Downpayment or Pay balance question?
Originally Posted by Black Duck
Save your insults - you clearly don't know all the in's and out's.
Mr I work in the largest dealership in the world blah blah blah
I spent over 10 years in the motor trade in 2 countries working for BMW, Lexus, Acura, Mitsubishi, VW to name a few, dealing with financing/selling every day of the week.
If you have paid over 50%, you can hand the car back and leave. There are no benefits for doing this apart from if the car you own has depreciated terribly and you want to get out of it without paying any more. It is not common knowledge because finance companies don't like people to do it.
I have gotten people out of cars using this option.
A repo is when you default on your payments and that is different.
Mr I work in the largest dealership in the world blah blah blahI spent over 10 years in the motor trade in 2 countries working for BMW, Lexus, Acura, Mitsubishi, VW to name a few, dealing with financing/selling every day of the week.
If you have paid over 50%, you can hand the car back and leave. There are no benefits for doing this apart from if the car you own has depreciated terribly and you want to get out of it without paying any more. It is not common knowledge because finance companies don't like people to do it.
I have gotten people out of cars using this option.
A repo is when you default on your payments and that is different.
I know exactly what the difference is between a repo and a buy-back.
What you are speaking about does not exist. The only thing I can think of is an end-of-term lease.
And because it amused, I asked around. Guess what? 3 F&I guys, one F&I manger, the head of GMAC Southwest and the head of BofA Texas Auto all said the same thing...
BW HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
There may have been a few more laughs, but you get the idea.
Nothing on Earth says you can give back the car after paying any part of it. What the hell would be the point of that? There is simply no reason to allow people to do so. So no, you can't.
You don't have to believe me, and perhaps in another country your "rule" applies, but not in the USA.
R.
Salesman, #1 Chevy dealership in the world.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
Well, as for having a clue, I only work at one of the largest dealerships in the world. Take that for whatever it is worth to you.
If you have good credit, there is no reason to put money down. It won't affect your interest rate at all. By good credit, I mean 700+. Money down will not affect that kind of buyer's rate at all. They are going to get the best rates they can, whether from a GMAC or LFS, or from their own bank.
People in the 600-700 range can get a point or two lower usually, with some cash down.
People under 600 often HAVE to put cash down to get approved.
I would rather keep my $5K, $3K, whatever it is, in the bank and have on hand, not invested in my car which is worth less every day.
Just to further clarify, cash down is only part of the decision that goes into determining interest rate. The main point is credit score, also time on job, time at residence, payment history, how much you are financing relative to invoice and sticker, what kind of history do you have for car loans (are you suddenly trying to borrow $40K when the most you have ever had is $20K?). Lenders look at the whole picture.
A lot of dealerships perpetuate the myth that no matter your score, you need as much cash down as possible to get approved. It's simply not true.
If you have good credit, there is no reason to put money down. It won't affect your interest rate at all. By good credit, I mean 700+. Money down will not affect that kind of buyer's rate at all. They are going to get the best rates they can, whether from a GMAC or LFS, or from their own bank.
People in the 600-700 range can get a point or two lower usually, with some cash down.
People under 600 often HAVE to put cash down to get approved.
I would rather keep my $5K, $3K, whatever it is, in the bank and have on hand, not invested in my car which is worth less every day.
Just to further clarify, cash down is only part of the decision that goes into determining interest rate. The main point is credit score, also time on job, time at residence, payment history, how much you are financing relative to invoice and sticker, what kind of history do you have for car loans (are you suddenly trying to borrow $40K when the most you have ever had is $20K?). Lenders look at the whole picture.
A lot of dealerships perpetuate the myth that no matter your score, you need as much cash down as possible to get approved. It's simply not true.
Once again FOR EXAMPLE: Lets say you buy a car for 30K and pay for it all in cash. You owe nothing. You have 30K invested in a "bad investment". Now lets go by your logic and put NOTHING down and make payments for 5 or so years. You are actually going to pay 40-45K grand for a "bad investment" depending on your rate.
