Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ScotsMan2017
    • By ScotsMan2017 9th Sep 17, 10:34 AM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    ScotsMan2017
    Excess Mileage Charge - Reached Debt Collectors
    • #1
    • 9th Sep 17, 10:34 AM
    Excess Mileage Charge - Reached Debt Collectors 9th Sep 17 at 10:34 AM
    Hi All,

    Long story short, I became unemployed and then using online advice I VT'd my car. I had planned to keep the vehicle at the end of the term so mileage didn't matter.

    So after VT'd they said based on the estimated mileage I was over, I pointed out that I had paid 50% and that was all I was obligated to pay. The debt has now been passed to DLC, so now I'm not sure what my next move is.

    Any help would be appreciated.
Page 2
    • ScotsMan2017
    • By ScotsMan2017 11th Sep 17, 4:51 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ScotsMan2017
    I didn't sign anything saying I would pay for any excess Mileage.

    Yeh the debt collectors have said that they will continue to pursue the claim.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Sep 17, 6:36 PM
    • 32,809 Posts
    • 16,840 Thanks
    Quentin
    I didn't sign anything saying I would pay for any excess Mileage.

    Yeh the debt collectors have said that they will continue to pursue the claim.
    Originally posted by ScotsMan2017
    They are only interested in getting money off you.

    You can safely ignore debt collectors.
    • Ectophile
    • By Ectophile 11th Sep 17, 10:30 PM
    • 2,703 Posts
    • 1,652 Thanks
    Ectophile
    I received this email from the finance company.

    "Thank you for your recent email.

    As advised by our client, your balance has been raised correctly in line with your agreement, even having voluntary terminated your agreement. If you remain dissatisfied with your balance, you will need to escalate this to the Financial Ombudsman Service within 6 months of your final complaint response issued by our client."
    Originally posted by ScotsMan2017
    If you haven't yet made a formal complaint to the finance company, then this communication is essentially your invitation to do so. You should make a formal complaint and wait for their response (or 8 weeks if you don't get one) before going to the ombudsman.

    If this is their response to a formal complaint, then just go straight to the ombudsman.
    If it sticks, force it.
    If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.
    • ScotsMan2017
    • By ScotsMan2017 13th Sep 17, 9:04 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ScotsMan2017
    I have emailed them back stating clearly that I want to make a formal complaint.

    However, going to the FOS will unlikely for anything. They have history of decisions on the side of excess Mileage charges after VT. I would probably have more of a chance in court, arguing that the wording and spirit of VT means excess Mileage charges are at odds with it.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 13th Sep 17, 3:06 PM
    • 460 Posts
    • 72 Thanks
    maddogb
    have you come across any legal references? not sure what approach you can take as essentially whilst VT terminates the contract at that point you agreed to those non fixed charges at the start of the contract.
    Willing to bet many judges will feel you became liable before the VT leaving it a valid debt, so don't rely on reporters views etc get some statute or case law behind your argument.
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 13th Sep 17, 7:17 PM
    • 633 Posts
    • 738 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    have you come across any legal references? not sure what approach you can take as essentially whilst VT terminates the contract at that point you agreed to those non fixed charges at the start of the contract.
    Willing to bet many judges will feel you became liable before the VT leaving it a valid debt, so don't rely on reporters views etc get some statute or case law behind your argument.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    No,

    the VT terminates the contract so none of it's provisions apply any more. The argument in court would be over the wording of the law on VT which states

    “damages if you have failed to take reasonable care of the goods (over and above normal wear and tear)”,

    It's my understanding that no precedent has been set in the courts that excess mileage constitutes damage as finance companies have never taken it that far in case they lose.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 13th Sep 17, 11:29 PM
    • 460 Posts
    • 72 Thanks
    maddogb
    No,

    the VT terminates the contract so none of it's provisions apply any more. The argument in court would be over the wording of the law on VT which states

    “damages if you have failed to take reasonable care of the goods (over and above normal wear and tear)”,

    It's my understanding that no precedent has been set in the courts that excess mileage constitutes damage as finance companies have never taken it that far in case they lose.
    Originally posted by Nobbie1967
    No?
    No you don't have a legal argument?
    Not convinced, CCA,s99, subsection 2 seems to state otherwise...
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 14th Sep 17, 10:28 AM
    • 633 Posts
    • 738 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    No?
    No you don't have a legal argument?
    Not convinced, CCA,s99, subsection 2 seems to state otherwise...
    Originally posted by maddogb
    Interesting point, I would say that no liability has arisen during the contract for excess mileage unless they present a bill at the end of each year for any mileage over the agreed limit (Maybe they should do this as seems a good way to catch people trying to pull a fast one) Not sure what liabilities this would refer to though, possibly missed payments?
    • Joe Horner
    • By Joe Horner 14th Sep 17, 11:14 AM
    • 4,098 Posts
    • 3,572 Thanks
    Joe Horner
    Interesting point, I would say that no liability has arisen during the contract for excess mileage unless they present a bill at the end of each year for any mileage over the agreed limit (Maybe they should do this as seems a good way to catch people trying to pull a fast one) Not sure what liabilities this would refer to though, possibly missed payments?
    Originally posted by Nobbie1967
    Rather than "presenting a bill each year" I'd suggest it would come down to how the mileage allowance is specified in the original contract.

    If it's specified as (say) 30k miles over 3 years (equivalent to 10k per year), then doing 29999 within the first 18 months hasn't triggered any excess mileage clause because you could lay it up for the remaining 18 months and still be within the limit.

    If, on the other hand, it's specified as 10k per year over 3 years (equivalent to 30k over the contract) then the above example would have triggered the excess mileage clause even if your later use effectively hid that.
    • MobileSaver
    • By MobileSaver 14th Sep 17, 12:57 PM
    • 1,186 Posts
    • 1,617 Thanks
    MobileSaver
    Not convinced, CCA,s99, subsection 2 seems to state otherwise...
    Originally posted by maddogb
    I disagree. Subsection 2 says:

    Termination of an agreement under subsection (1) does not affect any liability under the agreement which has accrued before the termination.
    Crucially, before the agreement is terminated, the finance company do not know whether there is any excess mileage or not so how can they raise any liability/invoice? QED before termination there is no liability.

    As pointed out by Nobbie and Joe Horner if the finance house presented, for example, an annual excess mileage bill then that would be owed by the OP as the liability was accrued before termination.

    Most telling for me is that AFAIK no finance company has ever taken the excess mileage issue to court for fear of the precedent it would set. (All this assumes the OP did not sign any 'VT pack' or similar in which case all bets would be off...)
    Respect to 3 of the greatest actors of all time; amazing people who are totally believable as the characters they play & almost single-handedly make the shows they starred in:

    Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones
    Daniel J. Travanti as Frank Furillo in Hill Street Blues
    Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison in Homeland
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 14th Sep 17, 1:30 PM
    • 9,450 Posts
    • 10,618 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    Crucially, before the agreement is terminated, the finance company do not know whether there is any excess mileage or not so how can they raise any liability/invoice? QED before termination there is no liability.
    Originally posted by MobileSaver
    I don't know anything about leasing but to me, that would imply that you could write off the vehicle or leave it in such a poor state as to make it basically worthless then providing you had paid off more than 50%, you could simply voluntarily terminate the lease and hand back the car and the lease company would have no comeback against you?
    • k3lvc
    • By k3lvc 14th Sep 17, 1:36 PM
    • 1,833 Posts
    • 2,869 Thanks
    k3lvc
    I don't know anything about leasing but to me, that would imply that you could write off the vehicle or leave it in such a poor state as to make it basically worthless then providing you had paid off more than 50%, you could simply voluntarily terminate the lease and hand back the car and the lease company would have no comeback against you?
    Originally posted by shaun from Africa

