I HATE This Kind of Finance Selling!
Posted on | September 19, 2006 | Comments Off
I keep getting emails like this:
Make an easy £350 minimum
Got a non-status customer?
Throwing thier prop’s in the bin?
Dont want to take on the risk?
Send us their details and let us.
Then collect your cash!!!!
We are the market leaders in non-status contract hire, all our vehicles
are under-written by our experienced team.
All you have to do is send us the prop forms, upsell our deposit by a minimum of
£200 and charge a doc fee of £150.
It really is that simple.
There is no risk involved for your company at all all risk is undertaken by us.
Non-Status, Dont throw money away.
Call us now on
01763 XXX XXX
Beware this kind of finance offer! If people are declined by a finance company, it is usually for a good reason. The last thing they should be offered is MORE EXPENSIVE finance, for a car they cannot afford. No excuses. In my view it is unprofessional and verges on the immoral. You see how the DOC FEE is just a pure 100% rip-off and is just a full profit opportunity. Bah! Not only that, they can’t even bother to spell correctly.
I sent an email back:Â
Chris, re the non-status.
This is not my cup of tea at all.
To declare a “doc fee” when it is nothing of the sort, just pure profit margin is blatant lying and misleading to the customer. This is pure misrepresentation. It is unethical.
These customers have been declined in the first place for good reason, I feel the last thing they need is to be legged into even more expensive finance they can’t afford. This is the seedy end of the market and is not for me.
Plus, your spelling is bad and your black html email means the replying to it is quite impossible by normal methods (the background hides the text).
Ling Valentine
——
Their reply to me
——
Ling,
Thank you for thaking the time to reply to my e-mail im honured, I will take your IT Tips into consideration when producing further e-mail marketing.
With reference to marketing and the “seedy” side of it, I couldnt help but notice you advertise your website on the side of a missile not very tactful in the terrorist society we are forced to live in. However your editorial mention in this months FHM was a slightly better method of marketing, however I did notice it on the next page to many a Porn website to browse!!!!  Lovely!!!!!
Taking this in to consideration, and the promise of a “free lunch” on your website I have come to the opinion that seedy would be right up your street!!!!!
Once again thank you for your comments.
Kind Regards,
Chris.
——–
My final reply to them.
——–
Chris,
Your argument, though amusing, is completely irrelevant and beside the point.
I am not advising people to blatantly lie to customers and invent a “finance document fee” which does not exist. Your company is. In my view this is simply fantastically immoral, completely untruthful, and totally dishonest. I like to tell my customers the truth, not to lie to them. I am not sure if your company is breaking the law, but on the other hand, just because a law does not exist then generating disingenuous ways to overcharge people is still wrong. It is because of these practices from companies like your own that I would welcome more regulation of this industry.
Let me be clear, I do not object to you making a profit or encouraging others to do so. If you simply built in the money as profit it would be legitimate. But you do not, you encourage firms to misrepresent it as a “fee”, which deliberately is suggested (but not documented, of course) to be that of a 3rd party, a finance company fee. It is the invention of a fee which does not exist, and justifying it as a “finance document fee” when that patently is an invention, that is what I object to. It will be paid readily by the less street-smart or more trusting members of the public, when in fact it is a complete lie and fabrication. You are already targeting the more vulnerable end of the market with your products.
You are not alone, many companies do this type of thing, but that does not mean that you should exploit loopholes in the consumer credit act and invent fees which do not exist.
If a fee is actually charged by a finance provider, while I think it is a regressive charge, it is legitimate and will of course be passed on to a user. I wonder if your finance houses realise that you are inventing extra fees (and giving the impression that the fees refer to the document, therefore the lender), or encouraging others to do so and pocket the whole fee themselves, and whether they agree with you, or with me?
I think I know which side of this argument 99.9% of the general public would support.
Ling Valentine



























