Car finance ended. Big repair bill after inspection.

wwfwilla

So, to cut a long story short after 3 years and about 6 weeks my car was collected today by a collections agency because the finance ended.

What I wasn't prepared for was the bill I got for repairs.
I knew the car was going to have an in depth inspection but I thought it was just to check that it wouldn't fall apart as soon as they got it off the driveway. Seriously I thought it'd be cracks in the windscreen, spare tyre missing, cigarette burns etc.

But I've been given a bill for £247 excluding VAT (about £300 altogether) for 2 scratches and some wear to an alloy.
One scratch I reckon could have treated with some t-cut and a bit of buffing.

As for the wear on the alloy. I'd challenge anyone who parked at the side of a road to go to work for 3 years not to brush the kerb every now and again.

I've read the terms and conditions and it seems that more or less they want the car back as good as when it's given to me.
It states any scratch which penetrates the primer coat is considered abnormal. I can't help it if the the transit van that clipped me while parked didn't do it a little lighter.

So im just after the views of people in the industry or have been in this position.
I find the damage repair bill very picky and very expensive. I just don't think its fair.

Do I have any rights for a second opinion or something like that or have I just got to cough up?

Extra details:
Company: Peugeot Financial Services
Collections agency: Manheim Auctions
Car: a 60 plate Peugeot 207 in 37 monthly payments with lump sum at end or return the car.

Many thanks for your support.

P.S. I don't know if this makes a difference but the registration document (V5C logbook) wasn't signed by the anyone so I still am technically the registered keeper right?

BeenThroughItAll

IMHO - boo hoo. You signed for an agreement, they've inspected the car thoroughly as per the agreement. By the sounds of things, you only read the terms and conditions AFTER you'd handed the car back. That's an expensive mistake you won't make again.

If you were hit by a Transit, why didn't you claim on the insurance?

I have two cars with alloy wheels, each of which is more than three years old and has over 50K miles on, and of which only one of the eight wheels has any damage, which I caused myself at the weekend when I dropped a wheelbrace which chipped the paint.

Worth pointing out that if they're charging you £300 for two SMART scratch repairs and a wheel refurb, that's not bad value.

fivetide

Compared to some stories it sounds fairly cheap.

BeenThroughItAll

fivetide wrote: »

Compared to some stories it sounds fairly cheap.

It is. Moral of the story is if you want to run a car on the cheap, buy a cheap car.

Trebor16

Well, the replies above are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard to the OP. Here are some previous MSE threads on the same subject to look at. Post 7 in the first link may give you some insight into how things work:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1167285

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4780940

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2521391

A £300 bill is not huge compared to some but I would ask for a breakdown of the bill. Refurbishing an alloy wheel can start at about £50 but it depends on the wheel finish. If it is a diamond cut alloy then they are more expensive to repair.

BeenThroughItAll

Trebor16 wrote: »

Well, the replies you have had above are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard to the OP. Here are some previous MSE threads on the same subject to look at. Post 7 in the first link may give you some insight into how things work:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1167285

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4780940

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2521391

I beg to differ. They're useful in making the point that one should always read the terms and conditions before signing up, that way you'll never end up in a position where you don't like the outcome of something which could have been avoided.

Also useful in making the point that £300 is quite cheap for what they're saying needs to be done.

I will concede that my posts, in particular, are of no use in helping the OP avoid their responsibility under the terms of the contract he signed to deliver the car back to the leasing company in what those terms deem an acceptable state.

Trebor16

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

I beg to differ. They're useful in making the point that one should always read the terms and conditions before signing up, that way you'll never end up in a position where you don't like the outcome of something which could have been avoided.

Also useful in making the point that £300 is quite cheap for what they're saying needs to be done.

I will concede that my posts, in particular, are of no use in helping the OP avoid their responsibility under the terms of the contract he signed to deliver the car back to the leasing company in what those terms deem an acceptable state.

Starting off your reply to the OP with "IMHO - boo hoo" is about as much use as a one legged man in a backside kicking contest.

As for avoiding responsibility, it is clear that from some previous threads on MSE about the return of lease cars and the bills being levied that some lease companies do extract the urine with their charges and of what the condition they expect a three year old car to be in.

By pointing the OP in the direction of some previous threads it will allow him to make an informed decision and to see if the charges being levied are justified and fair or if they are a case of the lease company trying it on.

JasonLVC

You should have been sent a copy of the BVRLA lease return standard booklet/guide that explains the kind of condition the vehicle should be returned in.

Scratches and scuffs are allowed but they have to be small and within certain paremeters, so a 5cm light scratch to doors will be fine but a 8cm gauge will not be.

Really good website here http://www.clean-image.co.uk/leasing/

These are a company that handle lease returns for drivers who don't want any surprises. They have examples of what is and what isn't acceptable.

The charges you have been quoted are not unreasonable, although without knowing what level of damage has been done its difficult to be certain, but generally there isn't any rip-off per se.

If you disagree woith the quote/assessment of damage then you can take it up with the BVRLA and failing that, take it to the Financial Ombudsman.

http://www.bvrla.co.uk/advice/guidance/returning-your-leased-vehicle

BeenThroughItAll

Trebor16 wrote: »

Starting off your reply to the OP with "IMHO - boo hoo" is about as much use as a one legged man in a backside kicking contest.

As for avoiding responsibility, it is clear that from some previous threads on MSE about the return of lease cars and the bills being levied that some lease companies do extract the urine with their charges and of what the condition they expect a three year old car to be in.

By pointing the OP in the direction of some previous threads it will allow him to make an informed decision and to see if the charges being levied are justified and fair or if they are a case of the lease company trying it on.

Each to their own. I wasn't trying to help the OP avoid his responsibility, just state my opinion.

And yes, I do consider it to be avoiding his responsibility. Some lease companies will take the p155, but in this case £300 sounds like a very reasonable bill. Sure, I could get the repairs done trade for £150, but bearing in mind they're retail prices via a third party? Bargain.

wwfwilla

Well thank you to most of you for taking the time to comment with helpful information.
I wasn't asking to be judged but I won't take it to heart.

As for some of the issues brought up:

The repair bill is as follows: (prices excl VAT)

1. Panel above rear wheel arch. Scratch through paint. Refresh at £122.
2. Rear bumper. Scratch through paint. Smart repair at £65.
3. Alloy wheel. Alloy damage. Alloy smart repair at £60.

First one is approx 6 or 7cm long but I think it could have been tcut and buffed.
Second one has took the paint right off but is 2-3cm in length.

I would happily pay up but can't understand the difference between the 2 scratches. The second one has took all the paint off, the first is just minor.
If I were to use an analogy. The first one is first degree burn, the second one is third degree burn. But the first one is double the price.

I notice that length has been talked about for wear and tear but all it says in the t's and c's is depth. It says if it can be buffed out then it won't charge. If it's broken the primer then it's abnormal.

As for the BVRLA guide. When I originally purchased the car I was given some pages with the small print on.
Then when I got my notice of collection they provided an excerpt of the t's and c's on my letter, corresponding to damage.
I've never had anything branded with BVRLA.
I think I'm going to ask for that guide from Peugeot.

In summary I'm about 80% sure one of the scratches can be tcut and buffed. I'd happily pay the remainder as I think the last 2 items are fair.