Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ambulance chasers have been marketing for the last few years collecting millions of potential claims of undisclosed dealer finance commissions. Last week reported that Reeves was going to intervene. Looks like that worked and no compensation is coming now. Fair or unfair ?" Do you mean that the legal system is not independent from outside influences? This is a very grave accusation in my opinion without any facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. " This  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. " Yeah I get that. But finance through the dealership was not their only option. If it was I’d agree. And a sliding commission scale for salespeople is very common. Were any of these people given a discount off the rrp as an incentive to buy? This is called a drop close and nearly always impacts the salespersons commission. If a buyer asks “is that the best price you can do” and the salesperson says yes when it’s not, that would be miss-selling. But that would also be all but impossible to prove. They could give them the car for free if they wanted to, or even let them have it at cost and not make any money, but that’s not how business works. It’s not the salespersons job to advise the buyer, their job is to sell cars. I think unless the buyer asked “can you do me a better deal on the financing” and the salesperson said no, then what’s the issue? I know it’s looking like the courts say some people have a claim, but I think that’s more about a nanny state than it is about fairness. And no, I have never been in car sales. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. Yeah I get that. But finance through the dealership was not their only option. If it was I’d agree. And a sliding commission scale for salespeople is very common. Were any of these people given a discount off the rrp as an incentive to buy? This is called a drop close and nearly always impacts the salespersons commission. If a buyer asks “is that the best price you can do” and the salesperson says yes when it’s not, that would be miss-selling. But that would also be all but impossible to prove. They could give them the car for free if they wanted to, or even let them have it at cost and not make any money, but that’s not how business works. It’s not the salespersons job to advise the buyer, their job is to sell cars. I think unless the buyer asked “can you do me a better deal on the financing” and the salesperson said no, then what’s the issue? I know it’s looking like the courts say some people have a claim, but I think that’s more about a nanny state than it is about fairness. And no, I have never been in car sales. " This is an interesting take. What you are saying is the consumer should do their due diligence before accepting a contract. I agree with in theory, but in a situation that is engineered to charge the consumer more than they needed to pay, the consumer would not have known they had a possible lower interest rate available to them, or they would have taken it. This leads me to believe in most cases the sales person was not being honest, removing the consumers choice. Removing consumer protections by allowing sales people not to advise honestly has created many problems, subprime mortgages springs to mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. " We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Finance commission on car sales has been around for years. Even when I started in the motor trade in the 70's and I'm sure further back than that. I earned thousands from it over the years. I don't get why suddenly after 50+ years it's become such an issue. Or is it just the latest wheeze from comp-en-say-shun for you and the like? " The basic problem is that some finance companies started to offer dealers the ability to choose the interest rate on the payments. Set a higher rate, and they got more commission. So obviously some car dealers set the highest rate possible and picked the cash. Finance companies have a 'fiduciary responsibility' to their customers, which means that can't offer them a product that's bad for them. They could not have offered these sliding scale products directly to the customer. But car dealers do not have any such responsibility, so they could offer them, and some of them took advantage. The original legal cases were that the finance companies should have been held responsible, but the courts checked the law and said that there was nothing preventing it at the time (it's been made illegal now). The recent Supreme Court ruling was on a question of whether these schemes were effectively a bribe to the car dealer to set higher rates and therefore enrich the loan companies. That was never going to be proven, and indeed the cases were rejected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business." I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business "It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you. Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty. Only suckers get conned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business." This is how I’ve bought most my cars when this was going down the finance deal almost always used to get you a better deal on the car because they were looking at the commission, I’d get the deal and pay the finance off within the month. Win win for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. This is how I’ve bought most my cars when this was going down the finance deal almost always used to get you a better deal on the car because they were looking at the commission, I’d get the deal and pay the finance off within the month. Win win for me." And now it's stopped due to the crying baby suckers that can't read terms and conditions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned""only suckers get conned"... Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
"Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper. More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper.