I hope that clears things up for you and makes some sense. Maybe now you can start making some sound financial decisions and stop telling people on here to make poor decisions !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by mcurry5
Like I said, you have no clue. DUMBASS get a clue, by not putting any money down you ARE paying way more money for a bad investment than if you were to put down a down payment. DO YOU GET IT ???????????????????
Once again FOR EXAMPLE: Lets say you buy a car for 30K and pay for it all in cash. You owe nothing. You have 30K invested in a "bad investment". Now lets go by your logic and put NOTHING down and make payments for 5 or so years. You are actually going to pay 40-45K grand for a "bad investment" depending on your rate.
I hope that clears things up for you and makes some sense. Maybe now you can start making some sound financial decisions and stop telling people on here to make poor decisions !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again FOR EXAMPLE: Lets say you buy a car for 30K and pay for it all in cash. You owe nothing. You have 30K invested in a "bad investment". Now lets go by your logic and put NOTHING down and make payments for 5 or so years. You are actually going to pay 40-45K grand for a "bad investment" depending on your rate.
I hope that clears things up for you and makes some sense. Maybe now you can start making some sound financial decisions and stop telling people on here to make poor decisions !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really wish you made sense, it would be much easier to discuss things with you. But your writing skills are as lacking as your reasoning skills.
Paying cash for a car is not a bad investment, if you can do it. You have to drive in most places, and you need a car to drive. By paying for it outright, you avoid any interest at all.
But if you are going to finance it, and your credit is good, then putting cash down does not affect your rate at all. Whether you put nothing down, or put down $5K or $10K, your interest rate remains the same. Why would you invest cash into a depreciating asset?
If you are going to pay around 5.5% to 6.88% anyway, regardless of your down payment or no down payment, then why not invest that down payment into something that yields a better return?
Or think of it this way...if your choice is between $5K down, or keeping your $5K and your interest rate is the same, the average difference in payment will be about $120 a month. So it will take you about 42 months to recoup your $5K. Or you can invest it with a much better return than 6% or so.
I don't know what kind of dealership you work at, but I bet it's a corporate store where the party line is cash down for everything. Well, let me educate you...not everyone needs to put cash down, and it's not a great use of your money.
Unless you have to put it down to get approved, or to cover negative equity (which I always reccommend, don't roll it in to another car or you will end up screwed in the long run), keep your cash in the bank or invested.
Well, you are making my point for me. I stated in an earlier post that if you can get a better return on your money at the bank then by all means do that.
You made a blanket statement that, its never a good idea to put money down on a car because its a bad investment. Now you are changing your tune a bit. Thats good to see.
It all has to do with the rate, if your going to get a better return on your money than what your interest rate is on the vehicle, then it is smart to forgo the down payment and invest it.
If you cant get better than 6 or 7% or whatever rate on your money, then you should put down as much as possible every time.
You made a blanket statement that, its never a good idea to put money down on a car because its a bad investment. Now you are changing your tune a bit. Thats good to see.
It all has to do with the rate, if your going to get a better return on your money than what your interest rate is on the vehicle, then it is smart to forgo the down payment and invest it.
If you cant get better than 6 or 7% or whatever rate on your money, then you should put down as much as possible every time.
Originally Posted by mcurry5
Well, you are making my point for me. I stated in an earlier post that if you can get a better return on your money at the bank then by all means do that.
You made a blanket statement that, its never a good idea to put money down on a car because its a bad investment. Now you are changing your tune a bit. Thats good to see.
It all has to do with the rate, if your going to get a better return on your money than what your interest rate is on the vehicle, then it is smart to forgo the down payment and invest it.
If you cant get better than 6 or 7% or whatever rate on your money, then you should put down as much as possible every time.
You made a blanket statement that, its never a good idea to put money down on a car because its a bad investment. Now you are changing your tune a bit. Thats good to see.
