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
Right, I see Ling has a ghost writer step in when things get inconvenient. Interesting Ling. Similar to having your PR company come up with all the stunts you like to take credit for perhaps? Marketing “genius” as you are.
Still nothing new, of course, but more coherent and lacking in self promoting gifs/ pictures/ caps lock which is the give away.
Just about to catch up on new posts…
