Car leasing & post contract fair wear & tear charges

Polfers

Having leased vehicles in the past, I was aware of post contractual inspections on the return of the vehicle. However, I was astonished by the inspection and outcome of a recenty returned vehicle I'd had for 3 years. The inspection, by Manhheim on behalf of Novuna Vehicle Solutions, took over an hour and was done with what I can only refer to as microscopically forensic detail; the Police could have been seriously embarassed by comparison.

The so-called fair wear and tear levels used were ludicrously small in tolerance for a vehicle 3 years old with 36,000 on the clock. By way of example, macro photograhy was used to find 4 minute pin-!!!!!! paint "chips" of bertween 0.1mm and 0.15 mm in size, that were between 3 & 4 mm apart, inside a door opening. This they deemed as being an in excess of 15mm area of paint damage (they actually sit collectiveliy within 15 mm), which they want to charge £175 for. Whilst some were fair enough - I'd guess around £300 ish - most were of this ilk, yet the total bill initially presented, was £1,025.00 . Having complained to the car leasing company, the bill was reduced to just over £670, but I felt this was still way in excess of what was reasonable, so I asked them, "if you're asking me to pay this revised bill, then please can you send me evidence that you have carried out the repairs you claim were necessary, and I will pay it". Their response was as follows: "Our contract states that we do not have to carry out such repairs". Interesting! So, what their contract allowes, is that they can carry out such close forensic inspections, send you a large bill, not have to cary out any of the so called required damage repairs, but can still charge you for it. 

Astonishingly, the Financial Ombudsman upheld their stance because it states this in their contract, and that makes it fair! Really!? I mentioned that under the new FSA Consumer Dutry rules, they may not have got away with this, to which they said I had a point about, but of course that only applies from 31st July 2023, and my contract pre-dated that.

My question is this: If a contract that allows such practices to be judged as fair by the Ombudsman, then I'm at a loss to understand how that can be (and I'm not blaming them - it's the framework they operate within). Surely, if you are being billed for something, you have a right to know that those things have indeed been carried out if you are being asked to pay for them? If a builder gave you an invoice for work carried out that they didn't actually do, would that be judged as fair because their contract said so? Surely this should be regarded as unfair/sharp practice, and potentially even fraudulent in nature?

Is this something consumers groups should be looking to address?

Money_Grabber13579

I can’t comment on whether the charges in this case are fair or not but just to pick up on the point where you insist on them proving that they have repaired the damage - you have no right to this and they are under no obligation to repair the damage either. If effect, you are compensating them for the damage caused to the car. If they repair it, they should get full market value for the car, but if they don’t repair it, the value they get on sale will arguably be reduced and in that case, you are paying them for that loss in value.

Banksy_2

Yes, Mannheim were a pain in the wotsits for me too.

They checked my car over at the same point, and advised me of a minute tear in the rubber of the windscreen wiper - I asked them if they would mind if I nipped (literally) over the road to Halfords and buy one for a fiver - they said they couldn't stay and would have to rearrange another inspection (which turned out to be 3 weeks later and cost me an extra £250 in rental), they also wanted me to fork out another £500 for missed services, which I fought and got that reduced to £45 in the end.

One thing I didn't realise which I have been told since is that there are car companies out there who are happy to pay off up to 6 months of your existing lease if you go with them for a new one - not sure if that's just purchase outright or lease again, maybe someone can advise if they have knowledge of this - as for me I'd love to avoid that end of agreement inspection!

flashg67

Banksy_2 said:

Yes, Mannheim were a pain in the wotsits for me too.

They checked my car over at the same point, and advised me of a minute tear in the rubber of the windscreen wiper - I asked them if they would mind if I nipped (literally) over the road to Halfords and buy one for a fiver - they said they couldn't stay and would have to rearrange another inspection (which turned out to be 3 weeks later and cost me an extra £250 in rental), they also wanted me to fork out another £500 for missed services, which I fought and got that reduced to £45 in the end.

One thing I didn't realise which I have been told since is that there are car companies out there who are happy to pay off up to 6 months of your existing lease if you go with them for a new one - not sure if that's just purchase outright or lease again, maybe someone can advise if they have knowledge of this - as for me I'd love to avoid that end of agreement inspection!

They do sound 'thorough' to say the least but I'm not surprised they charged for missing services - this can massively affect the used value and any future warranty/good will claims  -- sounds like you got of lightly!

KXL88

They seemed to have got stricter (BCA) inspections. Back in 2016 inspection, despite car having obvious dings and stone chips, no charge. 2nd car, I'm confident the inspector was trying it on, when I said I can't see the ding u insist is there, he said that's why I'm the inspector, but it was overturned on appeal as the person I appealed to said he couldn't see any dings on photo. 3rd car oh my days dings were charged at £48 per panel, plus yes there was a minor scrape on the bumper (didn't hit metal), £250. Suppose to charge me a missed service but it was COVID lockdown time, so I got off lightly. Inspector was sympathetic, he even said he's sorry but his Tablet showed charges apply and I should appeal.