Merc/BCA trying it on with lease charges?

[carburettoricing]

C Class returned two weeks ago, 31500 miles UNDER the allowance (coronavirus + moved closer to work) so there is a *lot* more positive equity in this car for MB than they planned on there being.

27k done in 3y 3m.

BCA collection guy noted that apart from a small scuff on bumper and repaired road chips to front, it was excellent condition and that he'd be surprised if there were any charges on it.

Got a letter today demanding

£30 for the bumper scuff - no problems, I caused it, I'll pay it
£35 for an insecure sill cover - you what!?
£325.50 for a scratch to piano black plastic door trim - you what!?!?!?

There was no evidence, just an invoice. I'm on hold atm with MB who emailed me the inspection report with the following images -

1) Insecure sill - what exactly is the issue here? £35 to push a panel in 5mm with your hand until it clicks fully back into the £0.05 plastic clip? There's nothing in the return standards/charge matrix, linked below, about charges for panels that don't need "replacement, plastic welding or painting".

https://www.mercedes-benz.co.uk/passengercars/bein...

https://tools.mercedes-benz.co.uk/current/passenge...



2) Door plastic panel - again, what exactly is the issue? The long white line to the right is a reflection of the seat belt in the back. £325.50!?!? Cheap plastic piano black trim that scratches as a result of someone just looking at it? Really?




Been on the phone for 45 mins with the defleet department who have noted my issues with the above and escalated to the complaints department for review.

Just wondering if anyone had been through similar extortion and had any advice?

I put it to them that this is completely disproportionate, not outside fair wear and tear (if any!) and that given it was not recorded as damage at the time of collection during a forensic examination by the collector, it is likely this was caused during the 2 weeks it's been sat in a warehouse in Manchester parked door to door next to other collected cars being crawled through by inspectors?

That complaints review is 'final', as in no further recourse for appeal, barring making a formal complaint to a financial ombudsman, which I'm not happy with either as it feels like it'll just get stonewalled/whitewashed with a final decision and no further communication.

As a result of something service related early on, and now this, MBFS have done a fantastic job of ensuring I'll never go near Merc ever again.

Edited by carburettoricing on Wednesday 4th August 15:08

Edited by carburettoricing on Wednesday 4th August 15:11

Edited by carburettoricing on Wednesday 4th August 15:12

Edited by carburettoricing on Wednesday 4th August 15:14

[leyorkie]

What was the excess mileage charge. Have you asked for credit against the unused miles at the same rate?

[carburettoricing]

About 19p/mile. Not in the first call, I have just called back to a different department to get the email for the complaints team as I want to formally set out in full all of the above, at the moment they are only working on bullet points taken by the first guy. I mentioned it then in that second call and the guy said probably not relevant tbh. Despite the fact there's more significantly more mileage left in the allowance than I've actually used i.e. I've paid MBFS for >2x more than I've used.

[interstellar]

leyorkie said:

What was the excess mileage charge. Have you asked for credit against the unused miles at the same rate?

That’s not how leasing works unfortunately

[Dog Star]

interstellar said:

leyorkie said:

What was the excess mileage charge. Have you asked for credit against the unused miles at the same rate?

That’s not how leasing works unfortunately

Sadly not - mine is on 15000 a year for 3 years, so 45000 miles. I won't be hitting 20000 miles, and I expect I'll get stung for something, which is galling because they're getting a car with low miles back so worth thousands more than calculated, and also worth even more than that because the price of used cars has gone up.

[anonymous-user]

carburettoricing said:

As a result of something service related early on, and now this, MBFS have done a fantastic job of ensuring I'll never go near Merc ever again.

I can only echo this. Filled with poor quality staff from the executive down. I speak from experience.

[Chucklehead]

I wouldn't even bother arguing it from the point of view unless that it's a minor repair or not in line with fair wear and tear etc. Does it say on the documentation you signed that it will be further/finally inspected once back at the yard?

Your document says nothing about the issue with the sill or the scratch to the interior on collect, so the only logical explanation is that it happened after it had been collected, therefore it's not your responsibility. (obviously check your paperwork agrees with that statement!)

[carburettoricing]

@Chucklehead yes mate that is one of the points I'm making. It was very thoroughly examined at collection, photos and videos taken (which conveniently I haven't been furnished with) no issues raised then, the bloke said it was in really good nick.

What I am concerned about is the 'final' nature of their decision, the only recourse being the financial ombudsman, which is why I'm now writing a formal letter to set out my reasons for dispute, directly referencing their own return standards. If I was a business owner issuing demands for payment, having a 'final' decision as the first and only step in a dispute resolution process following a complaint being made, and following that final decision tell customers pay up or fck off to the government regulator, I'd be pretty embarrassed about that quality of customer service. The sort of thing I'd expect from a dodgy private parking firm.