It all has to do with the rate, if your going to get a better return on your money than what your interest rate is on the vehicle, then it is smart to forgo the down payment and invest it.
If you cant get better than 6 or 7% or whatever rate on your money, then you should put down as much as possible every time.
And your disconnect from finance is obvious. 6% is an excellent rate right now. I've got customers with 830 beacon's who can't get less than 5%.
But generally speaking, and as a blanket statement, putting money down on a car is usually not a good idea, unless you have to. I would rather have money in my savings account than sunk into my car.
ok, thats you. I would rather pay off my car as quick as posible if I am paying 6%. My bank savings account doesnt return 6% so the more I put down on my car the more I save. Maybe your savings account returns more than 6%, in your case I wouldnt put money down either.
Originally Posted by mcurry5
ok, thats you. I would rather pay off my car as quick as posible if I am paying 6%. My bank savings account doesnt return 6% so the more I put down on my car the more I save. Maybe your savings account returns more than 6%, in your case I wouldnt put money down either.
I haven't kept a car more than 2, 2 1/2 years, so putting money down is not such a great idea, as I don't save enough on the payments to justify it.
Then you must be upside down in a lot of cars if you only keep them for 2 years and dont put anything down. Unless of course you can afford a 30,000 loan for 3 years. What would that payment be? 900 or so per month. Thats more than I want to pay for a car.
Good luck to you.
Good luck to you.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
Nothing on Earth says you can give back the car after paying any part of it. What the hell would be the point of that? There is simply no reason to allow people to do so. So no, you can't.
The reason is fairly obvious. The loophole is an easy way for the dealership to sell that person a new vehicle sooner.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
Salesman, #1 Chevy dealership in the world
Still, I am glad you are happy to be working in "the # 1 Chevy dealership in the world". Personally I would rather work in the smallest Lexus dealership in the world where you can actually make some profit on cars sales and don't have to give them away.
Like you say.....keep selling the finance and add ons.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
It's not neccesarily a question of return on the money to me in that case. Are you going to keep the car long enough to get your money back?
I haven't kept a car more than 2, 2 1/2 years, so putting money down is not such a great idea, as I don't save enough on the payments to justify it.
I haven't kept a car more than 2, 2 1/2 years, so putting money down is not such a great idea, as I don't save enough on the payments to justify it.
Originally Posted by mcurry5
Then you must be upside down in a lot of cars if you only keep them for 2 years and dont put anything down. Unless of course you can afford a 30,000 loan for 3 years. What would that payment be? 900 or so per month. Thats more than I want to pay for a car.
Good luck to you.
Good luck to you.
I've never rolled in more than $200. And your payment estimate is about triple what I pay.
It's all in how you buy a car.
Last edited by slapthemonkey; Dec 4, 2007 at 08:22 AM.
Originally Posted by Black Duck
The reason is fairly obvious. The loophole is an easy way for the dealership to sell that person a new vehicle sooner.
#1 Chevy dealership in terms of what? Sales? I would think that would change from month to month.
Still, I am glad you are happy to be working in "the # 1 Chevy dealership in the world". Personally I would rather work in the smallest Lexus dealership in the world where you can actually make some profit on cars sales and don't have to give them away.
Like you say.....keep selling the finance and add ons.
#1 Chevy dealership in terms of what? Sales? I would think that would change from month to month.
Still, I am glad you are happy to be working in "the # 1 Chevy dealership in the world". Personally I would rather work in the smallest Lexus dealership in the world where you can actually make some profit on cars sales and don't have to give them away.
Like you say.....keep selling the finance and add ons.

You're amusing, as well as an idiot. It always amuses me to see someone who has spent "years in the business" who has no clue. There is no "loophole", but I tell you what...show me where in a contract it states it. Or, since you know so much, show me where in the law it is.
And I've got plenty of friends who work in a Lexus dealership that would love to work where I do. Just because the dealership makes money, doesn't mean the salesman does.