More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls. "The point about the customer being happy isn't the point.. Imagine walking into a shop and there are no prices on the the products. You want to purchase something and the person conducting the sale decides that they will charge "you" more for the item than the customer before or the customers after. Prices varying on the sales persons discretion is not a good look for any business when it comes to customer care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wrote a big long post and deleted it .. so here is attempt 2 to write down what this means The TLDR forerunner to where we were is that the original case would have meant some people were potentially entitled to compensation… Court of appeals basically blew the doors off and said almost everyone who bought a car on finance would be entitled to compensation…. … and the Supreme Court has said.. nope.. not everyone.. but some! So… my understanding Those people who had fixed interest rate commission agreement on their car finance ARE NOT entitled to compensation those people who had discretionary interest rate commission agreements (DCA’s) ARE entitled to compensation…. Basically these are car finance versions of PPI’s that were made illegal So rather than the 45 billion payout that would be potentially owed if everyone had won.. this payout is going to be smaller.. but still in the 10-15 billion range! " Excellent summary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ambulance chasers have been marketing for the last few years collecting millions of potential claims of undisclosed dealer finance commissions. Last week reported that Reeves was going to intervene. Looks like that worked and no compensation is coming now. Fair or unfair ?" The judges wouldn't take into consideration the chancellors intervention. That isn't how law works. You're very reactionary and false | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wrote a big long post and deleted it .. so here is attempt 2 to write down what this means The TLDR forerunner to where we were is that the original case would have meant some people were potentially entitled to compensation… Court of appeals basically blew the doors off and said almost everyone who bought a car on finance would be entitled to compensation…. … and the Supreme Court has said.. nope.. not everyone.. but some! So… my understanding Those people who had fixed interest rate commission agreement on their car finance ARE NOT entitled to compensation those people who had discretionary interest rate commission agreements (DCA’s) ARE entitled to compensation…. Basically these are car finance versions of PPI’s that were made illegal So rather than the 45 billion payout that would be potentially owed if everyone had won.. this payout is going to be smaller.. but still in the 10-15 billion range! " Exactly this, I have several DCA’s from when I was a kid I bought brand-new BMWs through black horse, and they have confirmed it. I’m expecting my money back next year, with 30 years of compound interest added | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper.
More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls.
The point about the customer being happy isn't the point.. Imagine walking into a shop and there are no prices on the the products. You want to purchase something and the person conducting the sale decides that they will charge "you" more for the item than the customer before or the customers after.
Prices varying on the sales persons discretion is not a good look for any business when it comes to customer care. "It’s not uncommon for different people to pay a different price for the same car. Some people are better at negotiating than others. If you asked 3 builders to give you a quote for building an extension, you’ll get 3 different prices for the same work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper.
More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls.
The point about the customer being happy isn't the point.. Imagine walking into a shop and there are no prices on the the products. You want to purchase something and the person conducting the sale decides that they will charge "you" more for the item than the customer before or the customers after.
Prices varying on the sales persons discretion is not a good look for any business when it comes to customer care.
It’s not uncommon for different people to pay a different price for the same car. Some people are better at negotiating than others.
If you asked 3 builders to give you a quote for building an extension, you’ll get 3 different prices for the same work. "I understand that, but it isn't the price of the car that is the issue, most consumers will look to for a deal on the product they are purchasing. The repayment rate of the loan being flexible at the salespersons discretion is the issue. A consumer would not have known they were being charged the maximum loan rate that could be set by the salesperson, rather than the lowest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper.
More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls.
The point about the customer being happy isn't the point.. Imagine walking into a shop and there are no prices on the the products. You want to purchase something and the person conducting the sale decides that they will charge "you" more for the item than the customer before or the customers after.
Prices varying on the sales persons discretion is not a good look for any business when it comes to customer care.
It’s not uncommon for different people to pay a different price for the same car. Some people are better at negotiating than others.
If you asked 3 builders to give you a quote for building an extension, you’ll get 3 different prices for the same work.