    AFAIK condition has always been covered under BVRLA guidelines (https://www.bvrla.co.uk/service/fair-wear-and-tear-guides) whereas mileage has been a moot point (esp if under the total agreed for the contract even if over the pro-rata)

    Unfortunately reading examples of others on here and other forums where people have done 6k pa contracts with the intention of 30k pa+ then VT'ing is obviously going to leave the lenders in a challenging situation and exploring all avenues
    • neilmcl
    • By neilmcl 14th Sep 17, 1:45 PM
    • 10,023 Posts
    • 7,006 Thanks
    neilmcl
    I don't know anything about leasing but to me, that would imply that you could write off the vehicle or leave it in such a poor state as to make it basically worthless then providing you had paid off more than 50%, you could simply voluntarily terminate the lease and hand back the car and the lease company would have no comeback against you?
    Originally posted by shaun from Africa
    No you couldn't. The legislation is quite clear that you must hand back the car in a reasonable condition, oh and FYI, it's not leasing it's a PCP (and before you say it, they're not the same thing at all)
    • MobileSaver
    • By MobileSaver 14th Sep 17, 1:47 PM
    • 1,186 Posts
    • 1,617 Thanks
    MobileSaver
    you could simply voluntarily terminate the lease and hand back the car and the lease company would have no comeback against you?
    Originally posted by shaun from Africa
    No, not at all, as one of the other terms of VT is that you have an "obligation to take reasonable care of the goods" so in the situation you describe the finance company could perfectly legally charge you for any damage.
    Respect to 3 of the greatest actors of all time; amazing people who are totally believable as the characters they play & almost single-handedly make the shows they starred in:

    Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones
    Daniel J. Travanti as Frank Furillo in Hill Street Blues
    Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison in Homeland
    • bigadaj
    • By bigadaj 14th Sep 17, 7:11 PM
    • 10,012 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    bigadaj
    AFAIK condition has always been covered under BVRLA guidelines (https://www.bvrla.co.uk/service/fair-wear-and-tear-guides) whereas mileage has been a moot point (esp if under the total agreed for the contract even if over the pro-rata)

    Unfortunately reading examples of others on here and other forums where people have done 6k pa contracts with the intention of 30k pa+ then VT'ing is obviously going to leave the lenders in a challenging situation and exploring all avenues
    Originally posted by k3lvc
    Though there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of the very low mileage included in many contracts being glossed over by the sales staff as unimportant or even being ignored.

    In that case there an argument for Mis selling.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 14th Sep 17, 10:23 PM
    • 460 Posts
    • 72 Thanks
    maddogb
    I disagree. Subsection 2 says:

    Crucially, before the agreement is terminated, the finance company do not know whether there is any excess mileage or not so how can they raise any liability/invoice? QED before termination there is no liability.

    As pointed out by Nobbie and Joe Horner if the finance house presented, for example, an annual excess mileage bill then that would be owed by the OP as the liability was accrued before termination.

    Most telling for me is that AFAIK no finance company has ever taken the excess mileage issue to court for fear of the precedent it would set. (All this assumes the OP did not sign any 'VT pack' or similar in which case all bets would be off...)
    Originally posted by MobileSaver
    Sorry mate but that's nonsense, since when is liability determined by an invoice? And whilst its true there has been no case to set precedent that could be just as telling that any defendant has been advised they have no case and have settled.

    Interesting point, I would say that no liability has arisen during the contract for excess mileage unless they present a bill at the end of each year for any mileage over the agreed limit (Maybe they should do this as seems a good way to catch people trying to pull a fast one) Not sure what liabilities this would refer to though, possibly missed payments?
    Originally posted by Nobbie1967
    Can only point to joes post, think it's more likely down to wording of contract on how mileage is set pro rata but again can't see any requirement in law for an invoice or bill to deem the point of liability.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 14th Sep 17, 10:37 PM
    • 9,450 Posts
    • 10,618 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    oh and FYI, it's not leasing it's a PCP (and before you say it, they're not the same thing at all)
    Originally posted by neilmcl

    I wouldn't say it for the reason I stated in my earlier post. (I know next to nothing about leasing) which is why I made my post a question rather than a statement of fact.
    • MobileSaver
    • By MobileSaver 15th Sep 17, 6:32 AM
    • 1,186 Posts
    • 1,617 Thanks
    MobileSaver
    Sorry mate but that's nonsense, since when is liability determined by an invoice?
    Originally posted by maddogb
    No, it's not the invoice that determines liability but timing.

