Unfair Wear and Tear Recharges at end of Vehicle Lease.

jd82

Always take lots of pictures of the car before it gets collected. Idealy try and capture some with the date in the background too (not sure how easy that would be) but it will make it harder them to despute these things.

At the end of the day they have to prove the damage was done by you, if a driver collects the car how do they know he didn't damage it?

penny.pincher_6

jd82 wrote: »

At the end of the day they have to prove the damage was done by you, if a driver collects the car how do they know he didn't damage it?

Thanks for the response! That's what I thought, especially as we were billed exactly one MONTH after collection! That's quite a while for something to have happened to it, and in all honesty I can only assume they HAVE done it, as I'm very sure we didn't.

However they say that's not the case, and they don't have to prove it... it's just tough luck sums up their response!
:-(

maninthestreet

penny.pincher wrote: »

We returned a Dodge Nitro to Mercedes Benz financial services at the beginning of December last year (one month early) after 14 months of having it from brand new. I was confident there was not any excessive damage to the car, and as it was a "wet" collection, a full inspection was not possible. The guy who collected it barely spoke to me, and really didn't say anything about any damage, and as I was confident there wasn't any I took that as a good sign.

We heard nothing from them until one month later, when we got a bill for nearly £500 for alleged "major damage" to the front bumper... a photo was included (though it was a close up, so no actual certainty that it was the same vehicle.

Now had there been some charges some some petty things I probably would just accept this as another bill that just has to be paid, but I feel GUTTED about this, as I am SO certain it was not on the vehicle when collected, and sure we would have seen it (a long scratch across the front of the enormous bumper), and given that we still had (and had paid for) another month on the lease, would have definitely taken the time and effort to investigate the cost of repair ourselves, as we'd had a good look at the return of vehicle standards.

I phoned them an d disputed their claim, they said they'd get back to me... nobody did, they just sent a payment reminder. I phoned again... same again... I phoned again, the adviser told me I needed to email my dispute... I did... heard nothing for a few days, then had an email saying "we acknowledge your email" then nothing else until today, where I received another, more threatening demand for payment.

I just phoned them and he said there is nothing I can do about it, except cough up!!

Is there anything I can do?!:eek:

Don't pay.

skhwoody

contacted this lad who is apprently the lombard assessor for damage, i sent a terse email asking them to quantify the amount of money being charged as i found it excessive to the work being done (they wanted £90 + vat for a replacement key which i had to send a week after it went) and managed to get the cost down to £300, still a lot but less than half originally request. I think best advice i can give is be reasonable and quantify all comments / charges from them.

It seems to me they are willing to go into negotiation.

Chippie

I don't have time to post much right now but I have only just found this thread and find it fascinating. I am an independant BVRLA (British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association) end of lease inspector. This issue of speculative invoicing at the end of lease has been a bug bear of mine for some time and it is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I read with total empathy what has been written above and have to say that in my experience, by far the worst company who perpetrate this malpractice is Mercedes Benz Finance. What they do (in my opinion) borders on the criminal and the way they treat customers who query end of lease recharges is at best arrogant!

There are a couple of issues with the accuracy of the advice offered above however, which could leave those following it with more of a headache than a cure. I have felt so strongly about this practice, which I consider tantamount to extortion (for want of a better word) that I would love for those who feel they have been wronged, to voice their opinions maybe in the form of a blog or a sticky thread on this forum. Only if such publicity is given to this issue en-mass, will anything ever be done. But remember if you damage a car you are responsible for it, so it should never be considered that I am supporting those who are negligent and looking for a way to avoid these responsibilities. Too many lease and finance companies consider end of lease recharging as a legitimate additional income stream. This stance needs to be challenged.

I cannot orchestrate such a thing as I could be seen to have a vested interest, however i would willingly give my time to anyone else who wishes to take up the gauntlet! I also have a colleague who is also an independant inspector who has a Cambridge law degree and was a police inspector. I am certain he would also willingly support any initiatives with both guidance and advice from a legal perspective. I will post something more comprehensive later on (hopefully tonight). Until then, all the best and if anyone wishes to take on the challenge, let us know!

