We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PCP - VT - Who has to prove damage existed at purchase?
pjb_cyprus
Posts: 6 Forumite
in Motoring
A couple of years back I bought a used motorcycle on PCP (my old one had decided to melt it's entire electrical system on the M4) and I needed a way to get to work). The PCP was done through Close Brothers, a decision I'm now regretting.
Now, coronavirus pandemic, different job, working from home and I no longer needed the bike as it was only ever used for commuting to and from work so I decided to VT it. First checked I was entitled, which I was. Requested VT, they eventually sent someone to inspect the bike.
He pointed at some scratches on the front mudguard, to which I responded that they were there at purchase, which they were.
Condition report came through with scratches noted on and replacement cost of £97, I responded to this email reiterating that the damage pre-existed my ownership - No Response.
Later another email came through, again referring to the £97, I again responded that the damage pre-existed my ownership and pointed out that the terms of a VT do not include returning a vehicle to better than original condition - No Response.
I have now had a letter referring the £97 to their "Debt Collection Agency", No previous actual mail.
I have just now had a call with them where I somehow managed to keep my temper (mostly) where they informed me that it is MY responsibility to prove the damage existed originally because they do not have a report on the original condition of the bike. Is that right?
Now, coronavirus pandemic, different job, working from home and I no longer needed the bike as it was only ever used for commuting to and from work so I decided to VT it. First checked I was entitled, which I was. Requested VT, they eventually sent someone to inspect the bike.
He pointed at some scratches on the front mudguard, to which I responded that they were there at purchase, which they were.
Condition report came through with scratches noted on and replacement cost of £97, I responded to this email reiterating that the damage pre-existed my ownership - No Response.
Later another email came through, again referring to the £97, I again responded that the damage pre-existed my ownership and pointed out that the terms of a VT do not include returning a vehicle to better than original condition - No Response.
I have now had a letter referring the £97 to their "Debt Collection Agency", No previous actual mail.
I have just now had a call with them where I somehow managed to keep my temper (mostly) where they informed me that it is MY responsibility to prove the damage existed originally because they do not have a report on the original condition of the bike. Is that right?
0
Comments
-
Unfortunately I agree with them, you should have taken pics. and informed them of any damage on receipt of the bike. Do you still have the bike? If so you could get the scratches done for less.0
-
Yes, basically - and it will most likely be covered somewhere in the contract. If you notice something at the start, you should always photograph it with your phone - why the phone? EXIF information and GPS information will be attached to the image. Otherwise it becomes he says/they say and when you need them to agree the VT, they have the upper hand.0
-
Have you checked with 'we buy any bike' and seen what they will offer you?
They'd pay off the PCP and you might be left with some equity.
It is up to you to check condition of a PCP purchase though.
I just took on a new PCP car and although 'new' it was ex-demo
So the small chip in a door was noted by me and agreed as pre-existing.1 -
Surprised and horrified by the consensus, I'd thought it would be like a rental car where they go around it when you pick it up and you sign to indicate you agree with the condition report.
However, I've now been down to the bike shop which fortunately was local and they still had the original sales photos, showing the scratches on the mudguard. So, even though I think it's crazy, I now have the proof and can even refer them to the shop if they choose to call me a liar.
Lesson learned though, If I ever PCP a used vehicle again I'll be going over it with a magnifying glass.1 -
And the lesson is, PCPs are not really designed for purchasing used vehicles.1
-
pjb_cyprus said:Surprised and horrified by the consensus, I'd thought it would be like a rental car where they go around it when you pick it up and you sign to indicate you agree with the condition report.
However, I've now been down to the bike shop which fortunately was local and they still had the original sales photos, showing the scratches on the mudguard. So, even though I think it's crazy, I now have the proof and can even refer them to the shop if they choose to call me a liar.
Lesson learned though, If I ever PCP a used vehicle again I'll be going over it with a magnifying glass.1 -
I hate PCP in any form, it was an unfortunate but necessary evil in this case. No PCP = no transport = no work at the time.
When getting rid of the bike I tried various other methods and none offered any equity to work with and it had to go. It was an expensive ornament sitting in the garage and didn't turn a wheel for 12 months apart from being taken for it's MOT.0 -
admittedly it was quite some time ago that I last hired a car, probably 10 years or so (crikey! that makes me feel old)0
-
Was the condition at the start of the PCP documented?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.8K Spending & Discounts
- 239.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 615.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.1K Life & Family
- 252.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards