End of lease charges but contract was actually HP!

zenaeloise

I’ve had the unfortunate experience this morning of having my lease car inspected by Manheim- 2500 of damage apparently (on a car valued around 12k) random scratches and just utter rubbish so I’m disputing.

thought I’d pull out my original contract to see the terms and it’s actually wrong and is for a hire purchase agreement with a different payment amount and no reference to lease returns etc - where do I stand?

thinking they can’t hold me to lease return standards as I’ve never signed a lease contract and it’s their error!

DullGreyGuy

Are you sure you are looking at the right document? Wouldnt you have at least checked the payment amounts etc when you signed it? (really worrying if you say no)

It wont have reference to returns if it HP as returning at the end isnt an option. If you want to try and argue it was a HP contract all along how is that going to leave you financially? It'll be hard to use that contract to justify not paying the damage costs and then not be bound by the other terms in it. 

zenaeloise

DullGreyGuy said:

Are you sure you are looking at the right document? Wouldnt you have at least checked the payment amounts etc when you signed it? (really worrying if you say no)

It wont have reference to returns if it HP as returning at the end isnt an option. If you want to try and argue it was a HP contract all along how is that going to leave you financially? It'll be hard to use that contract to justify not paying the damage costs and then not be bound by the other terms in it. 

So thinking back they told me just to sign this contract and they’d get an updated one to me with the right figures / details - some issue with a system (this is about 4 years ago) which I never got. I just signed it at the time as didn’t know any better (early 20s and doing it on my own).

The other terms would mean I’d not paid the amount monthly by 150.00 though assume the company have it in their systems it’s a lease - just without my signature. I suppose worst case is I’d owe the 150.00 x the period but to be fair selling the car would make more than that. Not sure how they can hold me to either in the long run as potentially a big mistake on their part to do this?

Ayr_Rage

@zenaeloise if there was an option to return the car without further payments, other than for excess mileage or damage, then it was a lease and you can argue the amount of the damage charges.

PCP is a type of HP but at the end of the period you either pay the Guaranteed Value (balloon payment) and keep the car or you return the car and once again, pay any excess mileage and damage charges.

If it was HP, then you would own the car at the end of the payments, so you cannot have had the vehicle on HP.

You need to look at what you actually signed !

flashg67

Did you have the reg doc (V5c)? With a straight lease, the finance company remains as the registered keeper and possesses the V5. With PCP or HP, you are (normally) the registered keeper. As pointed out, with HP, you have purchased the car with the last payment so seems unlikely you had this - if you truly did, you need to ask them for the car back as it's yours!

photome

How much was the car when you bought it and how much have you paid including any deposit

those figures should give you an idea wether it’s Lease/ PCP or HP

chrisw

The inspection should have been carried out according to BVRLA guidelines on wear and tear. After exhausting Manheim's complaints procedure you can refer it to the BVRLA as part of their dispute resolution service. 

If there is genuine damage, it will probably be cheaper to get the car repaired and renovated yourself before it goes back.

Mildly_Miffed

If it really was HP, you wouldn't be returning it, because it's YOUR car, not theirs.

molerat

Mildly_Miffed said:

If it really was HP, you wouldn't be returning it, because it's YOUR car, not theirs.

Although as mentioned above PCP is an HP agreement.