Legal advice please – cancelling a new car dispute

Only 59 pages to go. If we hit 100 we should have a STW illegal e-bike ride.

Go to bed Funkmaster. Your maths suggest your lacking sleep.

Nope.
If a poster makes a claim and then deliberately withholds the evidence that would validate that claim then I don’t give two shits.

I see. So your comment about needing to evidence claims depends on who you happen to agree with.

Go to bed Funkmaster. Your maths suggest your lacking sleep.

Mind broken. One five day old child and one three year old who thinks sleep is for the weak.

Must
Keep
Hitting
Refresh

crankboy – Member
I can give advise

I can give advice on how to spell advice but hypocrit(e) is clearly beyond me (still smarting from my serial sh1t spelling faux pas).

Good news! Today is a cycling day not a wibbling on the Internet day. Hurrah!

And what is it we say when we realise we have done something we shouldn’t have?

Be amazed if that happens

I know little of borrowing money, but the first hit on google for “fronting finance” gives this result:
https://www.creditplus.co.uk/car-finance-glossary/f/fronting/

Can someone point to the offence committed when someone “car finance fronts” and which party is commiting the offence? (The applicant, or the guy who’s paying?) Google has a lot about Car Insurance fronting but little about Finance fronting, except that most sources claim it’s an offence (without linking to the crime.)

I guess in this case no fronting actually occured because the contract was halted, so is there such a thing as ‘conspiracy to defraud’ that could be applied in this case?

(I did try, honest. Either I’m a poor googler or the plethora of legislation online is hard to track down.)

And what is it we say when we realise we have done something we shouldn’t have?

THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY!

Your maths suggest your lacking sleep.

*ahem*

Tired Jamie?

But not the hounding, that was acceptable. Correct?

The people doing the initial ‘charidy hounding’ were the little gang hounding Ling. She was hounded first for failing to give to charity and then (someone illogically) hounded for giving to charity. As far as I know after Ling bowed to the pressure and made a donation 100pc of the ‘charidy hounding’ was aimed at the initial “charidy hounders”.

Apart from Ling I don’t think anyone who hadn’t done and hounding was hounded.

If you coerce someone into giving to charity you can’t really complain when you get some back.

60 pages!! Just three questions.
What is a spitty gift & is frank still pissing in court?
Has this now turned into the Lingcars& STW shared christmas party fundraiser?

Tired Jamie?

Just my little gift to the thread.

outofbreath – Member
But not the hounding, that was acceptable. Correct?

Good summary (excellent A+ etc), but the quote above relates to hounding for proof of donation rather than the hounders becoming houndees IIRC.

wwaswas – Member
And what is it we say when we realise we have done something we shouldn’t have?

THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY!

Keep up at the back. This relates to the ‘hounding’ for proof of donation not anything else (e.g. potential finance fraud).

Tsskkkk, have I got myself a job here….?

If everyone holds their nerve I think this can get to 3000.

If everyone holds their nerve

It’s more likely to if they don’t, I think 😀

I’ve kept out of the meat of the thread, but how is your case not similar to either example 1 or 3?

Example One: Person A’s name is on the finance documents and the V5, but Person B is keeping the car and making the payments on the finance agreement by sending a Direct Debit to Person A every month to cover the payments.

This is illegal because Person B has not been authorised for the finance agreement and may be of a high risk to lenders. If they fail to make the payments they may not only damage Person A’s credit report and put them at a risk, but in the worst case scenario the finance may not be paid. If the finance is not paid, the lender would seek to repossess the vehicle as they still own it until the finance is settled. If Person B is keeping the car, it could be difficult for the lender to locate them and repossess the vehicle as they only have the details of Person A.

Firstly, we would’ve never seen the V5, it’s a contract hire car. Secondly, SC never got any finance document
Whatsoever until the order form was signed. It stillahdnt been read as it’s not even been opened because the transaction was stopped before that point. Seeing as he as an impeccable credit rating then the payments would’ve always been met regardless. So that situation is a non starter in the first sentence alone.

Example Three: Person A takes out car finance, then changes the name on the V5 document to Person B. Person A is paying the finance, but Person B keeps and drives the car.

Again, we’d never see the V5, so this doesn’t apply.
Net fact was Ling was aware of the situation and was consulted. She’s got the ability to deny it as it was clarified by phone call before being told to start to chat on Ljngo.

Reinforces the notion she knew fine well what was going on and felt safe in the knowledge that if this deal fell through she’d at least fleece us for £600 with her unfair contract….

Keep up at the back.

It was a Trump tweet. Keep up at the back 😉

If everyone holds their nerve I think this can get to 3000

In less than 14 days I reckon, that way we can all retract our comments.

Sorry mate, that’s just semantics, the principle is the same as what you were going to do.

wwaswas – Member
Keep up at the back.

It was a Trump tweet. Keep up at the back

Aaahhh who knew he was on here? That’s it, aaam ooot! 🙂

So that situation is a non starter in the first sentence alone.

In your opinion only.

The most common reason for people to use a third party is because they are higher risk…. And oh
Look the high risk case wants to cancel. Hmmm.

Should have got an amigo loan 🙂

So is ‘fronting’ or an “accommodation deal” OK between partners in a relationship? I imagine there must be lots of households where one partner works and one partner doesn’t but needs a car to ferry kids about, do the shopping etc. so the working partner applies for the car as the other doesn’t have an income.

61 pages later and I still struggle to move on from your very first post

My plan is to state i’m not happy with the T’s & C’s with the finance and that may be my get out clause?

But to her i’e signed the order and agreed to the T’s & C’s so tough.

You signed an order form knowing that there is an (undefined) cancellation fee then you expect to worm out of it. If you wanted to question the legality or morality of the terms, you should have done so before committing your (or you mates/BiL’s) signature to the order form.