And our sales don't change month to month. We've been #1 every month but one this year, were #1 last year, and will be #1 by over 1000 units this year.
So, basically, all you can do is insult where I work without having any idea what it's like to sell cars, and offer no proof but your statement that "it exists, but they don't want you to know about it".
Prove it. Show me a contract or a law. Or shut the hell up.
Last edited by slapthemonkey; Dec 4, 2007 at 08:23 AM.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
You're amusing, as well as an idiot. It always amuses me to see someone who has spent "years in teh business" who has no clue. There is no "loophole", but I tell you what...show me where in a contract it states it. Or, since you know so much, show me where in the law it is.
And I've got plenty of friends who work in a Lexus dealership that would love to work where I do. Just because the dealership makes money, doesn't mean the salesman does.
And our sales don't change month to month. We've been #1 every month but one this year, were #1 last year, and will be #1 by 1000 units this year.
So, basically, all you can do is insult where I work without having any idea what it's like to sell cars, and offer no proof but your statement that "it exists, but they don't want you to know about it".
Prove it. Show me a contract or a law. Or shut the hell up.
And I've got plenty of friends who work in a Lexus dealership that would love to work where I do. Just because the dealership makes money, doesn't mean the salesman does.
And our sales don't change month to month. We've been #1 every month but one this year, were #1 last year, and will be #1 by 1000 units this year.
So, basically, all you can do is insult where I work without having any idea what it's like to sell cars, and offer no proof but your statement that "it exists, but they don't want you to know about it".
Prove it. Show me a contract or a law. Or shut the hell up.
So you think that if a dealership makes money on cars the sales people selling them don't?
Of course it all depends on the pay plan but there is no way any half decent salesman would wanna sell Chevy instead of Lexus/BMW or Merc.
Take a look at GM versus Toyota - again the word Profit and Success only goes with the latter in this day and time. When I was in the industry I wanted to be associated with a successful company.
Of course there are exceptions - Corvette and soon to be Camero. I'd rather have the GT-R of course.
You are the only idiot here. Coming on a Nissan 350Z website bragging about how big your Chevy dealership is. blah blah blah
Well guess what? NO ONE GIVES A ****. I know exactly what it is like selling cars/finance - you get some good sales people and then idiots like you who drag the industry down. Thats why I got out. Do you seriously think anyone would want to buy a car from you after all the cr4p you have put on this forum not to mention the insults. Perhaps you could give us your name to go with the "# 1 Chevy dealership" so anyone having to buy a Chevy can avoid you.
Trying to promote your dealership by throwing insults on a Nissan 350Z forum will not help business in the Chevy selling world.
Try the Chevy Forum.
Last edited by Black Duck; Dec 4, 2007 at 09:01 AM.
Originally Posted by Black Duck
So you think that if a dealership makes money on cars the sales people selling them don't?
I'll give you an example. An LS 460 has around 8000-9000K margin so figure you hold most of it and get 15% thats around $1300 commision on one vehicle. It is all gonna depend on where you live as well since somewhere like DC for example will be more affluent than down South. Still, like you say, you know what you are talking about. Last time I looked, though, Chevy were giving the cars away. So you must have some good bonuses.
Of course all depends on the pay plan. No way any half decent salesman would wanna sell Chevy instead of Lexus. Take a look at GM versus Toyota - again the word Profit and Success only goes with the latter in this day and time.
You are the only idiot here. Coming on a Nissan 350Z website bragging about how big your Chevy dealership is. blah blah blah guess what NO ONE GIVES A ****.
I know exactly what it is like selling cars - you get some good sales people and then idiots like you who drag the industry down. Thats why I got out.
Trying to promote your dealership by throwing insults will not help business.
Try the Chevy Forum.
GOOD DAY!
Of course all depends on the pay plan. No way any half decent salesman would wanna sell Chevy instead of Lexus. Take a look at GM versus Toyota - again the word Profit and Success only goes with the latter in this day and time.
