[teaston]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Have to say I view it on similar lines and if BMW see people taking PCP contracts for 8k miles/annum - and they then look to VT after 3 years having done 75k miles - I'd be surprised if they let that go. In the first place 50k of excess mileage probably equates to £6k to £7k on a lot of their cars (so not to be sniffed at!) but more significantly if the word got around that you could just take a PCP contract for 8k miles/annum regardless of your actual mileage profile it would tempt more people to do exactly that.

Would the courts back them if they took it to court? Who knows but, as you say, the intention of the law is to protect those who can't pay and that being the case I can't see a court looking favourably on someone who's perfectly able to pay but just thinks they've found a clever way of avoiding doing so. To me it's a very clear pre-mediated abuse of the law and if someone fell flat on their face doing it they'd have no sympathy from me!

No it’s completely the opposite, the law states that there is “nothing further to be paid”, so in doing this you are doing exactly as the law states! It is in fact the car company’s contract that is abusing the law, by stating you have to pay excess mileage, when in fact the law states that you don’t!

[JustChris]

Soon this will be the new 'take out a car on 10k mpa and call BMWFS and request 25k mpa' where they didn't have any product to up sell you to that.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by teaston

If your morals are to further line the pockets of very rich, to your financial detriment, when there is no legal reason to, then they are very strange morals indeed!

See the legal obligations above. Not having to pay more was added for those who CANNOT afford to pay more rather than those who CHOOSE not to pay more as it suits them

In my opinion it’s not in the spirit of the law - and so I go by the spirit. We all make our choices.

[teaston]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

See the legal obligations above. Not having to pay more was added for those who CANNOT afford to pay more rather than those who CHOOSE not to pay more as it suits them

In my opinion it’s not in the spirit of the law - and so I go by the spirit. We all make our choices.

All BMW dealers encourage us to VT, it is their way of getting us into a new car, to make more money out of us.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by teaston

No it’s completely the opposite, the law states that there is “nothing further to be paid”, so in doing this you are doing exactly as the law states! It is in fact the car company’s contract that is abusing the law, by stating you have to pay excess mileage, when in fact the law states that you don’t!

See above for contract you signed. Variations on that are for a reason not general application. Allowing people to VT and then take another contract with a finance provider should be blocked as the VT was introduced to protect people who couldn’t pay the contract after some change in circs.

But it’s ok as it’s taking from a big company so it doesn’t matter...

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by teaston

All BMW dealers encourage us to VT, it is their way of getting us into a new car, to make more money out of us.

And that ought to get them into very hot water with financial conduct authority...and one day no doubt will...

[teaston]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

See above for contract you signed. Variations on that are for a reason not general application. Allowing people to VT and then take another contract with a finance provider should be blocked as the VT was introduced to protect people who couldn’t pay the contract after some change in circs.

But it’s ok as it’s taking from a big company so it doesn’t matter...

Yes I signed the contract, based on the fact that I am protected by the law, and therefore do not need to heed anything in the contract that is in contradiction to the law.

[lethbridge]

Originally Posted by teaston

No it’s completely the opposite, the law states that there is “nothing further to be paid”, so in doing this you are doing exactly as the law states! It is in fact the car company’s contract that is abusing the law, by stating you have to pay excess mileage, when in fact the law states that you don’t!

My understanding from various cases on legal sites is that BMW will hound you for excess mileage but if you can withstand all that hassle and reams of letter writing for around a year they haven't yet taken anyone to court. Those that have taken this route have found themselves with a severely dented credit rating which worsens each month that passes that they do not pay off the excess mileage debt and good riddens is my view you are kidding yourself if you think those losses don't get loaded into finance deals we all pay (whether it is a lower discount than could have been offered or higher APR) - it certainly doesn't come out of shareholders pockets. My understanding is the VT will not affect your credit score but each month you don't pay the excess mileage debt is seen as a new default.

Are you saying that you/someone you know have VTed and have had excess mileage that you have not paid and that the matter was dropped and your credit score was unaffected? I've not seen a good outcome on the legal sites but maybe I haven't looked hard enough...

