Lease going back
Discussion
That cut on the tyre probably wouldn't fail an MOT. I have one on my Mercedes the same and that's passed two MOT's.
The bit of rubber that's cut is sacrificial and is there to protect the wheel rim on tyres with a very low profile. I would have been tempted to stick that back with some glue.
All in hindsight for you, but if I was getting a car inspected for return I would be taking my own video / high-res stills whilst the inspector was there and get HIM to sign YOUR inspection that the condition was as agreed before he left and make sure the inspector was in the picture and dated.
The bit of rubber that's cut is sacrificial and is there to protect the wheel rim on tyres with a very low profile. I would have been tempted to stick that back with some glue.
All in hindsight for you, but if I was getting a car inspected for return I would be taking my own video / high-res stills whilst the inspector was there and get HIM to sign YOUR inspection that the condition was as agreed before he left and make sure the inspector was in the picture and dated.
super7 said:
That cut on the tyre probably wouldn't fail an MOT. I have one on my Mercedes the same and that's passed two MOT's.
The bit of rubber that's cut is sacrificial and is there to protect the wheel rim on tyres with a very low profile. I would have been tempted to stick that back with some glue.
All in hindsight for you, but if I was getting a car inspected for return I would be taking my own video / high-res stills whilst the inspector was there and get HIM to sign YOUR inspection that the condition was as agreed before he left and make sure the inspector was in the picture and dated.
thats possibly the best bit of advice I have ever read on PH....... do this and you cant wrong(in future).The bit of rubber that's cut is sacrificial and is there to protect the wheel rim on tyres with a very low profile. I would have been tempted to stick that back with some glue.
All in hindsight for you, but if I was getting a car inspected for return I would be taking my own video / high-res stills whilst the inspector was there and get HIM to sign YOUR inspection that the condition was as agreed before he left and make sure the inspector was in the picture and dated.
Pristine: having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied.
We're splitting hairs, and I have few enough of those, however I do agree that in car terms, pristine means like new. If it has any marks or damage whatsoever then it isn't pristine.
Different people have different standards. I park in end spaces a long way from the door and I take care whilst manoeuvring to ensure my car remains nice, unless it's the pubcar in which case I just avoid hitting big, hard stuff.
We're splitting hairs, and I have few enough of those, however I do agree that in car terms, pristine means like new. If it has any marks or damage whatsoever then it isn't pristine.
Different people have different standards. I park in end spaces a long way from the door and I take care whilst manoeuvring to ensure my car remains nice, unless it's the pubcar in which case I just avoid hitting big, hard stuff.
Going from my experience the charges are excessive.
I had a similar pin prick on the boot lid when I returned my Leaf and was charged £50.
It had 80k+ miles on it and had a few scuffs as expected but these were well within the guidelines mentioned in a previous post.
The only other charge was for the tyre repair liquid which I had forgotten to replace. They charged £40 which was a little more than retail.
I leased through Nissan Finance and Manheim Auctions picked up the car.
I had a similar pin prick on the boot lid when I returned my Leaf and was charged £50.
It had 80k+ miles on it and had a few scuffs as expected but these were well within the guidelines mentioned in a previous post.
The only other charge was for the tyre repair liquid which I had forgotten to replace. They charged £40 which was a little more than retail.
I leased through Nissan Finance and Manheim Auctions picked up the car.
greenarrow said:
This thread highlights why I don't fancy leasing a car - I'd be far too nervous about any tiny damage being caused to it!
I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was reading through the thread. My shed has a variety of scuffs, scratches, dents, kerbed wheels etc and I couldn't care less. In fact I add to them most mornings when I use the wall at the train station as a guide for reversing into a really short space.
Big Easy said:
greenarrow said:
This thread highlights why I don't fancy leasing a car - I'd be far too nervous about any tiny damage being caused to it!
I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was reading through the thread. My shed has a variety of scuffs, scratches, dents, kerbed wheels etc and I couldn't care less. In fact I add to them most mornings when I use the wall at the train station as a guide for reversing into a really short space.
I know what the OP is talking about he has admitted some of the damage like the tyre, but it's not prestine.
I've had quite a few leases and the experience of returns and charges is different with all of them. It can even differ with the same collection company but different finance house.
I've had a Mercedes and a VW collected by BCA and the inspectors were far less picky for the VW collection, and the charges were far more reasonable. That being said, I was successful in getting the charges for the Merc return reduced to almost nothing as the damage had not been noted on the initial inspection, but was then present on their 2nd inspection.