Ling may not be right, or legal, but you still chose to enter into that arrangement.

It just irks me a bit that you are now so committed to telling the world how wrong she is, even though, through choice, you signed up to that agreement.

**First sensible thing I’ve posted for ages**

20 years ago I was a motor finance underwriter for a massive and very respectable company. We gave very good rates and took very little risk. Finance can be refused for any reason:

Bad info for the person who lived at your place three years ago? No finance for you, matey.
Your company is called ‘Phoenix’ something? Nope, do one.
You’re a world famous DJ but want to finance in the name of your new debt-ridden company? Sounds dodgy, hop it.

The world of finance has changed and is run by decision trees now, but maybe there’s still real people watching over the big brokers.

If I had received a proposal from Ling with any of the info in this thread then it’d be rejected outright.

If the ‘fronting’ via the BIL had worked and the car was supplied and payments subsequently defaulted upon then Ling’s business would be questioned as she was supplying shady pricks. She would not be penalised for one shoddy deal. Multiple shoddy deals though would lead to an increase in risk for the finance supplier. This would mean that the broker (Ling in this case) wouldn’t receive such preferential rates, hence be able to offer good prices to her legit customers.

That’s why Ling is wary of any potential questionable requests. Whether it’s legal or acceptable to charge her fee is beyond me.

even though, through choice, you signed up to that agreement.

I think Ling’s case is that the OP signed nothing,his B-i-L did and they’re both very naughty boys for that, regardless of the cancellation.

The OP feels he has the law on his side.

Everyone else is either pitching in with their 2p, watching agog or trying to derail a sub-conversation if it looks like the thread might get closed.

Spouses are not third parties.

Spouses are still legally tied to any debt you take on. Ie they can still chase direct.

If micks mate buys him a car and Mick stops paying

Micks mate is legally on the line for the lot.

Sorry mate, that’s just semantics, the principle is the same as what you were going to do.

+1 – something about ducks may be appropriate here.

Also the ‘we cancelled the car before we’d seen the docs, so could never have committed the offence’ sounds to me again like circumstances have got you off the hook but now you’re trying to spin it that you wouldn’t have done it anyway. A bit like the original (was it SO long ago already?) ‘going to fib about the T&C’s to get out of this’ turning into ‘it was an illegal contract so we are absolutely OK to pull out’

By the same token, Ling has threatened to blackmark your mate/BiL/Steve’s credit record, or to reveal DP protected info but so far hasn’t, so you can either both be held to account for the might do / would have done bits or they have to both be ignored until they do happen.

Frankly, based on what i’ve seen I’d do business with neither of you.

Awaits whiteknight riding in to have a go at me for hounding or something.

Micks mate is legally on the line for the lot

So what’s the problem with that?

Frankly, based on what i’ve seen I’d do business with neither of you.

JV nails it

Mick’s totally lack of humility and high horsing on this

Ling’s outright bullying and misdirection when caught out or asked a question that would have been inconvenient to answer

(And I’m really not sure why she hasn’t been called out on the name calling on Poop, anybody else had done this on STW on any other thread they would have been vilified)

Neither have come out of this well

Micks mate is legally on the line for the lot
So what’s the problem with that?

I think the problem is that the finance company may struggle to recover the car if Mick’s mate defaults on the payments as Mick’s mate wouldn’t have the car in his possession.

edit – already covered ^^

And I’m really not sure why she hasn’t been called out on the name calling on Poop, anybody else had done this on STW on any other thread they would have been vilified)

Neither have come out of this well

I feel they both gave as good as they got.

Frankly, based on what i’ve seen I’d do business with neither of you.

That really ought to be the end of the thread. Instead, we’ll continue with name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations, and a moderator hounding another poster.

I’m afraid I’m going to chip in with the choir here, because you probably need to back down a bit here Mick. Yes your situation would have been almost exactly that. The V5 is an irrelevance – they’re using the example of contract purchase, just remove the V5 point from it and you have contract hire. Sure no finance documents were ever signed, which is why I keep pointing out to ling that this issue is irrelevant in reality, why you didn’t ever enter into such an arrangement and why nothing can be put on anybody’s credit rating (not legitimately, I have no idea about dodgy stuff). However your plan was to do that, which is what you’ve been accused of. If you hadn’t cancelled then you would have had such an arrangement.

Is there a prize for most depressing thread of the year?

oldnpastit – Member
Is there a prize for most depressing thread of the year?

Why, do you have a nomination? You can’t mean this one shirley, it’s been ace. 🙂

If you hadn’t cancelled then you would have had such an arrangement.

Well yes, but if attempting to “car finance front” (and then not doing so) *is* a criminal offence, it’s entirely possible Mick is legally blameless on that count because he wasn’t the one who applied for the Lease.

To sort all that out we need the answers to the questions I posed earlier:

Can someone point to the offence committed when someone “car finance fronts” and which party is commiting the offence? (The applicant, or the guy who’s paying?) Google has a lot about Car Insurance fronting but little about Finance fronting, except that most sources claim it’s an offence (without linking to the crime.)

I guess in this case no fronting actually occured because the contract was halted, so is there such a thing as ‘conspiracy to defraud’ that could be applied in this case?

(I did try, honest. Either I’m a poor googler or the plethora of legislation online is hard to track down.)

oldnpastit – Member
Is there a prize for most depressing thread of the year?

Why, do you have a nomination? You can’t mean this one shirley, it’s been ace. 🙂

He meant to post on the folding bike thread over there I think.

This threads grown beyond its self.

Does anyone even know the really story anymore in this ever evolving mystery story. Was it really a car or a pony was it Mick , Simon, his brother in law , the tree in the back garden or are ling , chewk, Mick an paddedfred all infact the same person ?