|
Hi, thanks for your message and sharing your thoughts. I agree with you and they haven't been clear at all. I have had some advice and under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act, if the clauses aren't clear or transparent, they would deem to be unfair. Also their extreme weighting in favour of the trader would also likely deem them unfair.
There was a tick box at the end, which I ticked having read what I 'thought' were the T's & C's, certainly their 'Main Conditions', but also according to the CMA, this is not binding if the clause in question is not transparent or clear which it certainly was not. You can imagine ticking something thinking you've read it and understood all the main conditions, but there are other total exclusion clauses hidden elsewhere...
My argument is not only that they weren't upfront and clear about not offering the £30,000 guarantee if you paid cash, (even though they were clear about far more obvious exclusion clauses), but when you do find the clause buried away in the T's & C's as you mention, it's not explicit or clear. It also doesn't really make sense when it is read through...
They are not budging but have contacted all intermediaries now so will wait and see and then I suppose court. Thanks again...If anyone else has any other thoughts, would be most welcome.... Thanks
|
|
Condition 12 (5) seems to explicitly exclude cover for cloned vehicles where the payment is made in cash. It's not just a guideline.
I don't know for certain what 'mischief' that condition is intended to address. I'd hazard a guess that it's covering the risk to HPi from planned fraud involving known clones and untraceable payments. To be clear I'm not suggesting that is the case here but one can see why they'd want to protect themselves.
Whether a court or an Ombudsman would find that condition, or the OP's lack of persistence/curiosity in not locating and examining the terms, unfair isn't at all clear.
|
|
Hi, thanks for your message and you're right that it is the clause that refers to cash payments and I accept why they would not want to cover cash as an option, but that they did not make this at all clear, even remotely clear, whilst enticing me to the offer of the guarantee. In the same way that I wanted to protect myself through signing up to their offer, except that I didn't conceal any information...
Aside from the lack of reference to making cash payments anywhere in the lead up to the agreement, and no mention of this in their 'Main Conditions', which this clearly would be, the 12.5 clause is not clear. Yes they mention making cash payments, but also 'other by other than any other' etc... also 'We recommend using the banking system' which then isn't explicit and contradicts the previous statement and suggests there are other ways in which purchases can be made.
For me it is just full of holes and not transparent ,which would deem the clause unfair and therefore not binding as part of the contract, especially, according to the CMA, if it unfairly weighs in the vendors favour which it does. I simply wouldn't have bought the car if I hadn't have carried out the HPI check and probably not even from a company that didn't profess for the data to be so accurate, let alone back this up with a guarantee.
Ultimately the guarantee they provide is on the accuracy of their data and yet this was incorrect. It should have no bearing on how I purchased the car, even though I can understand why they do not like cash to be used. If I had used the banking system as they 'recommended' the onus would be on my bank and not them so this is a cynical if not misleading offer at best. I have police reports, evidence, bank statements, receipts and all the documentation they requested to prove this, plus the insurance company who are now asking me to pay a further £20,000 for the car...
|
Hi, thanks for your message and you're right that it is the clause that refers to cash payments and I accept why they would not want to cover cash as an option, but that they did not make this at all clear, even remotely clear, whilst enticing me to the offer of the guarantee. In the same way that I wanted to protect myself through signing up to their offer, except that I didn't conceal any information...
Aside from the lack of reference to making cash payments anywhere in the lead up to the agreement, and no mention of this in their 'Main Conditions', which this clearly would be, the 12.5 clause is not clear. Yes they mention making cash payments, but also 'other by other than any other' etc... also 'We recommend using the banking system' which then isn't explicit and contradicts the previous statement and suggests there are other ways in which purchases can be made.
On my reading the first sentence of 12.5 is crystal clear. If the claim is for a cloned vehicle then in so far as amounts paid in cash, whether for the whole sum or just deposit/holding costs, there's no cover. The remainder is about alternatives and may be more should than must but I'm not sure that's going to help you.
If you're saying that in some way the exclusion was concealed then, depending on the circumstances, you might get somewhere. But if you ticked a box that said 'I have read and understood the terms and conditions' it may be uphill all the way.
Is the Financial Ombudsman Service an option for you.
|
|
In this day and age there's absolutely no reason for an honest seller to want cash, or accept it if a buyer won't pay by other means.
In my experience a bank transfer is instant, even for thousands of pounds.
The only option may now be legal action.
HPI will have access to more expensive lawyers than a man on the street, but small claims does as least limit costs for the plaintiff.
Edited by daveyjp on 03/03/2021 at 18:47
|
|
I know and you're right. To be honest, I stupidly just thought that they wanted cash to avoid any questions based on probably a dodgy background. Not really any of my business, although ultimately resulted in me being scammed, but I thought if the car was legitimate, i.e not stolen and they had a legitimate V5C (which they did), then how I paid for the car didn't really matter and their business wasn't really mine. After all cash is perfectly normal tender to pay for goods, and second-hand cars, even if risky. A foolish regret, I must admit, but with the confidence that I was given from HPI Check that the car was clean and the £30,000 guarantee that they offered, felt I was protected, similar to any insurance one takes out to protect oneself. This is why I only dealt with the #1 HPI company and with these assurance of their data accuracy.
If their terms were transparent and upfront, I would never be in this position, hence my grievances with them and efforts to appeal my claim. If it has to go through the courts, it has to go through the courts. I accept their reasons for not insuring cash payments, but absolutely do not accept their communication of this which has to be transparent and fair, with even weighting to the consumer which clearly this isn't....Thanks for your input.
|
|
Where did you buy the car? Was it at a private address which checked-out with the V5?
|
|
Hi there, yes it was. We met at the address that was stated on the V5 as this was something the terms that I saw (the Main Conditions), stipulated. Checked the driving license also, but anyone could just stand outside someone's house at the end of the day and no doubt it was all bogus. The Motoring Ombudsman have said that I have a case and are looking into it. Not quite sure what that means. As I say, I do not dispute why they don't cover cash payments but ironically, I thought I was protecting myself more by doing so in terms of cheques or banker's drafts which is what they suggested, as even a BD takes 3 days for funds to appear, even though the bank honours the amount. I wouldn't accept one anyway and part with the car. If they were transparent and upfront about not accepting cash payments, I would never have done that. I saw every other condition that was listed as a Main Condition and for far less divisive outcomes. Furthermore, stating the conditions virtually although not exactly once the deal is done is misleading. The sale had been made by that stage which is misleading. Furthermore if the data which they assured me was accurate, was, then I wouldn't be in this position. Their data wasn't accurate and that is what they mention all the way through that the insurance is on...
|
|
I haven't bought or sold a car in over 10 years, but when I did used to buy and sell (privately), and wanted to deal in BD, then I would ask the seller to accompany me to the bank or BS and WATCH the cheque being handed over the counter. That way they would SEE it was a genuine cheque they'd be safe to release the vehicle to me.
Anyone wanting so much in cash would be a MAJOR red flag.
I'm sorry you have this problem, but honestly, and I know it's no help to you now, but you sound like you fell in love with this vehicle and rushed into purchasing it.
|
|