[teaston]

Originally Posted by lethbridge

My understanding from various cases on legal sites is that BMW will hound you for excess mileage but if you can withstand all that hassle and reams of letter writing for around a year they haven't yet taken anyone to court. Those that have taken this route have found themselves with a severely dented credit rating which worsens each month that passes that they do not pay off the excess mileage debt and good riddens is my view you are kidding yourself if you think those losses don't get loaded into finance deals we all pay (whether it is a lower discount than could have been offered or higher APR) - it certainly doesn't come out of shareholders pockets. My understanding is the VT will not affect your credit score but each month you don't pay the excess mileage debt is seen as a new default.

Are you saying that you/someone you know have VTed and have had excess mileage that you have not paid and that the matter was dropped and your credit score was unaffected? I've not seen a good outcome on the legal sites but maybe I haven't looked hard enough...

I’ve read all the threads about it and I have not seen anything saying anyone’s credit rating has been affected. As far as I am aware, for any unpaid amount to feature on your credit rating you would have to first be taken to court, lose the case and then fail to pay any amounts that the court has ordered you to pay within the time limit to pay it, which would then give you a CCJ.

[Herr Dreier]

It's not BMW who are losing out, it's those who put big-ish deposits into their new car, then VT, as they're paying for the deposit and then 50% of the car over generally 3 years which makes a very expensive car.

[lethbridge]

Originally Posted by teaston

I’ve read all the threads about it and I have not seen anything saying anyone’s credit rating has been affected. As far as I am aware, for any unpaid amount to feature on your credit rating you would have to first be taken to court, lose the case and then fail to pay any amounts that the court has ordered you to pay within the time limit to pay it, which would then give you a CCJ.

I think this is the still active thread I mainly went from in forming my view that you are in for a whole heap of woe if you don't pay excess milage... start from the newest updates and you'll see his credit rating is taking a battering... It is not something I would ever do myself so I've not looked deeply into it but just cautioning anyone considering to go in with their eyes wide open...
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...mileage/page11

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by teaston

Yes they may try to charge you for it because it’s in the contract that you have to, but it says in legislation that when you VT there is nothing more to pay, and in law, legislation law overrides contract law.

It’s been discussed to death on legal beagles.

Legislation law? Isn't all law, by definition, legislation?

I'm guessing you mean consumer protection law (which I'm guessing VT falls under) trumps contract law?

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

See the legal obligations above. Not having to pay more was added for those who CANNOT afford to pay more rather than those who CHOOSE not to pay more as it suits them

In my opinion it’s not in the spirit of the law - and so I go by the spirit. We all make our choices.

I do find this a strange one to reconcile in my head.

On one hand the law exists to do as you say, but doesn't require anyone to prove those actual circumstances in order to use it. Therefore its a pretty rational argument to use the law to suit ones personal circumstances.

It's not like bmw, or any other car company don't know about it, so it's up to them to mitigate against it. Clearly they make more than enough money to cover the losses here, and in many ways I'm with teaston, in that they have created the situation whereby residuals are so poor that VT becomes the more sensible decision.

Yet it doesn't really sit right with me, the idea to start a contract knowing that this is my intended course of action in a few years time.

It's not really about the law, it's more to do with personal integrity or principle. I'd break a law that I thought was stupid, if it was consistent with my own values, and likewise here, I'd not use a law that was open to me, unless my personal circumstances really required it.

Which is probably quite daft!

[teaston]

Originally Posted by lethbridge

I think this is the still active thread I mainly went from in forming my view that you are in for a whole heap of woe if you don't pay excess milage... start from the newest updates and you'll see his credit rating is taking a battering... It is not something I would ever do myself so I've not looked deeply into it but just cautioning anyone considering to go in with their eyes wide open...
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...mileage/page11

So BMWFS still haven’t taken anyone to court, probably because they know they’ll lose, but they are incorrectly putting the claimed owed amount on the credit file as a missed payment each month! So basically they’re abusing the credit file system.

People do definitely need to know the potential problems of going down this route then, it’s not for wimps!

What I couldn’t tell from a quick read is did the people experiencing this buy another BMW, or did they move to another brand?

[nickb3]

My experience is the same as that described by Teaston - dealer says VT is the most cost effective way of getting into a new car. As others have said BMW FS provide an incentive to stay with the brand, and the dealer can offer the best price without having to take in account part exchange prices. I don't see BMW loosing given the car will make it to the used car network where they can sell finance again and all the other ancillary products.

[lethbridge]

Originally Posted by teaston

So BMWFS still haven’t taken anyone to court, probably because they know they’ll lose, but they are incorrectly putting the claimed owed amount on the credit file as a missed payment each month! So basically they’re abusing the credit file system.

People do definitely need to know the potential problems of going down this route then, it’s not for wimps!

What I couldn’t tell from a quick read is did the people experiencing this buy another BMW, or did they move to another brand?

I can't remember and life's to short to trawl through it again... Right now though I don't think they'd get credit to buy a bar of soap! Until it goes through a court of law you are taking a risk to go down this route is all I'm flagging... Excess mileage is crucial to the PCP product - if a court sided with the complainant it could spell the end of the PCP as we know it today which would not be good and is possibly why BMW FS are not pursuing it - as you say they could lose... In the meantime they are making life very difficult for those that attempt to dodge a debt they most certainly should be paying in my view (from a moral perspective).

[teaston]

Originally Posted by lethbridge

I can't remember and life's to short to trawl through it again... Right now though I don't think they'd get credit to buy a bar of soap! Until it goes through a court of law you are taking a risk to go down this route is all I'm flagging... Excess mileage is crucial to the PCP product - if a court sided with the complainant it could spell the end of the PCP as we know it today which would not be good and is possibly why BMW FS are not pursuing it - as you say they could lose... In the meantime they are making life very difficult for those that attempt to dodge a debt they most certainly should be paying in my view (from a moral perspective).

I'm pretty sure it's just people who VT and don't buy another BMW, which suits me fine as I cannot see myself ever buying a different brand for my main car.

But yes as you say, anyone doing this should go in with their eyes wide open.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by nickb3

My experience is the same as that described by Teaston - dealer says VT is the most cost effective way of getting into a new car. As others have said BMW FS provide an incentive to stay with the brand, and the dealer can offer the best price without having to take in account part exchange prices. I don't see BMW loosing given the car will make it to the used car network where they can sell finance again and all the other ancillary products.

We're not just talking about VT here though; what's being suggested is taking out a PCP contract at a mileage you know to be way less than you'll actually cover and then VT'ing without paying the excess mileage.

Apparently this is ok legally - which if I'm honest surprises me - but even if it is it's certainly not what was intended with this particular piece of legislation; therefore, if such a loophole does indeed exist it ought to be closed IMO.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Herr Dreier

It's not BMW who are losing out, it's those who put big-ish deposits into their new car, then VT, as they're paying for the deposit and then 50% of the car over generally 3 years which makes a very expensive car.

Bigger deposit = lower interest charges. Deposit counts towards the 50% so it is not 'deposit and then 50%'

[teaston]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Bigger deposit = lower interest charges. Deposit counts towards the 50% so it is not 'deposit and then 50%'

Yes, but if you VT 3 years into a 4 year PCP you are effectively losing a quarter of your deposit. Hence why I’m only doing £1k deposit this time.

[aloo6]

My experiences with Giffnock BMW was that they advised me to VT my previous Bmw to purchase my new one, i was told it doesn't mark your credit file, that i wouldnt pay another penny(I was under miles), it's my consumer rights. BUT, under no circumstances tell Bmw that giffnock gave me this advice.

Didn't quite sit right with me at the time, so I didn't. Moving on a few years and now I realise loyalty doesn't mean shit, i plan on giving it a go.

I do however think it's designed for people in hardship and they should tighten it a bit, so if someone can't pay the bills, they prove it and they should perhaps not have to pay excess miles. Someone who took a 8k per year 330d and has fucked 60k on it over 3 years should have to stump up something.

[teaston]

Something else to add to this debate, if not receiving excess mileage charges is such a hit for BMWFS then why around 3 years ago did they offer mileage allowance increases for free?

I was one who did it, I ordered my 335d with 10k pa allowance, and a few days after I picked it up I rang them and asked to increase it to 25k, which they did for free, and sent me a letter confirming it!