End of Lease Damage Charges

gener8or

I’m in a bit of a conundrum with end of lease damage charges after an 18 month lease. Covered 8k of 12k allowance.
I arranged for the collection on 13 September, I advised them I had a hospital appointment at 10am so let me know the time the day before. The day came and they called me at 9am stating they will be there at 10:30am, I explained the situation, she said she cannot re-arrange but leave the keys with the neighbour (Big mistake in hindsight). I did that and the car was gone on my return.

I heard nothing from the finance provider until 1 month later a 1 page invoice in the post listed below with charges:
Front Bumper £95
Alloy Wheel L £65
Alloy Wheel R £65
B Post L £100
D Post L £225
Quarter Panel R £175
Total invoice £725
I contacted the provider asking for more information, eventually they provided me with a report with pictures from the collection agent. Not signed or verified by me. I contacted the provider and contested the charges stating what I believe were fair wear and tear and what I had made good
The finance company replied stating:

front bumper - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the damage has broke through the paintwork.

NSF alloy - We have reviewed the image and can confirm on this occasion, we do not agree with the damage charged therefore we will raise credit for this.

NS B post - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the scratch has penetrated the paintwork.

NS D post - The BVRLA guidelines state dents of 15mm or less in diameter are acceptable provided there are no more than two per panel and the paint surface is not broken.
The image provided shows the damage has broke through the paintwork.

OS qtr panel - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the damage exceeds this.

OSF alloy - We have reviewed the image and can confirm the image does not support the damage charged therefore we have raised credit for this charge.
Following a full investigation into the issues that you have raised I can confirm that your dispute has been upheld and in recognition of this, I have raised credit for the OSF and the NSF alloys, reducing your total invoice charge to £595.00

Having reached our decision, this letter represents our final response. However, if you remain dissatisfied with our response and there is no additional information to be submitted, you have the right to refer your complaint to the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. Further details can be obtained from their website https://www.bvrla.co.uk/content/contact-us

I replied back with my final response:

Front Bumper
The image clearly shows the this to be on the surface of the paintwork not broken through. I dispute this as damage and need to see proof that the damage cannot be polished out.

NS B Post
Looking at the picture this is a tiny chip of 2mm, on the door trim, I cannot accept this as not fair wear and tear.

NS D Post
I think this charge is unfair, I had not ever seen this damage before and it is your word against mine. This is in dispute, could this have been caused at inspection?

OS qtr panel
I accept this damage / repair is outside of the fair wear and tear and I'm prepared to take the COST to put this right, I would need to see the repair quotation(s) though before.

I would believe the OS qtr panel can be refinished for £100 but once I have the quotations can take further advice on the matter. The other 3 charges are disputed and apart from the D Post should be covered through fair wear and tear.

They replied:
When a vehicle is damaged by a customer, the leasing companies are not legally obliged to repair the vehicles and will only do so if the vehicle is not in a drivable condition, this is to avoid any lengthy loss of use periods that are unnecessary. The money taken for repairs is viewed as compensation for the eventual repairs or loss of value when sold, this is why you may notice that vehicles are not always repaired on the spot after taking cosmetic damage.

We have reviewed the images you have disputed and can confirm all images support the damage charged.

Unfortunately, we are unable to reduce your invoice. If you would like to dispute this any further, we would suggest you contact BVRLA for further guidance.

----
I’m not sure where to take it from here, I agree to one charge but they seem to think they can just rip me off. Anybody been the BVRLA for dispute resolution?

loskie

They do not have to provide a quotation to you for repairs. The damage will not/nor needs to be repaired you are paying for the assumed loss of value.
You should have ensured you were present at time of collection.

When I returned a lease car the agent did tell me they recd a % of the damage monies recovered hence claims can be inflated. This was a collection for Moto Novo going to Manheim

AdrianC

gener8or wrote: »

I’m in a bit of a conundrum with end of lease damage charges after an 18 month lease. Covered 8k of 12k allowance.

So not liable for any excess mileage - and you're not being charged any.

I arranged for the collection on 13 September, I advised them I had a hospital appointment at 10am so let me know the time the day before. The day came and they called me at 9am stating they will be there at 10:30am, I explained the situation, she said she cannot re-arrange but leave the keys with the neighbour (Big mistake in hindsight). I did that and the car was gone on my return.

Hence no signature from you on collection.

I heard nothing from the finance provider until 1 month later a 1 page invoice in the post listed below with charges:

For ease, I'm going to rearrange your post to keep all comments on each item together...

Front Bumper £95

Them: front bumper - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the damage has broke through the paintwork.

You: Front Bumper
The image clearly shows the this to be on the surface of the paintwork not broken through. I dispute this as damage and need to see proof that the damage cannot be polished out.

So you're not disputing the existence, simply whether it's within the wear and tear guidelines.

[STRIKE]Alloy Wheel L £65[/STRIKE]

Them: NSF alloy - We have reviewed the image and can confirm on this occasion, we do not agree with the damage charged therefore we will raise credit for this.

[STRIKE]Alloy Wheel R £65[/STRIKE]

Them: OSF alloy - We have reviewed the image and can confirm the image does not support the damage charged therefore we have raised credit for this charge.

So they're off the list.

B Post L £100

Them: NS B post - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the scratch has penetrated the paintwork.

You: NS B Post
Looking at the picture this is a tiny chip of 2mm, on the door trim, I cannot accept this as not fair wear and tear.

So you don't dispute that it has gone through the paint?

D Post L £225

Them: NS D post - The BVRLA guidelines state dents of 15mm or less in diameter are acceptable provided there are no more than two per panel and the paint surface is not broken.
The image provided shows the damage has broke through the paintwork.

You: NS D Post
I think this charge is unfair, I had not ever seen this damage before and it is your word against mine. This is in dispute, could this have been caused at inspection?

You're saying "I never noticed it, therefore you must have done it and you're lying"...? Is it possibly you simply didn't notice it? After all, they're inspecting in controlled conditions and far more closely than you will do while using the car.

Quarter Panel R £175

Them: OS qtr panel - The BVRLA guidelines state surface scratches of 25mm or less where the primer or bar metal is not showing are acceptable provided they can be polished out.
The image provided shows the damage exceeds this.

You: OS qtr panel
I accept this damage / repair is outside of the fair wear and tear and I'm prepared to take the COST to put this right, I would need to see the repair quotation(s) though before.

So no argument over the existence of the damage or the scope.

Total invoice £725

Less the wheels, £595

You aren't arguing the B pillar (£100) and quarter panel (£175) - so £275 is agreed.
You are arguing the scope of damage agreed to exist to the bumper (£95), and the existence of damage to the D pillar (£225).

So given that they've agreed the wheels, and the total bill is now £595...
You're disputing £220. No more than that.
You're agreeing £275 is appropriate.

I would believe the OS qtr panel can be refinished for £100 but once I have the quotations can take further advice on the matter. The other 3 charges are disputed and apart from the D Post should be covered through fair wear and tear.

You agreed the appropriate wear and tear standards when you took the lease on. They are thoroughly documented. The damage to B pillar and quarter panel is outside of the acceptable damage you agreed, whatever you now think that agreement should be.

They replied:
When a vehicle is damaged by a customer, the leasing companies are not legally obliged to repair the vehicles and will only do so if the vehicle is not in a drivable condition, this is to avoid any lengthy loss of use periods that are unnecessary. The money taken for repairs is viewed as compensation for the eventual repairs or loss of value when sold, this is why you may notice that vehicles are not always repaired on the spot after taking cosmetic damage.

And they're right, and - again - you agreed that when you took the lease on. If you wanted to control the cost, then you do that by getting the work done before the car is collected.

We have reviewed the images you have disputed and can confirm all images support the damage charged.

Unfortunately, we are unable to reduce your invoice. If you would like to dispute this any further, we would suggest you contact BVRLA for further guidance.
----
I’m not sure where to take it from here, I agree to one charge but they seem to think they can just rip me off. Anybody been the BVRLA for dispute resolution?

You view it as "ripping you off" because you seem to want to retrospectively and unilaterally change the scope of the agreement you made when you took the lease on.

On a side note, all of that damage after just 8,000 miles...?

Car_54

gener8or wrote: »

---
I’m not sure where to take it from here,

They’ve told you where to take it. There is no realistic alternative until you’ve exhausted that procedure.

gener8or

AdrianC wrote: »

So not liable for any excess mileage - and you're not being charged any.


Hence no signature from you on collection.


For ease, I'm going to rearrange your post to keep all comments on each item together...


So you're not disputing the existence, simply whether it's within the wear and tear guidelines.


So they're off the list.


So you don't dispute that it has gone through the paint?


You're saying "I never noticed it, therefore you must have done it and you're lying"...? Is it possibly you simply didn't notice it? After all, they're inspecting in controlled conditions and far more closely than you will do while using the car.


So no argument over the existence of the damage or the scope.


Less the wheels, £595

You aren't arguing the B pillar (£100) and quarter panel (£175) - so £275 is agreed.
You are arguing the scope of damage agreed to exist to the bumper (£95), and the existence of damage to the D pillar (£225).

So given that they've agreed the wheels, and the total bill is now £595...
You're disputing £220. No more than that.
You're agreeing £275 is appropriate.


You agreed the appropriate wear and tear standards when you took the lease on. They are thoroughly documented. The damage to B pillar and quarter panel is outside of the acceptable damage you agreed, whatever you now think that agreement should be.


And they're right, and - again - you agreed that when you took the lease on. If you wanted to control the cost, then you do that by getting the work done before the car is collected.


You view it as "ripping you off" because you seem to want to retrospectively and unilaterally change the scope of the agreement you made when you took the lease on.

On a side note, all of that damage after just 8,000 miles...?

Hi Adrian, thanks for the comprehensive reply:

I could kick myself for letting them collect without me being there, the threat of extra missed collection charges gave me anxiety.

B pillar (£100) is not argued, the cost of it is, the £100 wasnt in my contract and is not a fair charge for a scratch

quarter panel (£175) is not argued, the cost again I believe is significant in relation to the damage.

existence of damage to the D pillar (£225), I didn't notice this, it could have been myself or likely my wife trapping the belt in the door, it could have been there on delivery or it could have been caused by the agent on collection. But I didn't see this. I also believe the £225 is excessive and not in relation to the damage and very unlikely to affect future value.

bumper (£95), I do not dispute there is a mark, I dispute its broken the paintwork and it can easily be polished out.

I believe the collection agents, Manheim have been over zealous in assessing the condition of the car. Proved by removal of 2 charges with regards to the wheels.

Thanks again

gener8or

Car_54 wrote: »

They’ve told you where to take it. There is no realistic alternative until you’ve exhausted that procedure.

Thanks for the input, I will

gener8or

loskie wrote: »

They do not have to provide a quotation to you for repairs. The damage will not/nor needs to be repaired you are paying for the assumed loss of value.
You should have ensured you were present at time of collection.

When I returned a lease car the agent did tell me they recd a % of the damage monies recovered hence claims can be inflated. This was a collection for Moto Novo going to Manheim

Yes, its a lesson learnt the hard way, I've had a few leases without issue. I wont do it again.

The agent who called then collected the car, she almost talked me into not being there on the phone, saying they dont need me there and if I cannot give the keys to someone they will make a re-collection charge. I was an easy target in hindsight.
Its already been proved they over exaggerated the damage as £130 was already removed by the finance company.

pramsay13

I had a bill for around £700.

I argued with each point and quoted the BVRLA guidelines.

Our car was a family car and had done over 30,000 miles in three years.

They took some items off and reduced others, maybe to around £500 worth.

I argued again and they reduced it to £250ish (I can't remember exact amount).

I complained to BVRLA although they agreed with car company as it had already been reduced twice.

It is worth remembering the BVRLA is financed by these companies so in my opinion can't be totally impartial.

I would have argued further but my wife wanted to pay up.

I also spoke to the original car dealer and said that I wasn't happy that the finance company had levied these charges and that as such we wouldn't be buying from them again unless they could lean on them to reduce the costs.

They didn't so we got our next car elsewhere.

gener8or

pramsay13 wrote: »

I had a bill for around £700.

I argued with each point and quoted the BVRLA guidelines.

Our car was a family car and had done over 30,000 miles in three years.

They took some items off and reduced others, maybe to around £500 worth.

I argued again and they reduced it to £250ish (I can't remember exact amount).

I complained to BVRLA although they agreed with car company as it had already been reduced twice.

It is worth remembering the BVRLA is financed by these companies so in my opinion can't be totally impartial.

I would have argued further but my wife wanted to pay up.

I also spoke to the original car dealer and said that I wasn't happy that the finance company had levied these charges and that as such we wouldn't be buying from them again unless they could lean on them to reduce the costs.

They didn't so we got our next car elsewhere.

Thanks for the reply!
You did well to get the fees reduced, the finance company are not up for any negotiation, I tried, its almost like they want me to go to the BVRLA because they know it will go in their favour and i'll have to pay up!

I had a look at the BVRLA stats, most are in favour of the member, what a surprise!

gener8or

Below is the extracts from my actual contract that I have signed with with the finance provider:

- Couple of interesting points from my view

9.1.4 states "our costs in respect of carrying out repairs" not fixed costs for damage or costs implied for decrease in value.

Implies scratches in a prominent position only need to be touched in or resprayed

Implies multiple scratches to the finish that cannot be removed by buffing constitute abnormal wear

Multiple dents in any one panel and any dent greater than 10 millimetres in diameter on the bonnet, boot, roof, or above the body moulding lines on the sides of the vehicle is considered abnormal.

I think I should forget the BVRLA and go straight to the finance companies complaint procedure, thoughts?

9 Payments on termination
9.1 On termination of this agreement under clauses 8.2 or 10.1, during or at the end of the fixed period, you will immediately pay to us together with VAT;
9.1.4 our costs in respect of servicing, providing replacement parts and carrying out repairs which are needed to put the vehicle in good condition following its return or repossession or resulting from an accident or deliberate or negligent damage to the vehicle
RETURN CONDITIONS SCHEDULE
The vehicle will be deemed to be in “good condition” for the purposes of this agreement if it is undamaged and has no abnormal wear and tear as defined below:
Scratches
• Any scratch which penetrates the primer coat, dependent upon its position on the body, is considered abnormal wear and tear. Any scratch in a prominent position should be “touched-in” or resprayed to a colour match by the dealer
• Multiple scratches to the finish that cannot be removed by buffing constitute abnormal wear
• Prominent scratches to chrome/bright metal/inserts constitute abnormal wear
• Any size dent in chrome/bright metal/inserts constitute abnormal wear
• Any surface damage (i.e. scratches, cracks, dents etc) to black chrome/ mouldings requiring replacement or refinishing is deemed abnormal
Dents
• Multiple dents in any one panel and any dent greater than 10 millimetres in diameter on the bonnet, boot, roof, or above the body moulding lines on the sides of the vehicle is considered abnormal

pramsay13

My understanding is you should use the finance company's own complaints procedure and then BVRLA.