I'd happily lease through VWFS again, but I'm a bit more wary of MBFS. For the VW the charges they did apply for damage were far less than it would have cost for me to sort them, and they didn't care about any damage that was anywhere close to being within the damage guidelines. A couple of the diamond cut alloys had big deep scuffs - no charge.
I've had a Mercedes and a VW collected by BCA and the inspectors were far less picky for the VW collection, and the charges were far more reasonable. That being said, I was successful in getting the charges for the Merc return reduced to almost nothing as the damage had not been noted on the initial inspection, but was then present on their 2nd inspection.
I'd happily lease through VWFS again, but I'm a bit more wary of MBFS. For the VW the charges they did apply for damage were far less than it would have cost for me to sort them, and they didn't care about any damage that was anywhere close to being within the damage guidelines. A couple of the diamond cut alloys had big deep scuffs - no charge.
I have had a number of lease vehicles over the last 12 years, until recently all have been returned with little or no charge and where there have been charges I have had absolutely no issues and considered them very fair.
However, over the past couple of years I have seen a dramatic difference in the end of hire checks and the charges applied for supposed damage.
The last one I had collected was in September, it was 4 years old and had 9k miles on it, it was used as a local run around. It was immaculate, we had it detailed before collection and it looked great. Stood a metre from the car it looked like a brand new vehicle.
The lease company had arranged for the car to be collected and taken to one of the Manheim auction sites, prior to its collection a Manheim inspector arrived to go over the vehicle. I couldn't believe the time spent and detail he went into, he was going over the car for 90 minutes, lying on the floor, using a torch and a mirror etc before writing a report that listed everything that was required to return the car to 'new' condition. To say I was gobsmacked when I read his report was an understatement, I asked him to run through his findings with the vehicle. Whilst I haven't got the best eyesight I'm not blind and some of the things he reported were barely visible to the human eye. Needless to say I told him what I thought and refused to sign his report.
Sure enough in the weeks that followed an invoice arrived, the value was challenged and with some communication an agreement was made.
I hate this type of situation whereby many people would have felt pressurised into accepting the report and the subsequent charge, I guess you could liken it to a dodgy salesman overselling to the elderly or the vulnerable.
It also annoyed me that the vehicle had had such a small amount of use covering barely more than 2k miles per year, it still smelt new inside and yet there was no 'offset' for that, we all know that our pants are pulled down when we go over on the mileage allowance. I wouldn't expect any allowance for under use but the way I try and look at everything is by the 'bigger picture', to look at things as a package.
All of the things they wanted to charge me for would have zero impact on the car's auction price, or indeed a p/ex at a trader. By sheer coincidence I had a customer asking about the car when it was being detailed, it turns out that he is a trader and wanted to know if I could find out which auction the car was going to as he would be interested in purchasing to sell.
The whole thing stank, it was the best condition vehicle that I have ever returned, there were smacks of a whole new business being spawned out of inspecting end of term rental vehicles. It also begs the question do the works get done to the vehicle or does it just go through the auction house as returned and the charges are considered 'bunce'?
There is also a little bit or irony, when the lease company rang to arrange collection I asked if I could purchase the car and was happy to use a debit card or make a BACS payment, because it had been barely used I though it was worth buying as I obviously knew its history and it would have made a great little car for one of my kids. They quoted me a figure which was higher than the screen prices for approved used at the local dealer that were 3 years old, never in a million years would that figure be even remotely achievable at auction. In addition there was the cost of the inspection, the cost of two men arriving the next day to take it away, the fuel to drive it 100 miles to the auction house so on and so-forth to come off the sale price. As a small business man (not the powerfully built type) I just couldn't see any logic or rational behind the whole process.
I have one more vehicle still on lease so will await to see what happens at the end of it's term!
However, over the past couple of years I have seen a dramatic difference in the end of hire checks and the charges applied for supposed damage.
The last one I had collected was in September, it was 4 years old and had 9k miles on it, it was used as a local run around. It was immaculate, we had it detailed before collection and it looked great. Stood a metre from the car it looked like a brand new vehicle.
The lease company had arranged for the car to be collected and taken to one of the Manheim auction sites, prior to its collection a Manheim inspector arrived to go over the vehicle. I couldn't believe the time spent and detail he went into, he was going over the car for 90 minutes, lying on the floor, using a torch and a mirror etc before writing a report that listed everything that was required to return the car to 'new' condition. To say I was gobsmacked when I read his report was an understatement, I asked him to run through his findings with the vehicle. Whilst I haven't got the best eyesight I'm not blind and some of the things he reported were barely visible to the human eye. Needless to say I told him what I thought and refused to sign his report.
