Follow on to unfair commission charges on HP

[Buckman]

From Martin Lewis website;

While the FCA investigation only covers vehicles with motors, if you bought a static caravan on finance, you can still ask whether your agreement had a DCA in place – as the same unfairness around DCAs could apply here too.

Sara Williams of Debt Camel has the following advice: "The DCA ban... is restricted to 'the motor finance market' and relates to 'regulated credit agreements to finance the acquisition of motor vehicles'. As a caravan does not have a motor, it would be out of scope.

"However that doesn't seem to me to prevent someone who bought a caravan on finance from asking whether there was a discretionary commission arrangement and taking their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman if there was or if the lender declines to reply. Because the unfairness in these arrangements is the complaint... and that applies whether or not there was a motor."

Could be interesting. We have already submitted a claim to BH just in case and they have accepted it and investigating.

 

[RogerL]

From Martin Lewis website;

While the FCA investigation only covers vehicles with motors, if you bought a static caravan on finance, you can still ask whether your agreement had a DCA in place – as the same unfairness around DCAs could apply here too.

Sara Williams of Debt Camel has the following advice: "The DCA ban... is restricted to 'the motor finance market' and relates to 'regulated credit agreements to finance the acquisition of motor vehicles'. As a caravan does not have a motor, it would be out of scope.

"However that doesn't seem to me to prevent someone who bought a caravan on finance from asking whether there was a discretionary commission arrangement and taking their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman if there was or if the lender declines to reply. Because the unfairness in these arrangements is the complaint... and that applies whether or not there was a motor."

Could be interesting. We have already submitted a claim to BH just in case and they have accepted it and investigating.

The recent appeal court ruling is interesting - it ruled that non-disclosure of commission, even if non-discretionary, was unlawful - but likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court - if they uphold it it could mean repayment of all interest on all credit agreements done through a third party.

 

[otherclive]

The recent appeal court ruling is interesting - it ruled that non-disclosure of commission, even if non-discretionary, was unlawful - but likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court - if they uphold it it could mean repayment of all interest on all credit agreements done through a third party.

Strange as I would have thought that any repayments would be the commission not interest. The latter would be a mega hit to banks and finance houses.

 

[RogerL]

Strange as I would have thought that any repayments would be the commission not interest. The latter would be a mega hit to banks and finance houses.

You're probably right - also be interesting to see if the ruling applies to the commission on deals not using finance.

 

[Buckman]

Strange as I would have thought that any repayments would be the commission not interest. The latter would be a mega hit to banks and finance houses.

If buying on HP the commission was an added "extra" on the outstanding amount and included in the HP agreement. So a commission of £100 over 5 years at 12% APR was quite a bit of money. That is my understanding.

 

[woodsieboy]

It may be just me, but I don't understand why such a fuss is made retrospectively regarding these financial agreements, presumably the 'victims' of these agreements were happy to sign them at the time, and made the payments as needed, and benefitted from the finance made available.

 

[Beardy]

It may be just me, but I don't understand why such a fuss is made retrospectively regarding these financial agreements, presumably the 'victims' of these agreements were happy to sign them at the time, and made the payments as needed, and benefitted from the finance made available.

Exactly my thoughts. You take out finance, you know how much the repayments are and over what period and you agree to it on that basis. Saying that it was unfair because you weren't told who was getting what bit of the interest is no different to me saying that it's unfair that I'm not told how much the farmer, food processor, distributor and retailer gets when I buy a packet of crisps.

 

[Buckman]

It may be just me, but I don't understand why such a fuss is made retrospectively regarding these financial agreements, presumably the 'victims' of these agreements were happy to sign them at the time, and made the payments as needed, and benefitted from the finance made available.

It does seem that you have no understanding on our finance works when using HP? Can I suggest that you look into it a bit more to help you understand what the furore is all about?