I understand that, but it isn't the price of the car that is the issue, most consumers will look to for a deal on the product they are purchasing. The repayment rate of the loan being flexible at the salespersons discretion is the issue. A consumer would not have known they were being charged the maximum loan rate that could be set by the salesperson, rather than the lowest. "And they wouldn’t have known if they got the best price. Which is better, paying 8% on a 9k car or 9% on an £8k car. Also most people don’t even know what APR means. You can have a lower APR but the loan costs you more because of the way APR is calculated. Payday loans like QuickQuid were a great example of this. The APR could be anywhere between 1500 and 2500% but the actual cost of the loan was closer to 50% and very often less. What’s happening here is not the same as PPI. My bank told me they wouldn’t let me have a loan if I didn’t take out the PPI. The car dealer would still sell you the car if you paid cash because you’d already arranged finance elsewhere. And chances are you could pay more paying cash cos the dealer wasn’t getting commission from the finance company. I used to be one of those snoring double glazing salesmen and we offered an extra discount if you had the finance through us. It was a genuine extra 5% off. Some people took the finance because of the discount and settled it in month one. I was always transparent and told the customer we got commission from the finance company, but I didn’t have to. If we can sue anyone who’s ever sold us anything for pretty much anything they never told us at the time, that’s saying that pretty much every sale is illegal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the % rate on some car loans could have been lower in many cases. The lower rate was never offered to the consumer because the salesperson was given a larger slice of commission for getting an agreement signed on the higher rate, and they could in some circumstances change the rate themselves. The consumer would not have known there was better rate, which is very misleading. We were given a base rate and anything we got over and above was commission. Quite often the finance commission was more than the profit on the heavily discounted car itself. When I was selling new cars the dealership picked up the gross and I got 15% of that. Later when I had my own place I got the lot. On the downside there was clawback on finance deals that were settled early. It was shit when you'd had a bad month then got slapped with a 200 quid clawback. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. We bought cars and sold them at a profit. The same as we negotiated our base rate and then sold that at a profit. There were other sources of finance and rates were very transparent. The customer only needed to look around. I don't see anyone screaming at Tesco to declare how much profit they make on a tin of beans. It's called business. I would think the consumer would assume the profit a car dealer made was in the product (the car) not the loan, and finance companies / banks set the rates. I'm all for transparent business
It's been well known for years that salesmen make commission on HP, ceramic wax, magical upholstery spray, extended warranty and everything else they try to sell you.
Smart people take advantage of this by knocking a big discount off the car by letting the salesman add all the extras then the day before you pick it up you cancel all the other shit, pay the finance within a few days and keep the extended warranty.
Only suckers get conned
"only suckers get conned"...
Not everyone is as savvy as you, but that doesn't mean they should lose out. The way business was being done back then has been stopped due to that very point.
Where people happy with there monthly payments yes or they would not have had the car. But it just shows how meany people are living above there means if you want a car, save up and pay for it. It's so much cheaper.
More to the point will the call centers on this now close and will I get less spam calls.
The point about the customer being happy isn't the point.. Imagine walking into a shop and there are no prices on the the products. You want to purchase something and the person conducting the sale decides that they will charge "you" more for the item than the customer before or the customers after.
Prices varying on the sales persons discretion is not a good look for any business when it comes to customer care.
It’s not uncommon for different people to pay a different price for the same car. Some people are better at negotiating than others.
If you asked 3 builders to give you a quote for building an extension, you’ll get 3 different prices for the same work.
I understand that, but it isn't the price of the car that is the issue, most consumers will look to for a deal on the product they are purchasing. The repayment rate of the loan being flexible at the salespersons discretion is the issue. A consumer would not have known they were being charged the maximum loan rate that could be set by the salesperson, rather than the lowest.
And they wouldn’t have known if they got the best price. Which is better, paying 8% on a 9k car or 9% on an £8k car.
Also most people don’t even know what APR means. You can have a lower APR but the loan costs you more because of the way APR is calculated. Payday loans like QuickQuid were a great example of this. The APR could be anywhere between 1500 and 2500% but the actual cost of the loan was closer to 50% and very often less.
What’s happening here is not the same as PPI. My bank told me they wouldn’t let me have a loan if I didn’t take out the PPI. The car dealer would still sell you the car if you paid cash because you’d already arranged finance elsewhere. And chances are you could pay more paying cash cos the dealer wasn’t getting commission from the finance company. I used to be one of those snoring double glazing salesmen and we offered an extra discount if you had the finance through us. It was a genuine extra 5% off. Some people took the finance because of the discount and settled it in month one. I was always transparent and told the customer we got commission from the finance company, but I didn’t have to.
If we can sue anyone who’s ever sold us anything for pretty much anything they never told us at the time, that’s saying that pretty much every sale is illegal "The issue is the customer didn’t know they had a better offer that wasn’t given to them. It is no more complicated than that. The flexible rate has been stopped and the court has said customers who were subject sold cars this way have a claim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The issue is the customer didn’t know they had a better offer that wasn’t given to them.It is no more complicated than that. The flexible rate has been stopped and the court has said customers who were subject sold cars this way have a claim " Yes I know mate, but my point is there’s always a better deal to be had on a large purchase such as this. If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. I’m aware the court has said there is a case to answer, I just don’t agree. But if there is, they should be going after the individual sales people, they are the ones who weren’t transparent. I just bought a loaf of bread for a quid, is that really the best price they can do? If i paid with my credit card, is that really the best rate my card provider can do? The answer in both cases is no, but I agreed to both freely and willingly without any coercion. If you’ve bought utilities through a utility warehouse agent they are earning money on every penny you spend on utilities. And so are the people higher up the pyramid. Is this the next claim? Because they certainly aren’t transparent about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The issue is the customer didn’t know they had a better offer that wasn’t given to them.It is no more complicated than that. The flexible rate has been stopped and the court has said customers who were subject sold cars this way have a claim Yes I know mate, but my point is there’s always a better deal to be had on a large purchase such as this. If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. I’m aware the court has said there is a case to answer, I just don’t agree. But if there is, they should be going after the individual sales people, they are the ones who weren’t transparent. I just bought a loaf of bread for a quid, is that really the best price they can do? If i paid with my credit card, is that really the best rate my card provider can do? The answer in both cases is no, but I agreed to both freely and willingly without any coercion. If you’ve bought utilities through a utility warehouse agent they are earning money on every penny you spend on utilities. And so are the people higher up the pyramid. Is this the next claim? Because they certainly aren’t transparent about it. " The salespersons must have told customers it was the best deal they could do, or like your house sale analogy the customer would have taken the better deal, which evidently they didn't. Financial regulation is not loved by the people selling, too much paperwork, too many policies and processes to follow, unfortunately a lot of the regulation is an outcome from poor sales practices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. " That’s not what is being argued in this case! What is being argued is if you paid for the house, what interest rate are you paying it back at… and people not being told it could have been paid back at a lower interest rate, because the salesperson never told you that because the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission that salesperson got | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. That’s not what is being argued in this case! What is being argued is if you paid for the house, what interest rate are you paying it back at… and people not being told it could have been paid back at a lower interest rate, because the salesperson never told you that because the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission that salesperson got " I get what you say Fabio but is it really the sales person's responsibility to give that information? The APR is/was clearly displayed on the finance document and in any advertising, and the customer would be aware of the monthly payments and the period of the load. Surely if there was a better deal available it would be up to the customer to go and find it. In my day many did. The car finance market was very competitive in those days with banks and building society's aggressively chasing business. If the customer was too lazy to look that's their own fault. If you went to buy a new sofa/washing machine or whatever you wouldn't expect the salesman to tell you that you can get it cheaper down the road. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. That’s not what is being argued in this case! What is being argued is if you paid for the house, what interest rate are you paying it back at… and people not being told it could have been paid back at a lower interest rate, because the salesperson never told you that because the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission that salesperson got I get what you say Fabio but is it really the sales person's responsibility to give that information? The APR is/was clearly displayed on the finance document and in any advertising, and the customer would be aware of the monthly payments and the period of the load. Surely if there was a better deal available it would be up to the customer to go and find it. In my day many did. The car finance market was very competitive in those days with banks and building society's aggressively chasing business. If the customer was too lazy to look that's their own fault. If you went to buy a new sofa/washing machine or whatever you wouldn't expect the salesman to tell you that you can get it cheaper down the road. " When you find a car you want, assuming it isn't a brand new one, the chances are you have been looking for the right spec, colour etc and it has taken some time to find the right car. A test drive has been taken and it is now going to be the second most expensive purchase of your life. The customer is looking at the price of the car and will try to do get a deal on the car, unless the customer is in the trade why would they know that there was flexibility in the loan rate that the salesperson could control? Financial services are regulated to prevent unfair practices, asking the customer to wade through a minefield of information and then go off to do it all over again to compare rates on a loan is not acceptable, well not from my point of view it isn't. The customer should have had it clearly pointed out that the best available rate is 6-7% as an example and the salesperson is applying a further 4% to up their commission on the sale under DCA. That would be fair, but it wasn't done like that. The customer was told the best rate available is 11%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. That’s not what is being argued in this case! What is being argued is if you paid for the house, what interest rate are you paying it back at… and people not being told it could have been paid back at a lower interest rate, because the salesperson never told you that because the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission that salesperson got I get what you