Shocking debt of £80.000 by 80 year olds

[jhorsf]

JudgeMental - 2010-01-26 10:11 PM

 

if Warner's get the jitters and in the words of Tom Jones "it's a not unusual" you can tune in over on MHFun where these types of issues are left to run....... and where I first saw this clip. Also may I say the couple where viewed more sympathetically....

 

 

Thats because we are all to busy running our noisy generators (lol)

[Clive]

If they had played their cards right they might still have the last van and zero or a small debt.

 

But I watched the film and they don,t come across as totally lacking in mental capacity.

 

So who was actually trying it on with who?

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

All I know is the Jesus Chriist himself is only historically documented with loosing his temper on one occasion........And that was with Bankers/money lenders in the temple *-)

[Hymer C 9.]

JudgeMental - 2010-01-26 10:11 PM

 

if Warner's get the jitters and in the words of Tom Jones "it's a not unusual" you can tune in over on MHFun where these types of issues are left to run....... and where I first saw this clip. Also may I say the couple where viewed more sympathetically....

 

Judge not completely so, there is a divide of opinion on there as well.

My self having watched the programme live think they were very fortunate indeed if they had the wherewithal to go to the CAB and the Ferritt they had the wherewithal to know that you can not change a Motorhome every 12 months if you do not have the money to back it. Its like us going into a Bentley show room to buy a car, we know we can not afford it so we do not do it. the wife had pointed out to her husband a few times that the situation was not right but he just kept on buying. I think they are a very fortunate couple to have the debt written off. Carol.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, we've had all the conspiracy theories, so what about good, old fashioned, cock-up!

Man trades caravan for motorhome, and is entitled to Motability terms.  (Man is approx 75 and, according to his wife, has had triple by-pass surgery, two knee joints, and also has asbestosis and pneumoconiosis.)

He gets a call from the dealer after about one year, suggesting a new van on very favourable terms.  (I met a chap at Le Puy en Velay, who owned a Rapido and had exactly this experience with the same dealer.)

He accepts, and then goes on accepting similar deals for the next four years.  After the last new van (unspecified value, but they say they kept getting cheaper vans to keep the cost down, so maybe, as it sold for £25,00, about £35,000), by which time the man is 80, his wife chances to open and read the finance company statement, and realises they have by now borrowed £80,000 over the next 12 years. 

How?  Just by trusting the salesman, and going on accepting offers of new vans, on credit (different company each time), on favourable trade in terms. 

Why?  Who really knows, apart from the salesman, and the man himself? 

One can surmise that the salesman's commissions may have played a part.  One can surmise that the introduction fees for new credit business may have played a part.  On can surmise that bundling all the cancellation charges from the previous credit deal onto the next one, might result in a growing debt and extended re-payment period so keeping the instalments lower.  One can surmise that the VAT status of the Motability deals may have made the trade in prices, and the VAT free prices of new vans, look very seductive.  One can surmise that the combined effects of the above may have influenced the judgement of sales staff, but one must also surmise that it should be difficult for such deals to pass normal internal scrutiny without the approval of more senior managers.  One can surmise that the client was very unsophisticated in his understanding of what was on offer, and its financial implications for him.  One can surmise that the salesman may not have overemphasised the disadvantages for his customer, instead talking up the advantages, while having a close eye for the potential advantages to himself. 

However, even after all that, it is difficult to understand how an £80,000 12 year loan to a sickly 80 year old ever got past a finance company's credit checking process.

What we have is a bit of a dewy eyed old buffer looking for a last fling, and applying Nelson's eye to the downsides of what he was doing, because what was on offer was what he really wanted.  Sound familiar?  We have a relatively poorly paid, probably youngish, salesman on commission, who was getting a personal benefit from each deal, so may not have asked himself too many morally searching questions.  We seem to have a sales manager or director who was approving the deals, possibly mindful of the advantage to profit of the introductory credit fees.  And, it seems we have a credit company whose creditworthiness checking system either didn't ask the appropriate questions, or didn't read the answers (more commission led thinking?). 

Two things stand out for me.  One, that I strongly suspect the Citizens' Advice Bureau had a far greater impact on the eventual outcome than the so-called Ferret, and second, that once the credit company management was made aware of what they had done, they realised they hadn't a leg to stand on, and would probably get (may even have got) a severe rocket from the FSA for being so lackadaisical with their procedures.

My final thought is that it is very unlikely this episode represents a one off.  It was all just too well rehearsed, and that man in Le Puy just adds to my suspicion that this was fairly normal practise.  Completely legal, of course, but very questionable when dealing with unsophisticated and easily tempted members of the public.  Bit sharp, I'd say!

[Brock]

Society eh? Everyone blaming someone else, Brownhills, the motorhomers or Barclays. Am I expecting too much for modern society to take personal or corporate responsibility for their actions?

 

Everyone enjoyed the party without a care in the world and the ferret gave the bill to Barclays.

 

It was good of Eddie to provide the link as it really is important to ensure people do not get caught up in such problems.

[lennyhb]

Although the couple may be a bit naive and have fallen for the old trick of trying to keep their monthly payments low & not taken into account the whole picture it looks on the face of it that Brownhills are the main culprit.

 

Each time the couple changed vans Brownhills arranged a new finance deal with a different lender, surely this would we the worst possible action that could be taken in the customers interest but the best for brownhills commission on the loans.

With most HP agreement if you settle early you still have to pay the interest for the full term of the loan. That would explain why the debt reached 80k.

 

The statement the ferret read out from Brownhills MD said that it was quite normal for Motorhome home owners to change their van regularly as it was their hobby and was part of the fun of it and this was nothing unusual.

 

Hands up all of you on the forum who have had 4 new vans or more in the last 5 years.

 

I'm still waiting I don't see any hands :D

[tonyishuk]

Ermmm ?

 

Business as usual, Lend large amounts of money to people that cannot afford it, ( Well to ask, if they can would infringe their human rights)

 

Bankers still getting a disgusting amount of money as bonuses.

 

Every lesson has been learnt from the financial cockup over the last 18 months.

 

Business as usual Britian it seems.

 

Rgds

[robertandjean]

Whilst having sympathy with the couple involved think a real danger here of falling into the "nanny state" trap. Was it Brownhills fault the couple kept wanting to change their van, and should they refuse to sell them vans? Don't think so. Were the banks at fault for lending so much money? Well maybe but that is what they exist to do. Was Gordon Brown to blame? This time no. So to be honest if people want things they can not really afford and run up large debts to buy them is it not really their own fault?

[lennyhb]

But surly Brownhills should have explained to them that by changing lenders they would have pay settlement fees & should have pointed out the true total cost.

 

If it had been the finance company selling the product (loan) they would have been under a legal obligation to ensure the customer under stood the full facts.

 

I've only ever met one person who was totally satisfied with Brownhills service he did spend over a 100k and he did admit at one point to get things sorted had to resort to a solicitors letter.

 

 

 

 

[kontiki]

I have little or no sympathy for somebody living beyond their means which this couple were doing. At their age they should take responsibility for their actions. I saw a comment about trusting the salesman *-) *-) If they went through the rest of their lives trusting salesmen it's a wonder they had enough cash to even get them to Brownhills.

I agree that the finance companies should act more responsibly & lend to people who can afford to pay (isn't this why we are in such a mess).

 

His age, his medical problems have nothing to do with any of this. He isn't senile & he though he was getting something for nothing. Unless he was deliberately misled by the salesman then in this case Brownhills aren't at fault.

 

 

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

My concern would be about somebody of that age spending that much on a motor vehicle. He might need a car, he does't NEED a camper.

 

Even a minor traffic offence could get him up in front of the Beaks, with the strong possibility of him being "Disqualified till Test Passed".

 

602

[malc d]

W3526602 - 2010-01-28 7:16 AM

 

Hi,

 

My concern would be about somebody of that age spending that much on a motor vehicle. He might need a car, he does't NEED a camper.

 

Even a minor traffic offence could get him up in front of the Beaks, with the strong possibility of him being "Disqualified till Test Passed".

 

602

 

He said he changed to a motorhome because he could no longer manhandle his caravan. So it sounds like he did need one.

 

The alternative was to give up his preferred leisure activity - maybe he didn't want to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hymer C 9.]

Sadly we all have to give up things we can not afford, that is the reason the country (world) got into the state it is people and country's getting what they want and not what they could afford. Carol.

[Brian Kirby]

robertandjean - 2010-01-27 7:45 PM Whilst having sympathy with the couple involved think a real danger here of falling into the "nanny state" trap. Was it Brownhills fault the couple kept wanting to change their van, and should they refuse to sell them vans? Don't think so.

From what I heard, it was not the couple who kept wanting to change, but the dealer who kept suggesting it, on apparently favourable terms.  From my perspective, the sales tactics were serving only one interest, that of the dealer.  At the price of a motorhome, I think one is entitled to expect reasonable and impartial advice, not sharp practise.  It wasn't a tube of Smarties they bought!

Were the banks at fault for lending so much money? Well maybe but that is what they exist to do.

A wise lender does make sure his borrower can repay the debt, though.  Do we want banks run by fools?

Was Gordon Brown to blame? This time no. So to be honest if people want things they can not really afford and run up large debts to buy them is it not really their own fault?

Who says they couldn't afford a van?  What they couldn't afford was £80K of accumulated debt over 12 years.  They didn't have a £80K van, they had a modest van, bought initially on a basis they apparently could afford.  Someone then took calculated advantage of their naivety, and repeated the trick four times.  Some people have not been exposed to sharp commercial practises, and are ill equipped to counter them.  Some are trusting.  Don't blame them for that, it is just how they are, and if it is a fault, it is a rather nicer fault than the hard nosed commercially aggressive stance you seem to be taking. 

They were undoubtedly naive, but they were also duped; and I really don't think commercial gain is an adequate excuse (is there an adequate excuse?) for duping naive, ageing, people.

[michele]

No excuse Brian,

 

Do you know these poor people ?

[Guest JudgeMental]

 

Well said Brian!

 

You would not want half of this lot on your jury would you! *-)

[michele]

 

 

No I wouldnt , its all very well to say they knew what they were doing or/ they should of known better we are not all the same .

I feel sorry for them at their age all that worry .

[lennyhb]

Good summary Brian exactly my opinion I not as good as putting it into words as you.