MB Finance "Fair Wear and Tear" dispute

[RensterUK]

Folks,

A month after having our car collected, we have just received a bill from MB for over £700 in repairs.

However, some of the damage listed (eg, dented panel * 3) falls within the "4 dents allowed") in their "Vehicle Returns Standards" document.

Similarly, this document states that panel scratches are acceptable, providing they are light and do not go through the top coat. The photos MB have provided are of poor quality - but nonetheless the scratches do look (mostly) light to me. It's worth noting also that the photos are so bad NONE of the claimed dents can be seen

They have listed the repair done by an indy MB specialist to the front bumper (as part of a parking sensor replacement) to be of poor quality. It looked absolutely fine to me after the work was done. Surely this is a matter of judgement? I suspect here they've simply noted the work wasnt done by them, and dismissed it out of hand, but have no proof of course.

They claim the rear bumper is dented. Their photo shows scuffing, but no apparent dent. The photo I have of the rear shows no denting or scuffing.

The one issue I WOULD agree with is an alloy in need of repair. I had scratched that one a bit too much!

Oh and they've charged £35 for the inspection. I assume then that all returned cars are subject to this charge, and this should have been highlighted earlier, and NOT listed as part of the repairs required?

As I say, most of the damage they've listed is either definitely within their claimed definition of acceptable, or is arguably so, or I have my own evidence to counter their claims.

The car was returned by exercising my right to early termination - despite being returned below (pro-rata) mileage, and with a brabus chip fitted (not part of the original deal). The guy that collected it noted no damage, and even commented it was in excellent condition! The problem there is he found a small patch of dirt I hadn't washed off, and in my absence got my wife to sign one of those forms indemnifying them against any damage - and the way that's worded to me seems to suggest any damage sustained after the car has left our posession is still our fault!

Can anyone offer advice on how to fight MB here? I dont mind paying for damage we did do, but have some serious objections to damage that we either didnt do, or is within reason for a car this age.

Cheers!

 

[Mic]

Did you take your own photographs and prepare a condition schedule for signing by the collecting driver?

Sounds as if you did not do so and left yourself vulnerable.....who has the money?.......presumably MB do if it was an early return.

Time to start talking, take your own photographs......the Agreement will surely have an Arbitration clause, or similar, if worst comes to worst. The probability is that MB have ''opened negotiations'' at one extreme in their favour.

Good luck.

Mic

 

[MBDevotee]

Who has the car? If MB do then you also have the problem of access and proving what was done after and what was during your ownership.

I would suggest that you need to argue hard, but be prepared to compromise - you should always agree the condition BEFORE the car goes back.

Also, in future remember that much of this can be avoided by using a SMART repairer to cover up any little marks - normally £200 would cover 99% of used car "damage" so a car goes back apparently perfect!

 

[jberks]

Does sound like a try-on to me.
I'd call them up and warn them off.
3 dents that you don't need to fix would only cost £100 to sort anyway.
And - as you say, a few light scratches and even an alloy scuff can be considered fair wear and tear.
I'd demand an independent inspection and tell the where to place their bill. (clue - no sunlight).

 

[daveyjp]

I wouldn't pay a penny. The cars should be checked on handover, once you have handed over the car there is too much opportunity for it to get damaged - especially in four weeks - if MB don't do it it's their risk.

 

[RensterUK]

Mic - I do have some photos, mostly of the wheels (as this was where I had expected them to argue). I also have one of the rear of the car. I suspect you are right, that they have opened negotiations to their extreme.