say Fabio but is it really the sales person's responsibility to give that information? The APR is/was clearly displayed on the finance document and in any advertising, and the customer would be aware of the monthly payments and the period of the load. Surely if there was a better deal available it would be up to the customer to go and find it. In my day many did. The car finance market was very competitive in those days with banks and building society's aggressively chasing business. If the customer was too lazy to look that's their own fault. If you went to buy a new sofa/washing machine or whatever you wouldn't expect the salesman to tell you that you can get it cheaper down the road. When you find a car you want, assuming it isn't a brand new one, the chances are you have been looking for the right spec, colour etc and it has taken some time to find the right car. A test drive has been taken and it is now going to be the second most expensive purchase of your life. The customer is looking at the price of the car and will try to do get a deal on the car, unless the customer is in the trade why would they know that there was flexibility in the loan rate that the salesperson could control? Financial services are regulated to prevent unfair practices, asking the customer to wade through a minefield of information and then go off to do it all over again to compare rates on a loan is not acceptable, well not from my point of view it isn't. The customer should have had it clearly pointed out that the best available rate is 6-7% as an example and the salesperson is applying a further 4% to up their commission on the sale under DCA. That would be fair, but it wasn't done like that. The customer was told the best rate available is 11%." Very rare when I disagree with you but in this case I have to. Firstly the new and used car markets were very different when it came to finance. On new cars there were lots of finance packages that were not available on used cars including (believe it or not) many below market interest rates subsidised by the manufacturer. Leasing and contract hire deals were only available on new cars back then. As for the salesman having to point out that the rate is 4% higher than the base is nonsense. Tell me one business where a salesman has to show the cost price to the customer. Bottom line is that it is wholesale and retail. From my experience used car buyers were quite a bit different to new. Firstly many (probably most) would have made their own arrangements with the bank/building society before even looking for a car. To those we very rarely sold any finance packages. The exception was the sub prime market where the finance company's involved would charge quite high rates and yes we would put our bit on top. But I say again it was wholesale/retail and the rates charged were clearly shown on the finance document. When I had my business I was a licenced credit broker with my consumer credit licence displayed on my premises. Another example I could quote would be an insurance broker. Maybe things are different today but I never heard of one telling a client how much commission he made on your contents insurance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you give misleading or false information for financial gain that is fraud." But this isn’t misleading or false. It’s just not the whole picture. You never know the whole picture | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you put your house or car up for sale, chances are you’ll list it for more money than you’re prepared to settle for. Say you list your house for 300k but you’ll settle for £275k. If someone offers you £285k are you gonna tell them you’ll actually settle for £275k? Nope, you’ll take the extra £10k all day long and twice on Sundays. That’s not what is being argued in this case! What is being argued is if you paid for the house, what interest rate are you paying it back at… and people not being told it could have been paid back at a lower interest rate, because the salesperson never told you that because the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission that salesperson got I get what you say Fabio but is it really the sales person's responsibility to give that information? The APR is/was clearly displayed on the finance document and in any advertising, and the customer would be aware of the monthly payments and the period of the load. Surely if there was a better deal available it would be up to the customer to go and find it. In my day many did. The car finance market was very competitive in those days with banks and building society's aggressively chasing business. If the customer was too lazy to look that's their own fault. If you went to buy a new sofa/washing machine or whatever you wouldn't expect the salesman to tell you that you can get it cheaper down the road. When you find a car you want, assuming it isn't a brand new one, the chances are you have been looking for the right spec, colour etc and it has taken some time to find the right car. A test drive has been taken and it is now going to be the second most expensive purchase of your life. The customer is looking at the price of the car and will try to do get a deal on the car, unless the customer is in the trade why would they know that there was flexibility in the loan rate that the salesperson could control? Financial services are regulated to prevent unfair practices, asking the customer to wade through a minefield of information and then go off to do it all over again to compare rates on a loan is not acceptable, well not from my point of view it isn't. The customer should have had it clearly pointed out that the best available rate is 6-7% as an example and the salesperson is applying a further 4% to up their commission on the sale under DCA. That would be fair, but it wasn't done like that. The customer was told the best rate available is 11%." If the salesman sold the car at the screen price and the customer pays cash and didn’t ask if there was a discount available, whose fault is it that they paid over the odds? Can such a person sue the dealership? The salesman’s job is to maximise profit for the company he works for, not to sell every vehicle at the lowest possible price. Buying a car or a house is a negotiation between the two parties. If they agree then there’s a sale, if they don’t then there’s not. They didn’t have to take the financing from the dealership, there was hundreds of other options available. We’re clearly not going to agree so I’ll leave it here, and we’ll agree to disagree 😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As for the salesman having to point out that the rate is 4% higher than the base is nonsense. Tell me one business where a salesman has to show the cost price to the customer. Bottom line is that it is wholesale and retail. " Difference is the contract for the finance was not with the dealership , the legal document for finance comes under financial regulations that don’t allow to mislead on the terms of, it said they (black horse) are charging the customer X % but they were not. The finance company broke the regulations , the salesman went along with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
