “accommodation finance”.

It’s quite clear to everyone, that the person using the goods should be the one applying for them. I’m sure some legal types will refute that, but come on… Even if it was just a cycle, you wouldn’t apply for finance for a pushbike, on behalf of a “mate”.

It is “accommodation finance” even in cases where the person actually paying for the finance deal can afford the repayments beyond any doubt, and I have no reason to doubt the customer/applicant (Simon) can afford it.

Looking at it from the finance companies’ viewpoint, it all revolves around the poor credit score or credit history of the person who will be driving the car. Even though it may seem an easy option to ask someone else to take on the rentals and promising to pay them back, it is really not that simple.

In most cases, the person who would be taking on the responsibility for the rentals is either a close relative, a partner or a close friend – but if the relationship with them breaks down for any reason, then they are still responsible for the rentals and have (usually) no legal recourse at all to get the car back.

As stated above, if the person actually responsible for paying the agreement does not drive the vehicle, there is a greater risk of the finance company not being able to get either the car OR their money back.

Taking into consideration the fact that the whole concept behind accommodation finance is not illegal, the lenders are now very aware of the risks. Therefore every finance company specifically refuses such finance.

If accommodation finance isn’t illegal (just unwanted), what is illegal is not declaring that you are doing it. I never had that declared, and if I did, would have declined this finance opportunity. When it comes to the terms and conditions of a finance contract, there is a statement that the person taking on the finance is the main driver – and if you state that that is the case when it is not, that is fraud.

If the finance paperwork had been signed and returned, both persons involved (the one applying for the finance AND the person that they are applying for) would possibly (or not) be charged with fraud in attempting to deceive the finance company. That could lead to a criminal record, and at the very least, they would receive a marker on their credit history that will affect future financial requests.

So, be aware that a) Mick is NOT my customer, b) the customer seems not to have made a comment in this discussion – maybe sensibly… , c) the £30,000+ car was being obtained on a basis that *would* have been defrauding the finance company, had it gone ahead, d) I had no knowledge of that arrangement.

This is apart from the multiple lies and changes in story that have been made by the OP. But I have absolutely no supplier/customer arrangement with the OP (Mick aka Geordieboy00).

The mass-outrage on this forum, seems to be that I have been “punitive” in wanting to charge a £500+vat (£600) agency fee to the customer (not Mick), to recover some of my costs, to repay to the supplying dealer. I normally waive that, and swallow costs… but in this case I was annoyed, reinforced after Mick revealed in his first post that he was planning a ploy to be used to cancel the car, further reinforced then by the changing story, and the seeming history of vehicle cancellations, further reinforced that I found out it was an accommodation deal and should have never been made in the first place. This charge is still being looked at and discussed, and I’m sure I will have some decision to make on whether I pursue it, shortly.

Hope this helps, from my point of view.

But, pay attention: YOU HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THE ACTUAL CUSTOMER, IN THIS CASE, just a 3rd party who wanted a new car he would not have passed finance approval, on.

– Ling

Ok, ok….if it’s a yellow duck, with a big bill, and this particular yellow duck, contrary to popular belief, actually makes a noise that sounds like ‘quack’, then it’s a duck.

That tries to wheedle out of duck duties that he has agreed to happily, in order to get a new, £30,000 duck mobile, that would only be a £10,500 financial duck commitment.

Human pounds that is, not duck ones.

Lings back!

wanting to charge a £500+vat (£600)

What does this cover? Out of pocket expenses? If so, can you just share a break down of what those expenses are in this case?

Ling, you appear to have an intermittent caplsock key. I can fix that for you. I charge an undisclosed sum per minute to do so and there might be other charge too. Do you find this offer interesling?

I normally waive that, and swallow costs… but in this case I was annoyed, reinforced after Mick revealed in his first post that he was planning a ploy to be used to cancel the car, further reinforced then by the changing story, and the seeming history of vehicle cancellations, further reinforced that I found out it was an accommodation deal and should have never been made in the first place.

but but but…….

in the very first post…

On the paperwork it does state that i may be liable for cancellation costs (no amounts specified) and now she says she wants £500 + VAT to cancel.

I’ve not signed the finance docs, or paid a deposit yet. Her approach is aggressive and she’s told me on the 2nd message she has a 100% record of suing people who back out!

So you’re decision to not waive the fee and threaten court was based on you were annoyed by a post that hadn’t yet happened??

Or was it something else that annoyed you? Are all financial decision based on a level of annoy-o-meter?

Like

Arggghhhh I’ve just spilt coffee on my Yellow down gilet, I’m proper annoyed now and somebody has just cancelled, grrrrrr, bill ’em and take to the cleaners!!!!

Me no understand…

So you’d asked for the money before the post started?
You threatened court before the post started?
You were annoyed about the accommodation deal before the post started (but you didn’t actually know about it)?

Unless someone here has a timemachine and please god I hope they do (can I lease one) 😀

£500 (plus yer vat) does seem a conveniently round number that’s being applied punatively rather than to reclaim specific costs.

Unless someone here has a timemachine and please god I hope they do (can I lease one)

It just so happens that I do. How does an hourly rental of £500 +VAT sound?

How does an hourly rental of £500 +VAT sound?

what if they bring it back before they rent it?

CharlieMungus – Member
Tomhoward that is an irrelevant picture. You’ve merely used a modified image of an occasion where the Chinese authorities tried to ride roughshod over the tights of the people

Here take my funsponge crown I’ll never beat that.

The mass-outrage on this forum, seems to be that I have been “punitive” in wanting to charge a £500+vat (£600) agency fee to the customer (not Mick), to recover some of my costs, to repay to the supplying dealer. I normally waive that, and swallow costs

1. Please evidence what your fees relate to as it is my understanding that the car is not ordered till the finance has been signed. Given this what are the costs you are trying to recover /are out of pocket on exactly.
2. please demonstrate you did have to pay the supplying dealer from whom you have definitely ordered the car for the person who has not signed the finance.
3.evidence that you “normally swallow the costs”- what % of customers is this that you waive the fees you allegedly cannot enforce? Please explain why you have a 100% success rate at suing if yo normally swallow the costs
4. Perhaps all this evidence is in the same file with the evidence your T & C are approved by the local trading standards so why not post that up as the lack of response on this may lead many to conclude that he statement was a simple ruse . The longer it goes without your proof the more likely it appears this is the case

I understand why you wish to besmirch the person for a lack of honesty and i therefore imagine you will have no issue being 100% completely honest yourself rather than run the risk of looking like you are also being untruthful.