    If you see the PCP agreement to fruition and buy the car then there is no excess mileage liability. The liability only arises if you terminate the agreement early however at that point the CCA kicks in and you are only liable for anything accrued before termination.

    It would not surprise me if this was deliberately worded by the law makers otherwise what would stop the PCP company having any of the following terms:

    1) If you VT this agreement then you will pay us a £100 admin fee
    2) If you VT this agreement you will pay us a £500 admin fee
    3) If you VT this agreement you will pay us the remaining 50% still owed...

    And whilst its true there has been no case to set precedent that could be just as telling that any defendant has been advised they have no case and have settled.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    I am sure that is true in lots of cases because people believe the bullying tactics and cave in. However I know first hand and there is lots of anecdotal evidence here and on legalbeagles that in fact it is the PCP company who cave in when presented with a robust denial of debt.

    Similarly if the PCP companies are so confident of their take on this issue then why do they try so hard to get people to sign "VT Packs" with additional T&Cs that are probably outside of the CCA protection?
    Respect to 3 of the greatest actors of all time; amazing people who are totally believable as the characters they play & almost single-handedly make the shows they starred in:

    Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones
    Daniel J. Travanti as Frank Furillo in Hill Street Blues
    Claire Danes as Carrie Mathison in Homeland
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 15th Sep 17, 6:22 PM
    • 460 Posts
    • 72 Thanks
    maddogb
    Still not sure I get the logic of the argument, apart from it simply would not be good PR to pursue a debtor who couldn't afford the contract anyway.
    I think there are a lot of posts centered on what people would like to believe rather than any factual legal basis, the termination of the agreement is simply that, not a change of any terms within it and if the signee agrees to a liability for charges over an estimated amount those charge would become due at the moment of termination but liability arose the moment they went over the agreed mileage and section 2 allows for pursuit of liabilities accrued before termination.
    And as the car is handed back there is no need for estimation?
    If it were me I would want a better argument than has been presented here before risking further penalties.
    Last edited by maddogb; 15-09-2017 at 10:00 PM. Reason: autocorrect errors
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 16th Sep 17, 12:47 PM
    • 633 Posts
    • 738 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    Still not sure I get the logic of the argument, apart from it simply would not be good PR to pursue a debtor who couldn't afford the contract anyway.
    I think there are a lot of posts centered on what people would like to believe rather than any factual legal basis, the termination of the agreement is simply that, not a change of any terms within it and if the signee agrees to a liability for charges over an estimated amount those charge would become due at the moment of termination but liability arose the moment they went over the agreed mileage and section 2 allows for pursuit of liabilities accrued before termination.
    And as the car is handed back there is no need for estimation?
    If it were me I would want a better argument than has been presented here before risking further penalties.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    If as you suggest, liability arises from the moment you go over the pro-rate mileage allowance, then why do no finance companies take it all the way through the courts to set precedent. I can't see it being bad PR, as finance companies have a pretty low profile. The more obvious reason is that they recognise that the liability only arises at the end of the contract term, or when customers sign additional agreement after VT.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,075Posts Today

8,567Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @KCMurdarasi: @MartinSLewis Only 2 fluently, but I can struggle by in another 5 or so. And ask the way to the toilet in about 10 - you d?

  • Today's twitter poll: How many languages do you speak (inc Eng) with reasonable fluency (eg can have decent phone chat solely in that lang)

  • RT @iiSteveJonesii: @MartinSLewis After watching you talk this morning about me burning £300 I got on a comparison site tonight & sure enou?

  • Follow Martin