New CLK owner - They have the car. The collection agent noted no damage on the report, but the indemnifying form almost seems to make this irrelevent anyway. Sadly I wasnt present when it was taken, but my wife was, and she and he agreed the car was in excellent condition. As you say, I think I need to be prepared to fight hard. What worries me is Ive read of similar cases where MB ignore customer complaints, and simply send debt collectors round. I like the idea of the SMART repairer - but in terms of the dents - well, see the following comment!

jberks - thats my thinking also. Especially having had the photos they sent explained by a colleague of mine - the dents are seemingly that minor, that they cannot be seen by the naked eye, unless you use the striped reflective board they have used in the photos - so I had no chance of seeing them myself. Furthermore, this suggests that they may have been there the whole time I had the car.

daveyjp - Sadly the indemnifying form seems to be worded to the effect that we accept liability for any damage found after it left our possession (although Id be curious to know how that would stand up in court). But as you say, the 4 weeks is an issue - although that does break down as (according to the paperwork they sent through) 1.5 weeks from collection to inspection date, and 2.5 weeks from inspection to report. Either way, thats a long time with the car in their possession.

---

I'm going to write to them, highlighting my disputes, but acknowledging where I agree, and see what they come back with. Wish me luck!

 

[Rory]

The car was returned by exercising my right to early termination - despite being returned below (pro-rata) mileage,

Was this a voluntary termination under the Consumer Credit Act? If so, then as I understand it, you're not supposed to be liable for any further charges. It's a "trick" people sometimes pull if they're way over the contracted mileage.

You ought to have been there when it was examined though. Perhaps you could claim your wife just thought she was signing to hand the car over and she knows nothing about cars?

Mercedes and VW are particularly noted for adding on spurious charges though. We've seen a few threads about MB, some people saying they would never use MB Finance again.

My brother just had it from VW when he returned his absolutely unmarked 2yr old Golf. Same as you, a month later a random bill turned up. He told them to get lost, but he got several calls chasing for payment.

and with a brabus chip fitted (not part of the original deal).

I'm quite surprised they didn't complain about you modifying the car.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Is your wifes signature on the initial lease form, if not, then her signature is irrelevant, these guys never make you sign for 'dirt on the car'... he was pulling a fast one..to make sure his company wasn't held responsible for the damage...
This is big business at the moment, all the lease companies are at it...
You should never allow anyone to take away a vehicle unless it has been inspected and agreed on condition and signed.. and remember the lorry driver or pick up guy is only that, a driver, not an engineer.
What do you do... telephone them and protest. inform them you had the car inspected and also have photographs, if the get stroppy, ask where can we go with this, they should suggest the ombudsman..they wont cos it costs them money....You then suggest why not go to court and see if the judge prefers my clear and precise pictures or your grainy pics.. They wont back down easily....

 

[j mather]

Just notional extra revenue for the contract you had with them--don"t pay up --The B.V.R.L..A (Leasing Ass) have a specific set of guidelines for end of finance car condition --if you visit www.clean-image.co.uk there is loads of information to give you comfort---There is also alink to New Again of Chelmsford who seem to specialise in carrying out Mini rectifications prior to retail/auction sale----From your description this work will not need to be carried out prior to Auction---Let them do all the running and as the work appears to be fair wear and tear (Comensurate with age and miles of Car ) you should have a very good hearing from your LOCAL county court judge----Hope this a word of encouragement

 

[RensterUK]

Rory - yes, I VT'd as according to my rights with about 7 months to go on a 3 year deal, as we realised we were never going to be in +ve equity on the car. Pleading my wife's ignorance is an option, especially as she was distracted with our (then) 4 month old. They didnt complain about the mod as it was supplied and fitted by MB, and according to the terms of the agreement, simply becomes part of their property as part of the return (so another 1500 made for them).

Xtractorfan - I agree, but rather than phoning, I feel writing is the way, to keep things formal and traceable... I can well imagine them claiming "that phone call never happened"....

j_mather - cheers for the links, might give clean-image a ring to talk to them and see what they reckon, and as you say, let it go to court if they won't budge. I dont mind paying a few minor bits (esp the wheel, as I dont dispute that one!), but if they want the lot, then I guess I have a court date coming!

On the subject of court:

I've read horror stories on line of MB receiving dispute letters such as mine, ignoring it, sending the full bill again. Repeat process a couple of times, and then debt collectors turning up on your doorstep. Can they do this? While I really want to defend myself, I dont want MB sending some thugs around while I'm at work, frightening my wife and 6mth old son....

 

[j mather]

Renster--No one can come knocking on the strength of a disputed invoice-there is due process whereby a court hearing has to find against you and then you don"t pay !! If you receive a County Court (very doubtful) you can apply at your local court office to have the hearing moved to that court---I think from what you have related that you are a long way from court hearings !

 

[Russ1000]

Same here...

Hi
We have recently received a bill from MB for more or less the same amount (737.00) with more or less the same highlighted 'problems'. We wrote to query, pointing out that the chip in the windscreen had passed the MOT, to which they removed from the bill, but they failed to prove evidence of the rear bumper that apparently needed replacing. They also claim to have repaired the various scratches that needed repairing even though they fell, in our opinion, within the guidelines i.e. Not breaking the surface. Funnily enough, they also claim to have found a dent which we never knew existed? We will be contesting again as we feel they are trying it on. Has anyone taken them to the Ombudsman and, if so, what was the outcome?
Thanks

 

[Geoff2]

Had this with a lease car several years ago. If they had the car a month before inspection was carried out, all but a few days, claim that the damage caused may have occured whilst in their care in a compound and clearly state the person who picked the car up stated the car was in good condition. The inspection should have been carried out in your presence and usually when the car is collected from you. Basically tell them to shove it but politely

 

[hawk20]

Odd how impressions vary. Plenty return their cars with no real problems; others feel hard done by. On the forum we cannot see the vehicle and judge how well it has been kept. But there are plenty of safeguards. You can have the car pre-inspected before it goes back so there are no surprises. Plus MB send out a pack with a 'damage gauge' and clearly set out standards of what they will accept and not accept. Also firms like Clean Image will bring the car up to BVRLA standards before you return it. The AA and RAC offer inspection up to BVRLA standards before you hand the car back. See for example: -
http://www.racbusiness.co.uk/inspections/small-fleets/


Great video on the MB website under finance, under existing owners, which gives lots of details about end of lease and PCP's/Agility. You can either have the car collected at the end of the lease/PCP or you can take it to their de-fleeting centre near Stratford on Avon. If you do that, they give you and another person a complimentary night in a local hotel. Or you can choose a complimentary chauffeur service to return you back home or a complimentary rental car. You can watch the car being inspected and agree the damage there and then. Lots of other info there too: -

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/con...rvices/existing_customers/vehicle_return.html

Worth remembering that MB want the leasing experience to be pleasant for the customer because they are in the game of selling cars and want repeat business. IMO the system they have set up is pretty good and there are plenty of safeguards for the customer. But the process of returning the car has to be treated seriously.

 

[IanA2]

A few years ago I had a 3 year PCP on a M270cdi which I chose to hand back.

The car was in excellent condition and had been valeted.

When the chaps came to pick it up they spent 15 minutes "assessing" it, and asked me to sign their form.

On the form they had marked almost every part as damaged/scuffed/stained/dented or whatever. I said said I could not sign it as it was not a fair representation of the car's state. They said that they were told to fill the forms in like that. I insisted that they wait whilst I took pictures of the car.

Sure enough a few weeks later a demand for about £650.00. At first they quite threatening and tried to play hardball, but when I said that two of the tyres they had marked as illegal treadwise, were in fact just a few weeks old, and that I had taken photographs, they got all warm and fuzzy and said they would waive the charges.

I do wonder if this only happens to folks who don't take on a new vehicle. For whatever reason it's clearly a shabby try-on and should be stopped.

 

[RensterUK]

Update:

Well, I wrote to MB UK detailing my disputes / objections, and had a response over the weekend. As part of the response, they knocked off a couple of the cheaper items as a "gesture of good will", but more significantly, they accept that one of the more expensive items (a full respray of the front bumper, owing to a "poor repair") was not our liability, as they accepted the fact that we had not had the bumper repaired during our ownership of the car - ie it must have been done by the first owner of the car, and therefore wasnt our fault.

This to me seems an admission on their part that the car had not undergone a similar inspection prior to us buying the car - as surely the "poor repair" issue would have been flagged up had it done so.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that the dents that they want us to pay for (which to the untrained eye such as mine, cannot be seen) may well have been there all along?

My understanding is that they have to be able to prove that the dents weren't there when we took delivery of the car, in order to make us liable for them?

Don't get me wrong - there are a few items they've charged for that I accept I have to pay for - scratched wheel, and a couple of body scratches - the wheel I definitely did, and the body scratches I dont recall doing, but accept that they wouldnt have been there on collection. I'm not trying to avoid my bill altogether, but only want to pay for what I am definitely to blame for!

Thoughts?

(Incidentally, I feel IanA2 raises a good point. A mate returned his from-new SLK without problems. I returned my AUC E320 and get all this?)

 

[Mic]

Update:

Well, I wrote to MB UK detailing my disputes / objections, and had a response over the weekend. As part of the response, they knocked off a couple of the cheaper items as a "gesture of good will", but more significantly, they accept that one of the more expensive items (a full respray of the front bumper, owing to a "poor repair") was not our liability, as they accepted the fact that we had not had the bumper repaired during our ownership of the car - ie it must have been done by the first owner of the car, and therefore wasnt our fault.

This to me seems an admission on their part that the car had not undergone a similar inspection prior to us buying the car - as surely the "poor repair" issue would have been flagged up had it done so.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that the dents that they want us to pay for (which to the untrained eye such as mine, cannot be seen) may well have been there all along?

My understanding is that they have to be able to prove that the dents weren't there when we took delivery of the car, in order to make us liable for them?

Don't get me wrong - there are a few items they've charged for that I accept I have to pay for - scratched wheel, and a couple of body scratches - the wheel I definitely did, and the body scratches I dont recall doing, but accept that they wouldnt have been there on collection. I'm not trying to avoid my bill altogether, but only want to pay for what I am definitely to blame for!

Thoughts?

(Incidentally, I feel IanA2 raises a good point. A mate returned his from-new SLK without problems. I returned my AUC E320 and get all this?)

A channel of communication has been opened.....keep it open and keep talking......logically and objectively as you are here.

Mic

 

[RensterUK]

Will do.... And will post next update in due course!

 

[RensterUK]

Hi all,

Just to keep you updated. I have now (as suggested by MB themselves) written to their formal disputes team, and am awaiting reply.

Meanwhile, I called to ask them to email me a copy of the photos in the report, which they did, and I sent to the guys at clean-image. Their response was that they couldn't see any dents, even reflected in the striped card! Seemingly Im not the only one to find MB's "evidence" questionable. Certainly I feel a couple of the photos show nothing, while a couple show *something* which I feel are so minor that they dont need repair, and could easily have been previously missed. clean-image's comments certainly seem to back up my view.

It's still early days yet, but my advice at this point to anyone getting a bill for repairs to a lease return is DEFINITELY not to just take it lying down....

More to come no doubt!

 

[RensterUK]

Hi all,

The matter is now resolved. Having written to their formal disputes team, and receiving a response from the guy I'd been (unsuccessfully) dealing with all along(!), I escalated things to the BVRLA.

The BVRLA's response came in just a couple of weeks, finding in my favour. Mercedes had admitted to the BVRLA what I had been trying to point out all along - they couldnt prove any of the dents weren't there all along (despite trying to argue they were "severe" and "obvious").

My final bill (including the wheel I already paid for) is £115... down from approx £750.

With the added irony that this whole affair highlighted an overpayment I made of £500, its actually cost MB £385.... and any chance of me buying another one of their cars.

Tsk, shame.

I wish you all, all the very best with your cars in the future, and should you find yourselves in this position, dont be afraid to fight it!