You are the only idiot here. Coming on a Nissan 350Z website bragging about how big your Chevy dealership is. blah blah blah guess what NO ONE GIVES A ****.
I know exactly what it is like selling cars - you get some good sales people and then idiots like you who drag the industry down. Thats why I got out.
Trying to promote your dealership by throwing insults will not help business.
Try the Chevy Forum.
GOOD DAY!
God, so much idiocy, I don't know where to start.
1) Yes, you make money on an LS460, just as I would make money on Z06. But those are not everyday purchases, even in one of the USA's top 5 Lexus markets (D/FW). So don't bother comapring selling an LS460 to a Tahoe.
2) "No way any half decent salesman would wanna sell Chevy instead of Lexus"???? This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. Any decent salesman will want to sell where they can make money and be happy. I could have moved to a Lexus dealership, and I've been offered M-B and BMW as well. I don't want to. I enjoy where I work, and I make just as much money. And we have guys with over 30 years in the car business who want to work here. Want to. They could be GM's at most any dealer they wanted, and they choose to work here, as salesmen.
3) Last I looked, GM was still the #1 automaker in the world, and despite some bad years is well on it's way to profitability. It didn't show a profit last quarter merely because of the large payout to divest itself of the UAW. And if Toyota is so succesful lately, why has Consumer Reports downgraded every Toyota across the line-up, and Toyota had so many recalls? Toyota is not the be-all, end-all of car makers. They have plenty of problems as well.
4) I am not bragging about where I work, merely stating a fact, just as you said you worked in the auto business for 10 years. I don't really care if you give a **** or not. And I am not promoting my dealership at all. I don't care if anyone here wants to buy a car from me at all. Not why I am here. I own a 350Z, enjoy the hell out of it, and also happen to work in the car business. I think when I give people advice on buying a car they ought to know, vaguely, why I feel I can give such advice. I do post on a couple of Chevy Forum's, but I post here too.
5) As for my sales ability, well, you can hold your own opinions. All I will say is that bad salespeople don't last long at this dealership, and I am still here.
And I notice you have completely ignored my invitation to prove your idiotic statements. Well done, sir.
I suppose it is a Good Day every day in your world, as far removed from Earth as that must be.
Toyota is the most profitable of all automakers on a per-vehicle basis. The Japanese automaker increased its profit per vehicle from $1,175 in 2005 to $1,977 in 2006, according to the company report.
GM is still losing money for every vehicle sold in North America but lowered that loss to $146 in 2006 from $1,271 in 2005, mostly because of cost reductions, including thousands of job cuts, according to the automaker.
GM is still losing money for every vehicle sold in North America but lowered that loss to $146 in 2006 from $1,271 in 2005, mostly because of cost reductions, including thousands of job cuts, according to the automaker.
But you cannot deny there is profit in all Lexus vehicles and the key to selling is retaining that profit, right?
From memory....I think there is around 5-6K in an RX 350, 6-7K in a GX 470, 3-4K in an IS 250, 6-7K in a GS and 8-9K in an LX 470. The money is there for the taking. You can sell fewer cars at a decent luxury dealership and make more money and work fewer hours.
Like you say though, if you have been somewhere for 30 years, then I agree it is different.
I will address the 50% rule which is available in England where dealerships have been taking a huge advantage of it. I have had clients in the U.S successfully get out of contracts through letters to the finance company and they had paid over 50% but, of course I cannot prove this to you.
As for my sales ability, well, you can hold your own opinions. All I will say is that bad salespeople don't last long at this dealership, and I am still here.
Last edited by Black Duck; Dec 4, 2007 at 09:17 AM.
Originally Posted by Black Duck
Well at least they are trying.
But you cannot deny there is profit in all Lexus vehicles and the key to selling is retaining that profit, right?
But you cannot deny there is profit in all Lexus vehicles and the key to selling is retaining that profit, right?
No, the key to selling is having cars that people want to buy, an area GM has been sorely lacking in until the past few years. Now that they have 1) desireable products, and 2) divested themselves of most of their fiscal responsibility to the UAW, they will start making money.