[interstellar]

Dog Star said:

interstellar said:

leyorkie said:

What was the excess mileage charge. Have you asked for credit against the unused miles at the same rate?

That’s not how leasing works unfortunately

Sadly not - mine is on 15000 a year for 3 years, so 45000 miles. I won't be hitting 20000 miles, and I expect I'll get stung for something, which is galling because they're getting a car with low miles back so worth thousands more than calculated, and also worth even more than that because the price of used cars has gone up.

If you still have time on your contract you can reset the contract with the lower miles and a lower payment but you can’t do it at the end or when you give it back. Give your lease company a call

[Sheepshanks]

interstellar said:

leyorkie said:

What was the excess mileage charge. Have you asked for credit against the unused miles at the same rate?

That’s not how leasing works unfortunately

They should assess as if it's done the full 60K - there's logically going to be more on higher mileage cars.


I've got a Merc and the forums used to be full of stuff like this, but I'd heard they'd backed off a few years ago.

The 'final decison' thing is pretty common from car companies on any dispute - the email / letter usually says if you don't like it then go to the Motor Ombudsman. I guess for leasing it would be the FOS. Mercedes have form for ignoring the the Motor Ombudsman if the decision goes against them.

[carburettoricing]

Anything I should add/remove?

[timbobalob]

I'm not sure if the below helps (appreciate it's VWFS, but they'll all be governed by the same BVRLA requirements I imagine);

BVRLA Guidelines

When my SKODA Kodiaq went back, the handover guy noticed a chip in the windscreen which within the allowed paraments, I was told I'd need to dispute once the invoice came in, as he could only report on the condition in front of him.

Surprise surprise, invoice comes through for £350 for the windscreen replacement, which I duly quoted the attached and they then replied saying it was cancelled as a 'gesture of goodwill'

Seems like they will try any heavy handed techniques to get folk to pay for outside the requirements

[carburettoricing]

First guy on the phone said Merc apparently don't abide by the BVRLA standards and instead have their own.

[timbobalob]

carburettoricing said:

First guy on the phone said Merc apparently don't abide by the BVRLA standards and instead have their own.

Nuts - worth a shot. Fingers crossed you get something sorted

[Dog Star]

I’ve had a constant worry about my aforementioned E class - it arrived directly from Immingham where it had been for at least two months.

The bonnet had - and still has - significant bird dropping etchings in the clear coat. I took the car in to MB for them too look at this, it was gone for two days for their body shop to look at and try and polish out, but to no avail. I declined getting this repainted as you can always tell when it’s been done and it’s not my car. I’m now worried that I’ll get billed for a full bonnet respray!

[Sheepshanks]

timbobalob said:

Seems like they will try any heavy handed techniques to get folk to pay for outside the requirements

When I had a company car our finance department just used to pay - they regarded it as part of the deal. I only found out when we got one for £1700 and there was a bit of a hoo-hah about it. Apparently circa £750 was normal and this was on 3yr/90K leases.

[Sc0tchland]

carburettoricing said:

First guy on the phone said Merc apparently don't abide by the BVRLA standards and instead have their own.

Hope you directed him here - https://www.bvrla.co.uk/member/mercedes-benz-cars-...

[carburettoricing]

@Sc0thland - hero, thanks for that!

@timbobalob - cheers. If they try to continue the shakedown post receiving that letter above I certainly will go through the ombudsman, as well as the usual public pressure options like the Whatcar helpdesk. I've read that letter back a few times, looked at the pictures BCA took at the second inspection and just laughed. This is absolutely absurd. £360.50 for nothing, it's infuriating.

[Northernboy]

Remember, you’re bound by the contract, not by what they fancy trying to charge you with.

If they aren’t holding a deposit of yours then my suggestion would be politely to say that the damage wasn’t recorded at handover, you didn’t do it, so won’t be paying, and that they’ll need to take you to court if they want to take it further.

[FWIW]

Northernboy said:

Remember, you’re bound by the contract, not by what they fancy trying to charge you with.

If they aren’t holding a deposit of yours then my suggestion would be politely to say that the damage wasn’t recorded at handover, you didn’t do it, so won’t be paying, and that they’ll need to take you to court if they want to take it further.

+1
It’s not necessary to get into a lengthy discussion with them about it.

ETA: I hope you’ve cancelled your direct debit.

Edited by FWIW on Wednesday 4th August 17:53