Sure enough in the weeks that followed an invoice arrived, the value was challenged and with some communication an agreement was made.
I hate this type of situation whereby many people would have felt pressurised into accepting the report and the subsequent charge, I guess you could liken it to a dodgy salesman overselling to the elderly or the vulnerable.
It also annoyed me that the vehicle had had such a small amount of use covering barely more than 2k miles per year, it still smelt new inside and yet there was no 'offset' for that, we all know that our pants are pulled down when we go over on the mileage allowance. I wouldn't expect any allowance for under use but the way I try and look at everything is by the 'bigger picture', to look at things as a package.
All of the things they wanted to charge me for would have zero impact on the car's auction price, or indeed a p/ex at a trader. By sheer coincidence I had a customer asking about the car when it was being detailed, it turns out that he is a trader and wanted to know if I could find out which auction the car was going to as he would be interested in purchasing to sell.
The whole thing stank, it was the best condition vehicle that I have ever returned, there were smacks of a whole new business being spawned out of inspecting end of term rental vehicles. It also begs the question do the works get done to the vehicle or does it just go through the auction house as returned and the charges are considered 'bunce'?
There is also a little bit or irony, when the lease company rang to arrange collection I asked if I could purchase the car and was happy to use a debit card or make a BACS payment, because it had been barely used I though it was worth buying as I obviously knew its history and it would have made a great little car for one of my kids. They quoted me a figure which was higher than the screen prices for approved used at the local dealer that were 3 years old, never in a million years would that figure be even remotely achievable at auction. In addition there was the cost of the inspection, the cost of two men arriving the next day to take it away, the fuel to drive it 100 miles to the auction house so on and so-forth to come off the sale price. As a small business man (not the powerfully built type) I just couldn't see any logic or rational behind the whole process.
I have one more vehicle still on lease so will await to see what happens at the end of it's term!
James_33 said:
Big Easy said:
greenarrow said:
This thread highlights why I don't fancy leasing a car - I'd be far too nervous about any tiny damage being caused to it!
I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was reading through the thread. My shed has a variety of scuffs, scratches, dents, kerbed wheels etc and I couldn't care less. In fact I add to them most mornings when I use the wall at the train station as a guide for reversing into a really short space.
I know what the OP is talking about he has admitted some of the damage like the tyre, but it's not prestine.
FlopperV60 said:
I have had a number of lease vehicles over the last 12 years, until recently all have been returned with little or no charge and where there have been charges I have had absolutely no issues and considered them very fair.
However, over the past couple of years I have seen a dramatic difference in the end of hire checks and the charges applied for supposed damage.
The last one I had collected was in September, it was 4 years old and had 9k miles on it, it was used as a local run around. It was immaculate, we had it detailed before collection and it looked great. Stood a metre from the car it looked like a brand new vehicle.
...
I wonder whether they really go to town when the vehicle is low mileage and likely to go back into the main dealer network (why, I suspect MBFS are strict). Mine are all 15k/pa leases and I know for a fact go straight to auction; they seem a lot less strict with these.However, over the past couple of years I have seen a dramatic difference in the end of hire checks and the charges applied for supposed damage.
The last one I had collected was in September, it was 4 years old and had 9k miles on it, it was used as a local run around. It was immaculate, we had it detailed before collection and it looked great. Stood a metre from the car it looked like a brand new vehicle.
...
washingitagain said:
If the amount of leased cars on the road is as high as I'm always lead to believe, then surely this happens all the time? I'm often looking at 1/2/3 year old cars and rolling my eyes as to the level of kerb damage, scuffs and scratches and general lack of love they have been shown.
I guess a lot depends on how you use it. My 16yr old Merc is in better superficial nick than the OPs car but my wife's Tiguan had a load of parking dents and scuffs on it when it was a year old. Her car spends its life in shopping centre car parks etc, where cars around it are coming and going all the time. I never take mine to such places.Dog Star said:
I wonder whether they really go to town when the vehicle is low mileage and likely to go back into the main dealer network (why, I suspect MBFS are strict). Mine are all 15k/pa leases and I know for a fact go straight to auction; they seem a lot less strict with these.
You could well be right, it certainly would seem to make sense and explain the experience I had with this one. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff