Mis sold personal loan agreement

Honest_Abdul

In December 2013 I arranged to terminate my lease with Citroen Finance. I was 28 months into a 37 month contract. The mileage on the day of collection was 31928. My contracted mileage was 12000 pa or 36000 over the term.
The car was collected by G3 a branch of IT Fleet Automotive Ltd. The driver was very thorough. He carried out a full inspection and took a lot of photos. He pointed out 2 areas of minor damage which “might result in a charge”. One was a scratch measuring 10mm on the ROS wing and the other was a small dent on the RNS wing. I viewed both as being acceptable for a car that was 28months old.
Personally, I had no problems with the collector and he dealt with me professionally. In his own words, the car was immaculate. I had polished it and in my opinion it was showroom condition.
Two weeks later I received a letter from RMS with two clear issues
1. My contracted mileage was 20001 over the term. And working on a pro rata basis I had exceeded the stated limit by 16792.11 miles. At 0.05p per mile that worked out at £839.61
2. In addition to the damage recorded, the boot lip was scuffed (normal W&T?) and two alloy wheels were scuffed. The cost of repair for all of the damage was £200.
3. I noted that the report took place 5 days after collection and the vehicle had travelled 110 miles.
I replied by letter, challenging the above points and on Tuesday received an email.
1. My contracted mileage is back to 36000, and pro rata the excess mileage is 4685. The pence per mile figure has gone up to 0.07 and the cost now is £327.85.
2. “As for the damage, our client Citroen Financial Services agree to accept less than the full amount of the debt, provided that you make payment on or before 30/01/2013. Citroen Financial Services agreed to accept the sum of £50.00 for damages, in Full and Final settlement of this Claim. This is based on the damage shown on the first inspection report prior to collection”
3. I have been threatened with court action if I do not settle by 30/1/2013.

I have two issues;
1. My contract refers only to basic mileage, calculated by multiplying the basic annual mileage by the number of years/part years the car was on contract. (12000 x 2.33 = 27960) I had not exceeded the total mileage allowed of 36000.
Q. Is their use of Pro rata allowed?
2. They make reference to Citroen Financial Services but there is nothing in writing to support that.

I am replying to them tomorrow but also writing to both Citroen and the BVRLA
I will keep you posted.

lingham

sorry for the bump,

I am too now a "customer" of RMS.

Like the rest of the people on here I had a car on finance from Peugeot and it was due to end in February this year. I contacted them back in December asking about early termination and how much to pay etc.

They said I had nothing to pay as I was up to date on my payments (every single one I might add as I pay by DD) but I had to pay the rest of my gap insurance off (200 something which was fair enough and I paid that happily and cancelled the DD with my bank - all good)

A guy from a fleet company came to collect the car a few days ago and went round the car inspecting service book, tax etc and took some photos of the car and made me sign his tablet thing and I didn't get a print out as he said his printer wasn't working but he could email one to me which was fair enough and asked for my email address (later emailed peugeot finance kicking off that I handed my car to a stranger and got nothing to confirm I had done so as email never arrived as promised and later received a report from Caroline Atack with an email address of carolineatack@g3rms.co.uk even though Fleet Plus were the company doing the report)

In this report it states no external or internal damage and is signed by a bloke from this company who didn't even mention any charges, possible scuffs or dents when he picked up the car. As far as I was concerned his "report" was the damage report and off it went.

When the car was picked up the screen was frozen due to ice so they may have been a chip in the windscreen but I HIGHLY doubt it so this I can't prove but the rest of the damage is just stupid.

The quote I have is as follows:

Contact term is 37 months and actual term was 33 months. My contracted mileage being 30k and pro rata I did 26756 and collection mileage was 28716 so excess of 1959.24 at a cost of £131.07

The letter from this RMS gives a report from a Aston Barclay Car Auction group with 4 photos of the "damage"

There are two TINY TINY scuffs on the rear bumper of which I can't see in the photo - They want £90 for this, a small dent on the off side rear wing which i can't even see for looking and this is also £90, windscreen chip of £45 and for a scuff on the bumper they want £60 ("local paint to paint a plastic bumper trim...")

Total £416.07 which they want in the "next few days" (letter was dated the 21st) and I just got home today being the 26th so this is a few days so I'm assuming I will get another letter shortly.

What do people reckon? I shall be emailed the CEO's of Peugeot tomorrow and mentioning this thread as proof of their dodgy company they are using

gb12345

Honest_Abdul wrote: »

1. My contract refers only to basic mileage, calculated by multiplying the basic annual mileage by the number of years/part years the car was on contract. (12000 x 2.33 = 27960) I had not exceeded the total mileage allowed of 36000.
Q. Is their use of Pro rata allowed?

Of course it is - you didn't have the car for 36 months, so why should you be allowed 36 months mileage?

lingham

RMS phoned me earlier and asked me to confirm my name and first line of address. I explained I didn't know who they were and wouldn't be confirming anything till they explained why they were calling and he said his name was "Wen" from RMS and until I confirmed that he couldn't carry on the conversation. He said well Mr X the best thing to do would be to write to us so I said ok I will do and hung up.

He called me so I won't be confirming anything.

Sazzy23

Hi all,

Apologies for my delay in reply, not been on here in a while!

