Just been reading the thread below over on SCN.:eek:

Non-Starting Cupra - Whats Wrong Now? (Inc Video) - SEAT Cupra.net - SEAT Forum

Only read the first and last pages. Something about a relay, a modified Cupra and SEAT repossessing it under a clause in a finance agreement!? :eek:

WTF?!

Steve

I'm intrigued, so I've carried on reading

This pretty much sums the issue up

Its a bit extreme but at the end of the daya a contract is a contract. If you break it you have to accept the consequences. We all accept this when moding car (if you dont then you need to have a rethink).

Still a bit extreme.

Yup, I bet he really wishes he'd taken out a personal loan for it instead!

If I was him I think I'd take the personal loan route instead. It'll probably work out cheaper in the long run and at least he'll have a car! It does seem very "knee-jerk" of Seat though.

I can see both sides, very tricky to call.

Because Seat UK now know about the car and due to the type of finance against it, can they reasonably do anything but take this as the consumer defaulting on the agreement and take the options that are available to them in those circumstances?

Steve

to be fair he modified a car he didn't own, not clever.

Wise after the event, but he didn't even seem to have read the agreement fully. He was surprised at other clauses in there :eek:

I know it's probably quite common, but if it were me I'd take ages going through an agreement like that! Especially when signing away nearly 20k.

Steve

*cough* unfair contract terms *cough*

Interesting however that it turns out to be a relay.

I'm sure plenty of people remember relay 109 and the issues that caused.

Edited 31 October, 200817 yr by cheezemonkhai

*cough* unfair contract terms *cough*

He did agree to them though

Steve

To me a personal loan is always the better route to take.

Like Wardy says you can see both sides of the story. Seat might just be ****ed off with the whole modding scene and could be using this as an example to people knowing he would be posting in SCN.

Even if they hadn't said you have breached your finance agreement I agree that the Dealer is quite within their rights to refuse to look at a modified car that has an problem starting when the car's engine doesn't meet manufacturers build.

It's a decision you as the owner need to make, do you want to risk your warranty for the sake of tuning your car to gain a couple of seconds off your 0-62 or improve the handling which might help knock 1 minute off your journey to work or back.

He did agree to them though

Steve

Doesn't matter as I had pointed out to me by a few lawyers.

If the term is unfair the contract can be argued to be null and void as the contract would be illegal due to the unfair term and so wouldn't stand.

If the contract was nullified in court he could potentially just give them back the standard car and that would be that saving him a few k.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'd very much say that it would be worth speaking to a good one. If anyone posts on there I'd be pointing that out to him too.

But what is unfair about the owner of the car refusing the keeper of the car the right to modify it??

Here'sa question that I've wondered in the past. Under a finance agreement the dealer/manufacture own the car until the finance is settled. But the V5 document states your the owner. Also when you insured the car they ask if you own the car so what happens there?

But what is unfair about the owner of the car refusing the keeper of the car the right to modify it??

Depends how it is worded, things that are too broad are often easy to wriggle out of. Different brand of tyres... that's modification, different brand of oil that's outside of spec.

Don't forget that nice bit of EU legislation that mentioned that you can replace car parts with parts of equal or better quality as long as they are fitted by a VAT registered garage.

Then the revo, well seat fit that...

My point is there are so many terms in those contracts that you might well be able to find one to get the contract annulled under.

If you don't try, you'll never find out; but bearing in mind the heavy handed approach taken I don't see why the guy shouldn't try and cut his losses. It's not like he is ever going to want another VAG.

Here'sa question that I've wondered in the past. Under a finance agreement the dealer/manufacture own the car until the finance is settled. But the V5 document states your the owner. Also when you insured the car they ask if you own the car so what happens there?

Another valid point....

You see the lines are blurring and I'd guess a good lawyer loved blurred lines

If you have the V5 you own it, but the contract says otherwise.

I would guess most contracts state it remains the property of the company until paid for in full. In which case are you still the owner as that is different? The V5 is a legal document and states you are the owner of the car. If the contract only states you must return the car in a standard state, then why is it outside of the contract to modify it as long as they get it back as standard?

I'm be pretty sure a good lawyer would have a field day with that, plus if they thought they could win that would be a pretty big case and get them a lot of publicity.

To me a personal loan is always the better route to take.

Like Wardy says you can see both sides of the story. Seat might just be ****ed off with the whole modding scene and could be using this as an example to people knowing he would be posting in SCN.

SEAT in my opinion has some serious identity issues. And this event showed that their marketing guys are idiots.

SEAT has been trying to be a brand for young, sporty drivers. They market their cars as small quality movers with good dynamics for mostly young people. Good, let them. But they aren't acting as their marketing says. Ofcourse, young people have needs for sporty cars and everyone wants to be a bit different than others. They'll modify their cars. That's what makes rice-burners so attractive: cheap, good and huge supply of aftermarket tuning parts.

SEAT and VAG is shooting their own foot by killing or trying to restrict modification market. The more people tune, the more cars will be bought and also more parts will be bought. Alas more money will flow in. Even if there are hard times, people don't forget about their cars and they still drive them and take care of them. VAG should notice that, support that and SEAT should give that poor guy his beloved car back.

Damn bureaucrats!

They guy has the option to buy it outright, but after the this it appears he doesn't want it so will hand it back.

My point on the contract was only surrounding ways he may be able to just hand the car back as is and have the finance nullified rather than having to pay back what is outstanding on it.

as has been said he modified a car which had outstanding payments on, about 10 years ago a friend of mine had a peugeot 106 which he put aftermarket alloys and a new stereo in (cd player replacing standard cassete) and while it was in the dealer for service the dealer had some guy in to inspect their work quality in.... to cut a long story short the inspecter spotted these items on the car and discovered it was under peugeot finance and had 5 months to repay.... a few weeks after my mate received a letter stating that as he had modified the car he had breached the T&C of the finance they would be reposessing the car and he had 14 days to remove the aftermarket alloys and stereo and to return it to the dealer.....

Here'sa question that I've wondered in the past. Under a finance agreement the dealer/manufacture own the car until the finance is settled. But the V5 document states your the owner. Also when you insured the car they ask if you own the car so what happens there?

The V5 document states that you are the registered keeper not the registered owner.

The V5 document states that you are the registered keeper not the registered owner.

this is true

What do insurance companies ask? Os it if you're the keeper or the owner? I can't remember!

The point I was kind of getting was that I'm sure a lawyer could think of something to argue to try and get a better solution for the guy.