Merc/BCA trying it on with lease charges?
Discussion
Sc0tchland said:
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-...I've no idea how that squares with the above, but likely the OP leased off Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited.
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.
I've said as much in that letter, but will react like you suggest if the supposedly 'final' response is indeed the stonewalling whitewash I'm anticipating.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 said:
+1
It’s not necessary to get into a lengthy discussion with them about it.
ETA: I hope you’ve cancelled your direct debit.
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
- Very* good shout, just done that. Thanks.
I think that it would be better to stick to the point that the items were not damaged when the final handover took place as per the inspectors report if that's what you wish to do.
You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
Matt_E_Mulsion said:
I think that it would be better to stick to the point that the items were not damaged when the final handover took place as per the inspectors report if that's what you wish to do.
You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
I agree. You don't care if the damage is significant or not, it wasn't there when tjhe car was inspected, so nothing for you to get involved with.You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
Longer letters just make it easier for them to pick out the bits that don't matter and argue them.
Northernboy said:
Matt_E_Mulsion said:
I think that it would be better to stick to the point that the items were not damaged when the final handover took place as per the inspectors report if that's what you wish to do.
You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
I agree. You don't care if the damage is significant or not, it wasn't there when tjhe car was inspected, so nothing for you to get involved with.You are just muddying the waters by also trying to argue that a scuff on the interior and a piece of trim that may not be attached correctly are being charged out at an absurd amount of money.
Go down one route or the other, not both.
Longer letters just make it easier for them to pick out the bits that don't matter and argue them.
On the other hand, it might 'smother' them and make them just want to get rid of him as quickly as possible.
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 Hi
Newbie here.
Not trying to hijack the thread. Senior posters / Admins Please let me know if I need to start a new one and I'll do it.
I'm in the exact same situation as carburettoricing.
GLC 250d with a contract millage of 10,000 per year and I've done only 7,200 miles over three years (Crazy, I know), Very well looked after car was collected on 27th July. The inspector who collected the vehicle that he has found only one issue with the car which is a small kerb damage to the front left wheel. I was also told that even when he inputs that damage information in the system it is returning with £0.00 according to him probably because there is nothing else wrong with the car. I signed the report based on this understanding.
I received the inspection report a short while after he had left not stating any damages (not even the kerb damage on the wheel) and just stating Condition: - Result: Second Inspection Required. I was a little surprised as I wasn't made aware of any second inspection at the time of collection but thought it may be their standard procedure.
Day before yesterday I received and invoice of £927 (not including VAT) with the following details:
Wheel LHF - Rim Damaged
Wheel LHF - Rim Damaged (2)
Compressor - Missing
Tyre Sealant - Missing
Door pad RHR - Hole
Door shut inner RHR - Dented
The car had Run flat tyres fitted so the compressor and sealants aren't even supposed to be there.
I called them up and they said that the first inspection is just to determine the road worthiness and second inspection is the real one. The collection inspector did a good 45 minutes forensic inspection which definitely wasn't just checking road worthiness.
They're saying that they've escalated with the head office and they'll call and let me know if they're able to arrange better images or whether these damages are within the allowance etc and will call in 3-5 working days.
I've told her no other damage was there at the time to collection other than the wheel damage and how can I be responsible for something that was not there at the time of collection but she kept saying that the purpose of first inspection is not to note the damages which I don't believe is true.
For Door shut inner RHR - Dented image a. It seems like a different car may be I've gone colour blind but the car I returned was Metallic Grey and the one showing in the photo seems like dark blue. I raised with the lady I spoke to and she insisted that it is Grey.
I'll keep watching this space for any further updates from carburettoricing but its utterly disappointing that Mercedes Benz have started to act like a shady car rental company.
Again please let me know if needs to be a separate thread. More than happy to do that.
Newbie here.
Not trying to hijack the thread. Senior posters / Admins Please let me know if I need to start a new one and I'll do it.
I'm in the exact same situation as carburettoricing.
GLC 250d with a contract millage of 10,000 per year and I've done only 7,200 miles over three years (Crazy, I know), Very well looked after car was collected on 27th July. The inspector who collected the vehicle that he has found only one issue with the car which is a small kerb damage to the front left wheel. I was also told that even when he inputs that damage information in the system it is returning with £0.00 according to him probably because there is nothing else wrong with the car. I signed the report based on this understanding.
I received the inspection report a short while after he had left not stating any damages (not even the kerb damage on the wheel) and just stating Condition: - Result: Second Inspection Required. I was a little surprised as I wasn't made aware of any second inspection at the time of collection but thought it may be their standard procedure.
Day before yesterday I received and invoice of £927 (not including VAT) with the following details:
Wheel LHF - Rim Damaged
Wheel LHF - Rim Damaged (2)
Compressor - Missing
Tyre Sealant - Missing
Door pad RHR - Hole
Door shut inner RHR - Dented
The car had Run flat tyres fitted so the compressor and sealants aren't even supposed to be there.