Though they are completely retarded for not having the Camaro on the market already with the whole Transformers thing that has happened.
Of course there is more profit in Lexus, but Lexus versus Chevy is an unfair comparison. Their cheapest vehicle is about $33K. Our cheapest is $10K. Their most expensive is about $120K. Ours is $78K.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
No, the key to selling is having cars that people want to buy, an area GM has been sorely lacking in until the past few years. Now that they have 1) desireable products, and 2) divested themselves of most of their fiscal responsibility to the UAW, they will start making money.
Though they are completely retarded for not having the Camaro on the market already with the whole Transformers thing that has happened.
Of course there is more profit in Lexus, but Lexus versus Chevy is an unfair comparison. Their cheapest vehicle is about $33K. Our cheapest is $10K. Their most expensive is about $120K. Ours is $78K.
Though they are completely retarded for not having the Camaro on the market already with the whole Transformers thing that has happened.
Of course there is more profit in Lexus, but Lexus versus Chevy is an unfair comparison. Their cheapest vehicle is about $33K. Our cheapest is $10K. Their most expensive is about $120K. Ours is $78K.
GM fell down as well because they had too many fingers in different pies.
I agree, the Camero should be out now. I bet you have a bunch of deposits for them?!
Last edited by Black Duck; Dec 4, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
Originally Posted by Black Duck
Well at least they are trying.
But you cannot deny there is profit in all Lexus vehicles and the key to selling is retaining that profit, right?
From memory....I think there is around 5-6K in an RX 350, 6-7K in a GX 470, 3-4K in an IS 250, 6-7K in a GS and 8-9K in an LX 470. The money is there for the taking. You can sell fewer cars at a decent luxury dealership and make more money and work fewer hours.
Like you say though, if you have been somewhere for 30 years, then I agree it is different..
But you cannot deny there is profit in all Lexus vehicles and the key to selling is retaining that profit, right?
From memory....I think there is around 5-6K in an RX 350, 6-7K in a GX 470, 3-4K in an IS 250, 6-7K in a GS and 8-9K in an LX 470. The money is there for the taking. You can sell fewer cars at a decent luxury dealership and make more money and work fewer hours.
Like you say though, if you have been somewhere for 30 years, then I agree it is different..
I would have to do too much work to figure out the mark-up in Lexus vehicles, but it's not quite as high as your figures, but pretty close.
And it all depends on the pay plan. I can potentially make a buttload per car, while most luxury dealerships are often a set amount per car.
There are other perks, but not enough to justify moving.
Originally Posted by Black Duck
I will address the 50% rule which is available in England where dealerships have been taking a huge advantage of it. I have had clients in the U.S successfully get out of contracts through letters to the finance company and they had paid over 50% but, of course I cannot prove this to you.
Well, perhaps it a staple of English law, but your clients in the US had to have had a different reason. Or they succesfully convinced the lender to buy back the car.
Originally Posted by slapthemonkey
I would have to do too much work to figure out the mark-up in Lexus vehicles, but it's not quite as high as your figures, but pretty close.
And it all depends on the pay plan. I can potentially make a buttload per car, while most luxury dealerships are often a set amount per car.
There are other perks, but not enough to justify moving.
Well, perhaps it a staple of English law, but your clients in the US had to have had a different reason. Or they succesfully convinced the lender to buy back the car.
And it all depends on the pay plan. I can potentially make a buttload per car, while most luxury dealerships are often a set amount per car.
There are other perks, but not enough to justify moving.
Well, perhaps it a staple of English law, but your clients in the US had to have had a different reason. Or they succesfully convinced the lender to buy back the car.
Trust me I was being conservative with the profit margins on Lexus. It is hard to believe. I spent several years with Lexus.
Enjoyment at a dealership is a big factor. I loved it in England because you get a car, insurance and very often gas paid for. I had an Evo company car at one stage. I have a friend over there who works for BMW and has a Z4 demo car and another mate who has just started with Merc and has a new Black ML 350 demo. You can also take home trade in's which gives a sweetner to the job.
There's no denying you can earn really good money over here, though. Just longer hours.
Loophole in hire purchase rules to be reviewed ahead of legislation in 2005
From Britain........
13 September 2004
By CURTIS HUTCHINSON
THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONFIRMED it will review the hire purchase and conditional sale rules which allow consumers to hand back cars to finance houses, without further liability, if they have paid half of the agreed sum.
This follows the Department of Trade & Industry’s move last week to publish a consultation document on the future of the voluntary termination clauses within the Consumer Credit Act after successful lobbying by the SMMT and the Finance and Leasing Association.
The rules were introduced in 1938 to protect consumers against unfair contract terms but the lobbying groups have argued that new regulations due to be introduced in 2005 will make the right to voluntary termination unnecessary.
The SMMT claimed the termination rules have been abused in recent years with some unscrupulous dealers encouraging customers to hand back cars to their finance houses and buy a new vehicle.
The organisation estimated that around 60,000 vehicles were returned under this clause each year and has warned that such high volumes could impact residual values and lead lenders to increase rates to cover their shortfalls.“We’re pleased with the consultation. The current regime is being abused and does not provide relevant protection to vulnerable consumers,” said Paul Everitt, head of policy at the SMMT.
According to the Finance and Leasing Association its members are losing £83 million a year on early terminations with lenders taking the full brunt on residual values which can fall by half on many mainstream models in under three years.
The DTI is consulting on whether to keep the existing rules, amend them by raising the threshold level to 75 per cent or remove them altogether.
“We will be urging the DTI to abolish the right to voluntary termination and create a level playing field for all forms of lending,” said Everitt.
Next year’s scheduled overhaul of consumer credit legislation will see a change to the law on early settlement so that consumers have the right to settle early and will only pay charges based on an actuarially based formula.
“The new rules will mean the right to voluntary termination is no longer necessary,” said Everitt.
The deadline for responses to the consultation runs out on 30 November.
From Britain........
13 September 2004
By CURTIS HUTCHINSON
THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONFIRMED it will review the hire purchase and conditional sale rules which allow consumers to hand back cars to finance houses, without further liability, if they have paid half of the agreed sum.
This follows the Department of Trade & Industry’s move last week to publish a consultation document on the future of the voluntary termination clauses within the Consumer Credit Act after successful lobbying by the SMMT and the Finance and Leasing Association.
The rules were introduced in 1938 to protect consumers against unfair contract terms but the lobbying groups have argued that new regulations due to be introduced in 2005 will make the right to voluntary termination unnecessary.
The SMMT claimed the termination rules have been abused in recent years with some unscrupulous dealers encouraging customers to hand back cars to their finance houses and buy a new vehicle.
The organisation estimated that around 60,000 vehicles were returned under this clause each year and has warned that such high volumes could impact residual values and lead lenders to increase rates to cover their shortfalls.“We’re pleased with the consultation. The current regime is being abused and does not provide relevant protection to vulnerable consumers,” said Paul Everitt, head of policy at the SMMT.
According to the Finance and Leasing Association its members are losing £83 million a year on early terminations with lenders taking the full brunt on residual values which can fall by half on many mainstream models in under three years.
The DTI is consulting on whether to keep the existing rules, amend them by raising the threshold level to 75 per cent or remove them altogether.
“We will be urging the DTI to abolish the right to voluntary termination and create a level playing field for all forms of lending,” said Everitt.
Next year’s scheduled overhaul of consumer credit legislation will see a change to the law on early settlement so that consumers have the right to settle early and will only pay charges based on an actuarially based formula.
“The new rules will mean the right to voluntary termination is no longer necessary,” said Everitt.
The deadline for responses to the consultation runs out on 30 November.
Last edited by Black Duck; Dec 4, 2007 at 09:32 AM.