Chippie

Ling_Valentine wrote: »

I would suggest to anyone to get all damage repaired before car goes back and then have no arguments over a perfect car. Or over cost of any genuine repairs.

If you use cheap smart repairs or a proper valet company, they will do it cheap and after a couple of polish/small repairs will be happy to write a letterhead to say "all panels, wheels and paintwork examined and absolutely no faults found". If you enclose a copy of this with car on collection, it will pre-empt any "over zealous" inspections. You also have evidence if they are stupid enough to challenge you.

I will also advise:

As soon as last proper payment has been made, STOP THE DIRECT DEBIT as they are inclined to automatically charge to the DD and then argue later. You are in much better position if you have not paid the "repair" money. Do not stop the DD before the last lease payment made, and you should accept reasonable costs or extra days charges and pay them promptly by cheque or card. Don't keep them waiting for genuine payments, as they are finance companies and they are not slow to mark any default on credit files.

Hope this helps. I really wouldn't send a car back with damage, this is asking for high charges and a nit-picking inspection. For instance, a 2-year old car with just 20k miles should be hard to fault.

Ling, what you say is in general good advice [as usual! :-)]. However (see the bit I've highlighted in red), an inspection by a run of the mill SMART repairer will protect no-one against the intransigence of a large lease company, they will simply call your bluff and ask how the SMART repairer is qualified to assess a vehicle to the lease company's own standards. Similarly any SMART repairer worth their salt would never offer a written declaration either, knowing that they are not accredited or trained to carry out such an inspection. They would, by doing so, leave themselves open to a possible claim by the car owner. There are other measures which can be taken which are far more effective, but even these, ultimately, rely on the lease/finance company not to view unjustifiable end of lease charges as a legitimate income stream. This "rogue trader" activity needs to be tackled in a far more widespread and forceful way if it is ever to be eradicated.

Chippie

maninthestreet wrote: »

Don't pay.

I am glad your user name is maninthestreet because this is NOT good advice!

edwrai

LOL that made me laugh...

voice2011

Ok here it goes...could do with some advice or guidance...

Basically I had terminated my vehicle agreement under the VT ruling. Vehicle was inspected and collected by a G3 Remarketing Rep, collected on 16th August 2011.

The vehicle in question is was a beautiful Peugeot 407 black (2008), when I brought the vehicle the millage was 22,000 upon return after 2 years it was only 32,000.

3 weeks after I get a legal letter invoicing me for damages to the vehicle of £697.75 which alleges that the damages are above Fear wear and Tear guidance on behalf of their clients guess who?....G3 Remarketing.

Naturally im like OMG when I saw the cost and report that has enlisted all the damages, I totally refuse all costs associated with the alleged damages and had requested the following clarification and their response:

1. Please can you inform me where and who is in possession of the vehicle? Sold at auction

2. Please can you confirm where was the vehicle taken after its collection? The vehicle was taken to the nearest storage compound and then to G3 the following day.

3. Please can you verify if I am able to carry out an independent vehicle inspection? No as vehicle is sold

4. Please confirm if any of the smart repair(s) enlisted of your client’s inspection report have been carried out? No

5. Please confirm what date the vehicle inspection was carried out by your client as this is omitted from your clients engineer report provided? 17th August 2011

6. Please provide photos of the alleged vehicle damage(s)and information where it was repaired and the name of the garage? Photos provided of different vehicle and no receipts for repairs as no repairs had been carried out!

7. Please explain why it has taken your client almost 3 weeks for me to receive an invoice for the damage? Administrator was on leave

8. Please explain how the charges have been applied and why the alleged damages were not noted upon collection appeared on your clients engineer’s report? due to wet conditions

9. Please provide any/all documents, records and receipts relating to the work being/or has been carried out by your client? none

Is it me or are these people really taking me for a ride!!! I mean its disgusting that all they seem to be saying is that since I signed the report upon collection which potentially holds me liable for charges after they are now attempting to extract more money for repairs that have not been carried out, and a vehicle which has been sold at auction and for images that they have sent which a) is a different vehicle altogether im not even going to dispute the fact that in addition the images are so small you cant even see the damages!!!

Help I welcome any advice. At the moment I have requested the legal rep to put a stay on taking court proceedings subject to registering and outcome of my complaint with the BVRLA.