MB Finance "Fair Wear and Tear" dispute

[Rory]

I'm just gobsmacked by the whole process - it's bad enough that they try it on, but worse that they fight you to the death if you pick up on it.

Surely few people cheerfully pay these random bills - maybe they think it's clever to screw some money out the punters that can't be bothered to fight it?

 

[hawk20]

I'm just gobsmacked by the whole process - it's bad enough that they try it on, but worse that they fight you to the death if you pick up on it.

Surely few people cheerfully pay these random bills - maybe they think it's clever to screw some money out the punters that can't be bothered to fight it?

Before jumping to such conclusions it would be nice to set alongside this case all the many who have been more than happy with the process.

 

[television]

Before jumping to such conclusions it would be nice to set alongside this case all the many who have been more than happy with the process.

How do you know that there are many happy with it all

 

[RensterUK]

I agree with hawk - it's essential to be fair... to be fair!

For example, just a few weeks before I returned our E-class, a mate returned his SLK. He delivered it himself, and was chauffeured home in an S-class (tres posh!). No bill.

The key difference is that his car was returned at the end of the agreement, mine was an early voluntary termination.

Now I don't want to claim this is a hard and fast rule or anything, but I get the impression that folks such as myself that VT are more likely to face a bill. Again, I'm not saying its a rule - I'm sure some folks VT, and have no worries.

It would be interesting if some sort of survey could be done - get some stats on returned cars that produce a repair bill, cars that dont - and for each of those, broken down into VT / end of agreement.

Ultimately for me, it's seemingly done and dusted (unless MB decide to sue me or something - apparently this is still their right!) - but the fact is they accept they can't prove anything, having no pre-delivery report to base the bill on.... I do find myself wondering if it was inspected at all before I collected it...

As I said before tho - good luck to the rest of you with your Mercs Great, great cars, just soured beyond recovery for me by a horrible customer service experience.

 

[Rory]

Before jumping to such conclusions it would be nice to set alongside this case all the many who have been more than happy with the process.

Of course it's always going to be true that good news doesn't get reported, but MB and VW are legendary for making random charges. Fleet leasing companies do it too, and I have a fair amount of experience of them. I think that's where the practice comes from my experience was that our finance department would pay these bills without query if they were under £1000. It's no co-incidence that these bills are usually a bit under that level.

Now I don't want to claim this is a hard and fast rule or anything, but I get the impression that folks such as myself that VT are more likely to face a bill.

Well, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think they're on dodgy ground charging you at all with VT - it's a legally binding process and the whole point of it is that you hand the car back with nothing further to pay, as long as the goods are in reasonable condition (and "reasonable" is a lot lower standard than MB set). VT is used as a dodge by people who do very high mileages - the excess mileage charge is un-enforceable after a VT.

 

[bturner]

My experience with Mercedes Finance is detailed over here: http://mercedes-finance.co.uk/ and here: http://mercedes-finance.blogspot.co.uk/
They really try to squeeze every bit of money for returned cars - my argument from the start (Sept 2011) is that they can't add stringency to the return standards requirement once the contract has been signed.

 

[Naraic]

Good luck Baron.

I think your problem lies in that you used the car in the three years you had it.

 

[DSB SL AMG]

great ending....i pity the people who just pay the bill and get ripped off.....

 

[Frontstep]

Mercedes like any other companies will have staff members who just love the pursuit of the "extra" its a trait of the sycophant who think it will endear themselves to their superiors.
Its just a fact of life at the moment, with pressures in the workplace leading to some peoples irrational treatment.

 

[drdel]

Anybody reading this thread should be warned. Any car on finance is not yours (unless certain conditions apply) thus it is your full responsiblity to look after the 'owners property' in a reasonable manner to mainain its 'normal' value.

Because the condition of a used car is a subjective judgement the 'user abuse' argument very easily wheeled out by leasing companies etc and because people casually just 'hand over the key' and walk away it is a situation you will find it very hard to dispute.

My advice to anyone with a 'leased/financed' car is to have it professionally valeted and photograph it thoroughly before returning it. Even take it to your local dealer and get them to appraise it.

Dogs hair, smoking stains, etc which affect interior trim and can be very costly - I know of one example and Audi where driver abuse costs were £3k plus for a small tear in seat and smoke stains/smells that "needed thorough and extensive cleaning" these things as well as bodywork marks can rack up costs like you wouldn't believe and if you're returning it for financial reasons it always happens when you can least afford them.

These costs are yours even if you drive a company supplied car.

If you're financial it borrow from a Bank and own the car.

 

[zeeshh]

I took out my E class (19 months old) few weeks back on MB Agility 3-yr scheme and received the V5 form where only my name is mentioned as owner. I updated my insurance company that I'm the owner and registered keeper of the car.

Am I not the legal owner of the car? I'm bit confused by the drdel comments. My understanding is that I own the car and need to settle the payments in next 36 months to finish off the finance MB provided me including GFV. Otherwise, I don't have to pay the GFV after 36 months, leave the car with MB in a reasobabl good condition and walkaway or get a new car on Agility scheme again. pls. advise.
cheers...

 

[lwbnick]

I took out my E class (19 months old) few weeks back on MB Agility 3-yr scheme and received the V5 form where only my name is mentioned as owner. I updated my insurance company that I'm the owner and registered keeper of the car.

Am I not the legal owner of the car? I'm bit confused by the drdel comments. My understanding is that I own the car and need to settle the payments in next 36 months to finish off the finance MB provided me including GFV. Otherwise, I don't have to pay the GFV after 36 months, leave the car with MB in a reasobabl good condition and walkaway or get a new car on Agility scheme again. pls. advise.
cheers...

It's on lease, you're hiring it and paying monthly rentals.

But you have the option to buy it at the end of the hire period.

"Mercedes Agility is a method of acquisition similar to Hire Purchase, but in this case where monthly rentals can be kept low by agreeing a lump sum at the end of the term, referred to as the Guaranteed Future Value."

 

[Rory]

... and received the V5 form where only my name is mentioned as owner.

It says, in great big capitals, across the top of the V5C that it is not proof of ownership and that it only shows who is responsible for registering & taxing the vehicle.

 

[zeeshh]

hmm, thanks for the details and yes it's on lease at the end of the day.
cheers...

 

[drdel]

V5 records only "registered keeper" for DVLA, the 'owner' is whoever paid for the thing.

The leasing company bought it and own it, you're effectively 'renting' it from them with an option to buy at the end of the agreed contract period. If it was a simple HP it becomes yours after about 60% has been paid.

In the meantime you must look after and be responsible for their property as per the T&Cs.