I called them up and they said that the first inspection is just to determine the road worthiness and second inspection is the real one. The collection inspector did a good 45 minutes forensic inspection which definitely wasn't just checking road worthiness.
They're saying that they've escalated with the head office and they'll call and let me know if they're able to arrange better images or whether these damages are within the allowance etc and will call in 3-5 working days.
I've told her no other damage was there at the time to collection other than the wheel damage and how can I be responsible for something that was not there at the time of collection but she kept saying that the purpose of first inspection is not to note the damages which I don't believe is true.
For Door shut inner RHR - Dented image a. It seems like a different car may be I've gone colour blind but the car I returned was Metallic Grey and the one showing in the photo seems like dark blue. I raised with the lady I spoke to and she insisted that it is Grey.
I'll keep watching this space for any further updates from carburettoricing but its utterly disappointing that Mercedes Benz have started to act like a shady car rental company.
Again please let me know if needs to be a separate thread. More than happy to do that.
Edited by sakie on Saturday 7th August 11:48
Many thanks for the response FWIW.
I’ve just cancelled the direct debit.
The person I spoke to yesterday did say that she has put a stop to any changers until this is ‘investigated’ further.
I can’t even understand what part is that dent referring to and pretty sure it’s not even my car same thing I told them as well.
Also with regards to what they’re referring as a ‘hole’ which they’ve put down as 25mm and in the photo it is like not even 1/4 of the 10mm marker they’ve put next to it, it most certainly wasn’t there I myself or the person who inspected the car on collection couldn’t have missed something this obvious and again no proof that it actually is my car.
In your experience is behaviour like this an occasional occurrence or pretty standard?
I’ve just cancelled the direct debit.
The person I spoke to yesterday did say that she has put a stop to any changers until this is ‘investigated’ further.
I can’t even understand what part is that dent referring to and pretty sure it’s not even my car same thing I told them as well.
Also with regards to what they’re referring as a ‘hole’ which they’ve put down as 25mm and in the photo it is like not even 1/4 of the 10mm marker they’ve put next to it, it most certainly wasn’t there I myself or the person who inspected the car on collection couldn’t have missed something this obvious and again no proof that it actually is my car.
In your experience is behaviour like this an occasional occurrence or pretty standard?
I once had an issue around an excess mileage charge on a 911, they sent me the bill with vat added to the ppm charge noted in the agreement, I disputed that saying it was a retail sale and all figures had been quoted inc vat so they couldn't start adding vat to what should have been an inc vat figure, they ended up sending out another invoice with figures to match the agreement.
So it's worth disputing.
So it's worth disputing.
sakie said:
Understood. I’ll keep posting here when I find out more. It’s Just causing stress for no reason ??
On the face of it, they're trying to steal / defraud money off you. Wonder what would happen if you called the police on 101 and got a crime reference number, then called MBFS and told them? I’ve had the exact same problem when I returned a PCP car to Manheim.
Just out of curiosity I tracked that car on Manheims auction website and then searched for it on Autotrader.
The car went to auction straight away and then appeared for sale at an independent car supermarket.
My balloon payment would have been £8000. The car supermarket was selling it for £15,000 !
Yet I still received the following invoice....
No MOT certificate - Eh it’s online, anyone can view it for free.
Small dent - Invisible to the eye without reflecting their stripey bit of card off it
Alloy wheel scuffs - I reckon there’s no way Manheim had time to refurb the wheels before it was sold at auction. I checked the autotrader add and you can still see evidence of scuff marks.
I sent an email to the company I leased the car from asking are they scamming me and do they have any evidence the repair work was carried out. No reply.
Just out of curiosity I tracked that car on Manheims auction website and then searched for it on Autotrader.
The car went to auction straight away and then appeared for sale at an independent car supermarket.
My balloon payment would have been £8000. The car supermarket was selling it for £15,000 !
Yet I still received the following invoice....
No MOT certificate - Eh it’s online, anyone can view it for free.
Small dent - Invisible to the eye without reflecting their stripey bit of card off it
Alloy wheel scuffs - I reckon there’s no way Manheim had time to refurb the wheels before it was sold at auction. I checked the autotrader add and you can still see evidence of scuff marks.
I sent an email to the company I leased the car from asking are they scamming me and do they have any evidence the repair work was carried out. No reply.
Mr Miata said:
Alloy wheel scuffs - I reckon there’s no way Manheim had time to refurb the wheels before it was sold at auction. I checked the autotrader add and you can still see evidence of scuff marks.
I sent an email to the company I leased the car from asking are they scamming me and do they have any evidence the repair work was carried out. No reply.
It doesn't normally work like that. It's a dilapidation charge - it reflects the amount the car will get knocked down when it gets auctioned, there's never any intention to repair it. That's why the charges are usually less than it would cost to get the damage fixed.I sent an email to the company I leased the car from asking are they scamming me and do they have any evidence the repair work was carried out. No reply.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff