Voluntary Termination (VT) | Inspection Charges Advice
Discussion
First off, this thread has been done to death but hear me out.
I'm posting for 2 reasons: 1) because I'm interested in the general experience of going through the VT process and 2) to share my experience to date... I will be updating with progress updates.
I recently completed the VT process and handed back my car. The car was leased through BMW's leasing company but the car itself was not a BMW.
At the end of the inspection by a third party company the inspector handed me the breakdown of what damages I would be asked to pay for; totaling ~£1,000. The inspector then provided me with some advice which I took on board, I did not sign to say I agreed to pay the costs and explored further.
What I've learned is I've been requested to pay for fixes and repairs that the company in question has no intention of making, they will instead send it to auction to recoup their losses. I found that the car on it's way to auctioned this year (saved the webpage as evidence) and will likely appear in an independent dealer's garage in the New Year.
The advice I've been given by the inspector and the raft of people I've spoken to since is that unless the company in question actually carry out the repairs, they cannot charge you for them. Therefore challenge and, if necessary request invoices for the repairs and fixes ahead of shelling out.
I of course will be waiting for the auction to end, tracking the car down and seeing if any of the quoted repairs have been made - and if so by who - ahead of challenging.
I'm posting for 2 reasons: 1) because I'm interested in the general experience of going through the VT process and 2) to share my experience to date... I will be updating with progress updates.
I recently completed the VT process and handed back my car. The car was leased through BMW's leasing company but the car itself was not a BMW.
At the end of the inspection by a third party company the inspector handed me the breakdown of what damages I would be asked to pay for; totaling ~£1,000. The inspector then provided me with some advice which I took on board, I did not sign to say I agreed to pay the costs and explored further.
What I've learned is I've been requested to pay for fixes and repairs that the company in question has no intention of making, they will instead send it to auction to recoup their losses. I found that the car on it's way to auctioned this year (saved the webpage as evidence) and will likely appear in an independent dealer's garage in the New Year.
The advice I've been given by the inspector and the raft of people I've spoken to since is that unless the company in question actually carry out the repairs, they cannot charge you for them. Therefore challenge and, if necessary request invoices for the repairs and fixes ahead of shelling out.
I of course will be waiting for the auction to end, tracking the car down and seeing if any of the quoted repairs have been made - and if so by who - ahead of challenging.
Edited by Potatoes on Monday 15th December 10:10
My understanding is there is no legal reason they actually have to have any remedial work carried out. The fact here seems to be there is damage to the car and therefore a loss has been suffered. (i.e the reduced value of the car). As long as the amount they are proposing is fair and reasonable (for example the reasonable costs of the required repair or the difference between the value of car in its current condition and in a straight condition) they don't actually have to get the work done.
Edited by TheHound on Monday 15th December 21:18
Potatoes said:
I recently completed the VT process and handed back my car. The car was leased through BMW's leasing company but the car itself was not a BMW.
VT applies to hire purchase (which includes PCPs) not leasing.Potatoes said:
At the end of the inspection by a third party company the inspector handed me the breakdown of what damages I would be asked to pay for; totaling ~£1,000. The inspector then provided me with some advice which I took on board, I did not sign to say I agreed to pay the costs and explored further.
What I've learned is I've been requested to pay for fixes and repairs that the company in question has no intention of making, they will instead send it to auction to recoup their losses. I found that the car on it's way to auctioned this year (saved the webpage as evidence) and will likely appear in an independent dealer's garage in the New Year.
The advice I've been given by the inspector and the raft of people I've spoken to since is that unless the company in question actually carry out the repairs, they cannot charge you for them. Therefore challenge and, if necessary request invoices for the repairs and fixes ahead of shelling out.
They don't have to make the repairs. It's a dilapidation charge. It reflects how much less they'll get for the car at auction than if it was in perfect condition.What I've learned is I've been requested to pay for fixes and repairs that the company in question has no intention of making, they will instead send it to auction to recoup their losses. I found that the car on it's way to auctioned this year (saved the webpage as evidence) and will likely appear in an independent dealer's garage in the New Year.
The advice I've been given by the inspector and the raft of people I've spoken to since is that unless the company in question actually carry out the repairs, they cannot charge you for them. Therefore challenge and, if necessary request invoices for the repairs and fixes ahead of shelling out.
However if you really have VT'd (assuming it was HP/PCP) then there's supposed to be no additional charge as long as the goods are in reasonable condition. "Reasonable" is probably a lot lower standard than BMW's return standards.
Thanks folks.
The contract says that the car must be handed back in "reasonable condition" and any damage ovre and above "wear and tear" will be charged for. For a 50,000 mile car, you would expect many of the pieces picked up to sit under fair wear and tear (stone-chips, blablabla). Fair wear and tear is too subjective a clause for me though; what's the frame of reference and base-line? As you stated above, the BMW view of fair wear and tear is that the car should be in the same condition as it left the showroom when new...
Having said this, the breakdown of cost is given to me as the cost of repair of each item rather than the depreciating impact each non-repaired item will have on the overall price the vehicle achieves at auction.
Surely to levy an additional amount on me, the company in question would have to prove there was a loss to them? Either through providing copies of the invoices for the repair of the vehicle or through providing the price the car went for at auction against other, similar vehicles. Otherwise, as there's not clear contractual obligation other than "fair wear and tear", they're chancing their arm right?
It comes down this: if you were asked to pay for something, the company then request more money for specific pieces of work they claim to be carrying out - you'd want to see the proof of that work/cost before paying.
The contract says that the car must be handed back in "reasonable condition" and any damage ovre and above "wear and tear" will be charged for. For a 50,000 mile car, you would expect many of the pieces picked up to sit under fair wear and tear (stone-chips, blablabla). Fair wear and tear is too subjective a clause for me though; what's the frame of reference and base-line? As you stated above, the BMW view of fair wear and tear is that the car should be in the same condition as it left the showroom when new...
Having said this, the breakdown of cost is given to me as the cost of repair of each item rather than the depreciating impact each non-repaired item will have on the overall price the vehicle achieves at auction.
Surely to levy an additional amount on me, the company in question would have to prove there was a loss to them? Either through providing copies of the invoices for the repair of the vehicle or through providing the price the car went for at auction against other, similar vehicles. Otherwise, as there's not clear contractual obligation other than "fair wear and tear", they're chancing their arm right?
It comes down this: if you were asked to pay for something, the company then request more money for specific pieces of work they claim to be carrying out - you'd want to see the proof of that work/cost before paying.
Potatoes said:
..what's the frame of reference and base-line?
Usually the BVRLA fair wear and tear guidelines - but BMW may not adhere to them. You should have got documentation at the start explaining. Mercedes have a video on their website about it.It's pretty standard for leasing companies to bill you for trumped up charges. Some people seem to be able to get away with just telling them to get stuffed.
Please clarify if the car was on HP/PCP or a lease? The whole (legal) point of VT is that you can hand the car back and walk away. But it doesn't apply to leasing.
Unexpected outcome...
I was waiting on the bill to come through from the finance company however over Christmas received a welcome letter confirming the matter is resolved with no further payments due. Happy days!
I had my response letter ready to go and was up for the fight but am happy none-the-less!
I was waiting on the bill to come through from the finance company however over Christmas received a welcome letter confirming the matter is resolved with no further payments due. Happy days!
I had my response letter ready to go and was up for the fight but am happy none-the-less!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff