[ad_1]
Darwin Vegher / Unsplash
The woman said it was a work vehicle.
A woman who complained that she was being pursued for a car loan she knew nothing about was told she had to pay $ 17,000, amid questions about the veracity of her claims.
The woman took her complaint to Financial Services Complaints Ltd (FSCL), one of the external dispute resolution schemes for the financial services sector. It does not mention the claimants or the companies involved in their cases.
He said he had received a letter from a lender saying that his car loan was in default and that his vehicle would be repossessed if he did not pay several thousand dollars.
A few weeks later, the car was taken and sold at auction. After the loan was paid, she still owed $ 17,000.
READ MORE:
* Auckland pensioner wins his fight against the ‘zombie loan’
* Ignore Pretty Penny’s Settlement Fee Demands, Says Debt Counselor
* Watchdog warns ‘irresponsible’ lender about car loan and repossession
They told him that if he couldn’t make the payments, the lender would consider court action.
The woman said that until that point she had no idea that there was a car loan in her name.
He said the car was a company car, owned by his former employer. She had agreed to have the car registered in her name, but said she was never informed of any loans. He said the employer must have forged his signature on the loan documents.
She told FSCL that it was unreasonable to enforce the loan against her.
The lender said that he had reviewed her records and was satisfied that she had accepted the loan.
Borrowing adds costs and risks to your life.
FSCL investigated and found “convincing evidence” that it had taken out the loan.
There were documents collected in the application process that only she would have had access to, including her bank statements, a copy of the contract for the sale of her house and a copy of her license.
You did not have a convincing explanation of how your employer could have accessed all of these documents.
The car dealer had signed a form certifying that he had seen his license and confirmed that the person applying for the loan was the person in the license photo. The lender had also received emails from the woman’s personal email address during the term of the loan.
“This was, in our opinion, a strong indication that [she] he was at least aware of the loan, and that he was not telling us the full story, ”FSCL said in its case note.
“There was the fact that the police had investigated, but had found no evidence of fraud. This was not conclusive proof that the loan was legitimate, as the police would have been looking for evidence that could establish beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud had occurred. However, we thought the police findings were evidence that the loan was not fraudulent. “
FSCL issued a decision that it was reasonable to enforce the loan, which meant that the woman would have to pay the amount owed.
But FSCL was concerned that a former employer had pushed her to borrow the money and was encouraged to seek legal advice on the matter.
