Thread: Default Notice issued due to car having excess damage when returned (Mercedes on PCP scheme)

I had a 57-plate Mercedes on a 1-year PCP scheme, which finished in Dec 2009. Everything was fine until I received
the following default notice due to "damage fees" being outstanding:




When the logistics company picked the car up it had only done 13K miles, as opposed to the 25K which was the expected mileage the agreement was drawn up on (I lost my job
so my mileage was significantly reduced), and the car was in good condition for 2 years old as far as I was concerned, showing minor wear and tear you would expect
on a 2 year old car (couple of car-park dings, minor scuff on front alloy). I got the car fully valetted, serviced and put 4 new tyres on ready from the collection
and at the time the logistics company picked it up they couldnt do a full appraisal "as it was raining", but they said it looked fine to them.
Now MB are claiming it doesnt meet their "return standards" and are asking for nearly £300 to cover the repair costs:

I know its not a massive amount, but I am still incensed by this, as they are basically asking me pay to get the car back to showroom
condition whereas their T&Cs state that you need to "keep the vehicle in good condition and properly maintained within accordance with
the manufacturer's recommendations", which is what I believed I did.
Here is the agreement, with the T&Cs:





Is it usual for them to serve a Default Notice for something like this? Will this put a black mark against my credit file?
What is the best way to proceed? Do you think I've got any chance of arguing the toss successfully?

Thanks

Seems perferctly reasonable to me. Unless you have something signed to say the car was handed over without damage, then this is down to you. You admit to some car park marks and a scuffed alloy, so the bill seems cheap considering it is a 2 year old Merc.

Who do you think should pay for damage caused whilst you were in possesion of the car?

The default is because you are in default of the terms of your agreement.

Not sure why you would conclude that JimmySpangle?

The car should be expected and allowed to have "reasonable" damage in line with it's age. I would consider that to have a scuffed alloy in 2 years is not unreasonable and to be honest I cirtainly wouldn't have changed the tyres before handing it back (assuming they were road legal) as these undoubtedly would come under the heading of "reasonable wear and tear".

I concluded that because the OP said that the car had a number of car park type dents. Who do you think should pay for dentmaster to sort those out?

Wear and tear would cover things like minor age/mileage seat, steering wheel & pedal wear etc. Not dents.

Or wheel scuffing come to that and the agreement is for a used car not new.

Secondly, the op should ask for a copy of the collection note that shows the damage "as it could well have been caused after collection" and there is nothing to prove otherwise.

If the vehicle is collected without a note detailing the damage and signed than it should be deemed to be perfect.
Was it collected by a transporter or a driver and did you sign a hand over note.

Just because it's raining/wet/covered in snow or ice, if your taking something you check and get the last users aggrement.

You would not believe the amount of wheel damage claims I had to look at until I introduced a system of checks from off the end of the production line. I now know exactly where any wheel damage occurred and it's the particular handlers responsibility.

Don't pay out unless you signed for the damage at the time of pick up.

Isn't this the same sort of post as those with the courtesy cars at the moment??????????????????? ??

Originally Posted by JimmySpangle

Unless you have something signed to say the car was handed over without damage.

I agree that the damage could have been caused later, but as above unless you have something signed to accept the car back as undamaged the it is down to the OP. Plus they admit that there were dents to the panels.

Why is this country full of people trying to wriggle out of what is perfectly reasonable? I have a 12 year old car with alloys that have never had a mark on them.

Originally Posted by JimmySpangle

I agree that the damage could have been caused later, but as above unless you have something signed to accept the car back as undamaged the it is down to the OP. Plus they admit that there were dents to the panels.

Why is this country full of people trying to wriggle out of what is perfectly reasonable? I have a 12 year old car with alloys that have never had a mark on them.

I can agree with you jimmy and disagree however the OP has not been given the opportunity to agree the damage, just sent a bill. What is wrong about these PCPs is that the residual value does not take into account fair wear and tear and when they get it wrong they try to get as much out of the "hirer" as possible.

The reality is that as it was a used PCP, so going on to it's 3rd owner, this car will end up in the auction where it's value because of the alleged damage is going to be negligible anyway. The op could mitigate it with the new tyres as if he had returned it with worn tyres provided they were legal, Herr Benz Finance couldn't have done a thing about it.

It's like banks and their charges to me, unfair and not representative.

Thanks all for taking the time to comment - some interesting views on this one

Here's a bit more for you to chew over. Firstly, this is the sheet I was asked to sign when the logistics company took the car:





And a picture of one of the "damaged" wheels. Hardly in the most conspicuous of places IMHO...could almost just be a bit of dirt :

LMAO. What is a qualified automotive engineer assesor?
Nice discs though. So if this is must be the worst one on the rear ( Wheel) what are the front ones like?

It's being picky and the bill has no relevance to the resale as will be auctioned.

You could of course call their bluff and ask them to repair the car for that money and prove it. Then run it past some of us "Qualified Automotive Engineers" who post of this site.

I'm sorry if some don't agree with this but it's one of the funniest try ons I've seen for ages from a finance company.

Do you think I should charge them 10p per mile for the mileage that I didnt do during the agreement? Lets see, the car was handed back with 13500 miles on the clock as opposed to 26500 expected as per the agreement, so I make that £1300 they owe me for that

I did notice that which made me think evn more that Herr Benz was taking the Michael. It makes for an interesting argument though with the residual value they calculated. The problem is that the 10p is for going over 26.5k.