We wrote letters (sent recorded delivery) to RMS, Peugeot Finance, Peugeot Customer Service and the garage we bought the car from (as some of the "damage" they were trying to charge us for had occurred prior to our ownership), the letters were sent before Christmas and we haven't heard anything, little rude that none of the above acknowledged our correspondence but equally I am presuming the case has now been closed off (as far as we are concerned it is anyway!) Absolute con men, hoping you will all be successful in winning your cases! Interestingly, when we tried to go on RMS' website, it is not a registered domain which rings alarm bells to me! Good luck!

DCFC79

Sazzy23 wrote: »

Hi all,

Apologies for my delay in reply, not been on here in a while!

We wrote letters (sent recorded delivery) to RMS, Peugeot Finance, Peugeot Customer Service and the garage we bought the car from (as some of the "damage" they were trying to charge us for had occurred prior to our ownership), the letters were sent before Christmas and we haven't heard anything, little rude that none of the above acknowledged our correspondence but equally I am presuming the case has now been closed off (as far as we are concerned it is anyway!) Absolute con men, hoping you will all be successful in winning your cases! Interestingly, when we tried to go on RMS' website, it is not a registered domain which rings alarm bells to me! Good luck!

Whats the website ?

Sazzy23

Hi there,

Well would you believe it, since my posting they now have a website up and running! It also says they are licensed by the office of fair trading! Interesting!

Website is [companyname].co.uk (can't link to the website)

Established in 2012, RMS Receivables are the UK’s leading specialist automotive and asset debt recovery firm.

Working in partnership with some of the UK’s leading businesses, our competitive fee structure allows maximum returns within exceptionally short timescales.

RMS Receivables are committed to providing the best quality debt recovery services by utilising the skills of our experienced and highly trained recovery team, supported by the latest bespoke software applications, working specifically within leasing, finance and asset sectors.

Based in Leeds, we are able to provide specialist debt recovery services from excess mileage, end-of-contract arrears and excessive damage claims over and above client or industry guidelines. In addition, RMS Receivables formulate bespoke debt recovery processes to recover alternative arrears to match specific client requirements. This unique process results in greater returns and superior levels of customer service.

RMS Receivables is licenced by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and follows strict guidelines as to the process and method of recovering arrears from customers.

Consumer Credit Licence: 651286

Company Registration Number: 945 752 296

Sazzy23

Hi all,

Sorry to keep this thread going, but further to my earlier posts, as I mentioned we wrote letters to RMS, Peugeot customer service, Peugeot finance and the garage where the car was purchased (second hand). This was back in December and we heard nothing from anyone. Lo and behold this week we have had a phone call/email demanding the money in 14 days or if not court action! Could anyone please advise? Having taken almost 5 months to get back to us, it seems almost hypocritical to expect us to pay in such a short window of time! Any advice gratefully received, many thanks in advance!

bigjl

Honest_Abdul wrote: »

In December 2013 I arranged to terminate my lease with Citroen Finance. I was 28 months into a 37 month contract. The mileage on the day of collection was 31928. My contracted mileage was 12000 pa or 36000 over the term.
The car was collected by G3 a branch of IT Fleet Automotive Ltd. The driver was very thorough. He carried out a full inspection and took a lot of photos. He pointed out 2 areas of minor damage which “might result in a charge”. One was a scratch measuring 10mm on the ROS wing and the other was a small dent on the RNS wing. I viewed both as being acceptable for a car that was 28months old.
Personally, I had no problems with the collector and he dealt with me professionally. In his own words, the car was immaculate. I had polished it and in my opinion it was showroom condition.
Two weeks later I received a letter from RMS with two clear issues
1. My contracted mileage was 20001 over the term. And working on a pro rata basis I had exceeded the stated limit by 16792.11 miles. At 0.05p per mile that worked out at £839.61
2. In addition to the damage recorded, the boot lip was scuffed (normal W&T?) and two alloy wheels were scuffed. The cost of repair for all of the damage was £200.
3. I noted that the report took place 5 days after collection and the vehicle had travelled 110 miles.
I replied by letter, challenging the above points and on Tuesday received an email.
1. My contracted mileage is back to 36000, and pro rata the excess mileage is 4685. The pence per mile figure has gone up to 0.07 and the cost now is £327.85.
2. “As for the damage, our client Citroen Financial Services agree to accept less than the full amount of the debt, provided that you make payment on or before 30/01/2013. Citroen Financial Services agreed to accept the sum of £50.00 for damages, in Full and Final settlement of this Claim. This is based on the damage shown on the first inspection report prior to collection”
3. I have been threatened with court action if I do not settle by 30/1/2013.

I have two issues;
1. My contract refers only to basic mileage, calculated by multiplying the basic annual mileage by the number of years/part years the car was on contract. (12000 x 2.33 = 27960) I had not exceeded the total mileage allowed of 36000.
Q. Is their use of Pro rata allowed?
2. They make reference to Citroen Financial Services but there is nothing in writing to support that.

I am replying to them tomorrow but also writing to both Citroen and the BVRLA
I will keep you posted.

Have you worked at RMS long?

pvt

Why have you bumped a thread that's been dormant for over 4 months, quoting a post that's 7 months old, making a facetious remark that makes no sense whatsoever?