The former owner of Mackie Motors, who claims the long-established Angus dealership was “destroyed” by a finance firm, is set to return to court next year.
Kevin Mackie claims Renault Credit International (RCI) Financial Services withdrew key financing access to essential franchise services and terminated contracts with just seven days’ notice.
As Renault and Nissan’s finance provider, this meant he also wasn’t being supplied with new cars or parts.
Mr Mackie says this forced him to sell the business to save the jobs of Mackie Motors’ 70 Angus staff.
The firm was started by his parents Ron and Janie in 1977.
It operated Renault, Dacia and MG dealerships in Brechin and sold new Nissan vehicles in Arbroath.
The business was sold to Park’s in a deal agreed last December and completed in March this year.
Mr Mackie’s attempts to claim damages from RCI for the ending of the agreement were thrown out by the High Court in August.
But Mr Mackie, who is also chairman of Brechin City FC, is not giving up his court fight.
RCI treatment ‘inhumane’, says Mackie Motors boss
He has now won the right to appeal the High Court decision and is confident of a different outcome.
Mr Mackie said: “The way we lost our family businesses was both wrong and inhumane.
“RCI destroyed people’s lives, livelihoods and our businesses when there was no good reason to do so.
“Mackie Motors had an unblemished track record going back more than 45 years at the time of their decision and was the number one Renault dealer in the UK for performance.
“We built up a phenomenal business with brilliant staff and a huge number of loyal customers who travelled from all over Scotland.”
In November 2021, Mr Mackie was informed that finance company RCI was terminating Mackie Motors’ used car finance contracts with seven days’ notice.
RCI, Renault and Nissan are interlinked. Renault owns the controlling stake in Nissan, and Nissan own stakes in Renault. RCI is owned by Groupe Renault and also trades as Nissan Finance.
Under the Renault and Nissan franchise agreements, it was a requirement Mackie Motors offered RCI finance deals to its customers.
The notice meant he could no longer offer finance to customers.
But, worse than that, Mackie Motors was also frozen out of integrated systems. That prevented it from being able to order new Renault, Dacia and Nissan vehicles and parts.
Mr Mackie claimed previously hundreds of orders for new cars were cancelled.
The case is now likely to be back in the Court of Appeal in 2023.
Pleas for help from Angus dealership
Richard Coates, partner and head of automotive at law firm Freeths, which is representing Mackie Motors, is confident an appeal will be successful.
He said: “Any future trial will demonstrate that RCI, Renault and Nissan acted unlawfully in the termination of the agreements it held with Mackie Motors for over 45 years on just seven days’ notice.
“The case will be of very real significance to the retail motor industry and beyond.”
Mr Mackie said emails and phone calls to Nissan and Renault “pleading for help” fell on deaf ears.
He added: “To add insult to injury, RCI took our used car vehicle stock and sold it off at loan value as opposed to trade value.
“This was in a market where demand was higher than ever and there had never been such a shortage of quality used vehicles.
“These actions alone cost our company in excess of £400,000 in cash terms.
“I pleaded to be allowed to buy back these cars but they refused to engage.”
A date will be set for the appeal hearing in the new year.
Court of Appeal Judge, Lord Justice Nugee, granted Mackie Motors the right to take its case to appeal.
He stated the appeal has “a sufficiently real prospect of success to justify the grant of permission to appeal”.
RCI Financial Services response
A spokeswoman for RCI Financial Services said: the firm was unable to comment on any ongoing legal proceedings.
However, she added: “RCI Financial Services was very pleased with the earlier decisions of both courts to uphold that we acted lawfully regarding our contract with Mackie Motors.
“We expect the Court of Appeal will also uphold the earlier two court decisions.”
Conversation