So I suppose if they are arguing the damage has devalued the car then this is another reason to hit back and say it's actually worth more.

One for the legal begals I think.

Looking at the dates as well, I wouldn't mind a £50 punt the car has been sold on already as is. I can't believe a finance co is sitting on stock waiting for you to pay the bill. Hence was it repaired or not?

If it was, prove it and run it past one of the "qualified automotive engineers" here.

I am considering sending this and would be interested in your thoughts/further advice:
----
I am in receipt of your “Vehicle’s return condition invoice” and Notice of Default Sum.

I feel I am forced to dispute the Damage Fees quoted as excessive for the following reasons:

• The return conditions were not communicated to me at the beginning of the contract.

• I do not believe that the pictures provided are sufficiently clear and I am unhappy with the references to some of the alleged marks; and as such I am even questioning whether these were done whilst I had the car.

• The majority of the “damage” highlighted is – in my opinion – completely reasonable wear and tear. A two-year old car has been returned yet you’re asking me to fund its return to showroom condition. No lease I have ever undertaken has made such a punitive and cynical demand.

• The initial terms and conditions I signed when taking out the agreement state that the car should be returned in “good condition” (Clause 4.2). When my car was picked up it was in at least good condition in my opinion, and that of a major online buying guide who describe good condition as:

‘Cars that show wear consistent with their age. There are no major mechanical or cosmetic problems. The paint still looks good, but possibly has some scratches or dings. Some minor touch up might be needed. The interior has minimal wear on the seats and carpet. The tyres are in good shape and have some life left to them. A four-star car ideally has its maintenance records available, a clean title, and can pass inspection’

• The agreement was drawn up based upon a mileage on return of 26455 miles. The car, when returned, had a mileage of 13380. I believe the corresponding increase in value of the car over that with the expected mileage more than covers any “damage” to the vehicle.

As a gesture of goodwill, I enclose a cheque for £122.20 to cover the damage I consider to be fair and outside the definition of “good condition”, namely damage to the RH Front Door and RH Front Alloy.
I trust this will close the matter to your satisfaction.

---
Anything else I need to add....or remove?

I think I can already guess Jimmyspangles response, but other thoughts gratefully received
Thanks

I think it is outrageous that they are charging you £300+ for this! It is a disgrace. Don't pay them a penny, never mind £122.

Bet you didn't guess that!

SPLUTTER!!!.........

You're going to pay them what..........????

You bought a used car, they bought a used car back in probably better condition than most given their assumptions.

Letter back to them should include foxtrot oscar. If you pay them a pffennig may I respectfully suggest a trip back to reallity.

Tell them to prove the repairs for that money. It ain't going to HAPPEN!!!!!!!

Just off to my padded cell for half an hour

Right, I have managed to remove the handcuffs and wrestle the armed guard into allowing me to say what I really think.

If I loaned someone my 2 year old car I would expect it back in the same condition as they took it. I think we would all agree on that. If I loaned it out for say a year, I would still expect it back looking the same, but would expect some minor deteroation to the seats and steering wheel dependent upon mileage.

What the issue here is seems to revolve around the dents that the OP admits were caused during his possession - I am not for a second suggesting that the OP actually did the damage though, as he says car park dints etc.

Wear and tear is one thing. damage is another. I genuinely think that £300 for a handful of minor parking dings and the scuffs to the alloys is perfectly reasonable. It is only my opinion of course and I accept that others will have a totally different standpoint.

I must stress that I dislike any form of garage and none more than hire companies. But, if I had hired a car and it incurred some minor damage, i would expect to have to contribute towards their repair or compensate for the loss.

I say again. £300 does not seem to me to be unreasonable.

Hold on Jimmy, it wasn't loaned, it was hired with an agreement for wear and tear calculated in the settlement figures. The next thing is that it wasn't a new car hired but a used one. The reallities are that again it's a load of "bankers" speculating on residual values, getting it wrong and then looking for any excuse to screw some extra money out of it.

Hire also implies it will be used so will be subject to use and use means deteriation with whatever it is. What is wrong here is that the parts they expect to wear were replaced so they are no worse off.

The OP would have been better off sending the car back with legal worn tyres, just having a wash and vacuum etc.

Reichsmarshal Benz is bang out of order here. They will not put it to retail again as will be on third owner so it will be outed via the auction circuit and end up on the used specialist car circuit.

£300 to me sounds outrageous as is too cheap so must be a try on.

They have no record of what damage was on the car when you got it;
They have no record of what damage was on the car when they collected it;
It is a 2 year old car and they claim a (very) minor scuff on an alloy is excessive damage.

Your letter was fine till you got to the last paragraph, offer tehm nought and give them less. They got 4 new tyres on the car FFS and they think you will pay more.

JimmySpangle is well in the minority here and I fail to see where he could support their claim so just go with the rest of us.

Pea, Brazil (steady chaps), cashew, hazel, walnut, almond, megs, coco, cocoa, whitworth, unf, metric................... .............NUTS

If you give them even a Bratwurst!


Don't forget also it ain't a default that will affect your credit rating, it's a play on words and is quite despicable that they should use this language.

It wouldn't be so bad if the car was any good but you could have got better value for money with a Skoda. Equivalent build quality, better performance and it wouldn't have cost so much.