PCP Legalities

[randalf]

Hi guys

Got a question regards the PCP on a car I let go last year that's proving to be a bit of an issue.

Two years ago I got a PCP on a Mercedes diesel estate which due to it falling into negative equity I had no intention of keeping and wanted to walk away.

When I went into the dealers to discuss they noted that the wheels had incurred some damage that I was going to be liable for unless I had them repaired.

So I took them to a local place and the guy there said that one was definite, two were borderline and one was fine unless I had a real tosser of an inspector.

He didn't want to do the work as he reckoned that his cost would only be marginally cheaper and Mercedes could always come back and argue that the wheels hadn't been repaired to their standards.

So I handed the car back to the dealers and they did a full inspection noting that one wheel had been damaged beyond what could reasonably be expected and the other three, while damaged, were acceptable for the age and mileage.

They printed this inspection off, we signed it, and I walked off with my copy expecting an invoice for one wheel repair.

Mercedes Finance ultimately issued an invoice for all four wheels to be repaired.

I queried this and they stated that the car had undergone a second inspection without my knowledge where they had found additional issues that meant they had to charge me.

First of all can they do this?

Is this just them trying to claw some cash back on a car that they can't sell for a profit?

How can they prove that this additional damage didn't take place after I handed the keys over?

Should I be worried or just bite the bullet and pay them the extra cash?

Thanks

[normalbloke]

What’s the figure? Mercedes were notorious for this in the past, but thought most manufacturers toed the line now most abide by the BVRLA guidelines.

[2 sMoKiN bArReLs]

Did you photograph the wheels before you sent it back?

In any event, if you've a sign off at condition A, I'd definitely push back if they are charging based on condition B.

(as you say..could be subsequent damage)

[Muzzer79]

randalf said:

I handed the car back to the dealers and they did a full inspection noting that one wheel had been damaged beyond what could reasonably be expected and the other three, while damaged, were acceptable for the age and mileage.

They printed this inspection off, we signed it, and I walked off

So you have a signed record of handing the car over, damage recorded to one wheel and the others specified as acceptable......right?

randalf said:

They stated that the car had undergone a second inspection without my knowledge where they had found additional issues that meant they had to charge me.

First of all can they do this?

IMO, no.

Your first handover is a record of the handover between you and the dealer. What happens after that is their lookout.

I would simply send them a copy of the handover sheet specifying regular wear and tear to 3 wheels and damage to 1 and refuse any other costs

[randalf]

Thanks

To cover the points in order so far

The wheels are being quoted at £110 each but they are also stating that there was a further £1000 worth of damage in terms of non-run flat tyres being fitted and other scratches being noted at a later date

They seem willing to back down on that as the terms of tyre replacement are only that it be a premium branded tyre, not that it be run flat, but they are digging their heels in on £440 for 4 wheels to be repaired.

The GFV was £19,000 but a realistic auction figure is £17,500 so they got their figures badly wrong.

The wheels were photographed and I guess they are pushing back that some wheels were measured at under 50mm damage but use a different ruler and they are now over that limit.

I'll gladly admit that two wheels were borderline, somewhere between 48mm and 52mm of damage

50mm is the cutoff between fair wear and tear and excessive damage.

I signed off on condition A but they are now quoting condition B based on an inspection by BCA. I have a copy of the initial report and Mercedes finance have a copy of that report but despite us having a copy of the same report, they are claiming it's not valid unless signed. there should be a signed copy at the dealers but due to lockdown that may prove problematic to retrieve.

I have stated that any damage that may have occurred after I handed it over is not my responsibility but for some reason, they don't seem to be backing down on this.

[The Rotrex Kid]

Can I ask why you handed the car back to the dealership? Normal procedure is that the finance company collect from you directly.

Ultimately it's the report by the finance company that matters, it's their car, the dealer doesn't (read: shouldn't) play any part in the process.

[randalf]

It was the supplying dealer, the finance advice was from inside the dealership and tbf I don't like the idea of an inspection being done without me present, without giving me the opportunity to either challenge it or organise repair away from main dealer prices should it be a better deal.

[Muzzer79]

randalf said:

Thanks

The wheels were photographed and I guess they are pushing back that some wheels were measured at under 50mm damage but use a different ruler and they are now over that limit.


