This blog is written by Jamie-Lee Hawkes who worked on this successful case for White Collar Legal:
In the realm of legal disputes, particularly those involving financial transactions and vehicle purchases, it’s crucial to navigate the complexities with precision and diligence. In this blog post, I’ll walk you through a recent case where we successfully helped our client remove an HPI marker from their vehicle, illustrating the steps we took to achieve a favourable outcome.
Background
Our client faced an unexpected issue after privately purchasing a vehicle that has outstanding finance linked to it. This resulted in the vehicle having a HPI marker. The client discovered the HPI marker via the VehicleSmart app, following which the client then attempted to return the vehicle. The client then contacted the finance company to provide them with all the necessary information. Following this, the finance company asserted that our client was not an innocent purchaser, which we disputed.
Timeline of Events
- July 26, 2024 – Initial Letter to the finance company
Our initial correspondence outlined the clients position and demanded the removal of the HPI marker. This set the stage for our formal dispute. - August 5, 2024 – The finance companies Response
They replied to our letter, outlining their stance and citing various reasons for the marker’s existence. - August 6, 2024 – File Review and Client Instructions
After reviewing the finance companies response, we compiled a detailed file note and sent it to the client, outlining the points raised by the finance company. We provided a fee quote for potential further action, ensuring the client was fully informed and able to instruct us on how to proceed. - August 13, 2024 – Preparing Our Response
I carefully analysed the finance companies letter and prepared our counterarguments. Here’s a breakdown of the critical points I addressed:- Verbal Confirmation of Awareness: the finance company claimed that the client was verbally informed about the outstanding finance. I argued that this assertion lacked sufficient evidence to hold weight.
- Market Value Assessment: The finance company suggested the vehicle was sold below market value. To counter this, I conducted market research, identifying similar vehicles listed at comparable prices, challenging the finance company to provide evidence that our client’s price was unusually low.
- Due Diligence Responsibility: I requested documentation or case law to substantiate the finance companies claim that the client had a duty to conduct due diligence, arguing that their assumptions were unfounded.
- Good Faith Purchase: I emphasised that the finance companies reasoning lacked merit, reinforcing that our client acted in good faith without knowledge of any encumbrances.
Resolution
After our comprehensive response, the finance company acknowledged that the client was indeed an innocent purchaser. They agreed to cease all collection activities related to the HPI marker. In a follow-up letter, I confirmed with the finance company that the HPI marker had been officially removed from our client’s vehicle.
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of diligent research, strategic communication, and a thorough understanding of legal principles when dealing with disputes over vehicle finance. By systematically addressing each point raised by the finance company and providing solid evidence to support our position, we were able to achieve a successful resolution for our client.
For anyone facing similar challenges, this case serves as a reminder that with the right approach, it’s possible to protect your interests and resolve disputes effectively. If you find yourself in a similar situation or have questions about your rights as a purchaser, don’t hesitate to seek professional legal assistance.
Contact us today, on 0151 230 8931 or philip@whitecollarlegalandadmin.com
Free Initial Consultations can be booked here: [https://lawtap.com/uk/lawyer/philip-nam.html]