I signed off on condition A but they are now quoting condition B based on an inspection by BCA. I have a copy of the initial report and Mercedes finance have a copy of that report but despite us having a copy of the same report, they are claiming it's not valid unless signed. there should be a signed copy at the dealers but due to lockdown that may prove problematic to retrieve.

1. The ruler was theirs not yours. If the ruler is wrong/different - totally not your problem.

2. I would use their own argument back at them that their second report is not valid unless signed and you weren't even aware it was taking place!
They could literally write up anything.

TBH it sounds like someone has made a cock-up somewhere with the inspection process and they're trying to chuck it back at you in the hope you accept it.

[Mark V GTD]

Under what circumstances is this PCP agreement being ended?

[randalf]

It was within a month of expiring and I asked for a settlement figure which was basically all of the outstanding finance payments -5%

The dealer had been unable to source anything I was interested in and as there was no equity in the car it was an opportunity to move away from Mercedes.

[The Rotrex Kid]

randalf said:

It was the supplying dealer, the finance advice was from inside the dealership and tbf I don't like the idea of an inspection being done without me present, without giving me the opportunity to either challenge it or organise repair away from main dealer prices should it be a better deal.

Read your agreement. Your contract is with the finance company.

Why the dealer even bothered to get involved is completely beyond me. Just hassle for absolutely zero gain.

[Mark V GTD]

randalf said:

It was within a month of expiring and I asked for a settlement figure which was basically all of the outstanding finance payments -5%

The dealer had been unable to source anything I was interested in and as there was no equity in the car it was an opportunity to move away from Mercedes.

So you were given a settlement figure from the FC and presumably the dealer is going to settle it for you and take the car? If so I don't see how the condition of the car or is wheels have any bearing on the PCP unless thats not the case?

[randalf]

Mark V GTD said:

randalf said:

It was within a month of expiring and I asked for a settlement figure which was basically all of the outstanding finance payments -5%

The dealer had been unable to source anything I was interested in and as there was no equity in the car it was an opportunity to move away from Mercedes.

So you were given a settlement figure from the FC and presumably the dealer is going to settle it for you and take the car? If so I don't see how the condition of the car or is wheels have any bearing on the PCP unless thats not the case?

I was given a settlement figure from the FC that I paid, the dealer was just offering a service where they handed the car over to the finance company.

As I mentioned, the first report done by the dealer came to one conclusion and the report by BCA came to another.

[Psycho Warren]

normalbloke said:

most abide by the BVRLA guidelines.

BVRLA doesn't take into account "fair wear and tear" nor age and mileage so you can often challenge them on that,

CAP standards are a better assessment as they include factors for age and mileage in the gradings.

Also check the law for terminating/returning the car midway or end of lease. Everything I have seen (when I was in same situation) showed that your legal obligation was limited to taking reasonable care of the car. Its the CCA 1974 that contains all the relevant mumbo jumbo.

CAP Average: The CAP average value, In reasonable condition given age and mileage, Current MOT, All documents available.

[Oceanrower]

randalf said:

The wheels were photographed and I guess they are pushing back that some wheels were measured at under 50mm damage but use a different ruler and they are now over that limit.

50mm of damage? Nearly 2 inches!

fking right they need a different ruler!!!!

[Dog Star]

I made MBFS just give up once.

I entered into correspondence with them regarding wheels and a DRL. I did everything by snail mail. Always waited 4 weeks on the nose before replying, again by snail mail. More photos (physical copies) showing details required. By this time the car is long gone.

[Mark V GTD]

randalf said:

I was given a settlement figure from the FC that I paid, the dealer was just offering a service where they handed the car over to the finance company. As I mentioned, the first report done by the dealer came to one conclusion and the report by BCA came to another.

If you paid a settlement figure to the FC then the car is yours - why are you handing it back?

Are you sure this is a PCP and not a PCH?

[anonymous-user]

Just ask them for documentary evidence that the car, when returned to them, contravened their return guidelines.

They will not be able to.

They are also absolute chancers. Rotten firm from the top down.

Should be noted they don't do BVRLA, they are stricter.

[Mark V GTD]

Unless I have missed something here I don't understand why the car is being returned to MB as the OP says he has paid a 'settlement figure' to them under the terms of his PCP agreement. That would include outstanding payments, the 'balloon' or final payment, less any interest rebate and mean he now owns the car outright - so why is it being returned?

[Anonymous-poster]

If it was underwater by £1.5k and 1 month from completion why not VT?