VT problem RCI finance (renault)

[garygumps]

I'll try and be brief as the forum seems to be having problems.

Anyway to cut a long story short, RCI are trying to get me to pay another £100 odd to fix a fault (scratch mark on lower door sill) after I VT'd my agreement. I consider this to fall under "reasonable wear & tear" as vaguely stated in the agreement.

I VT'd the agreement 4 months ago and thought no more about it as i wrote straight away and rejected the inspectors report as I thought they were being extremely picky. When they contacted me again last week after 4 months i again wrote explaining how i dispute the so called damage, but my letters have not been replied to, all I get is threateneing warning letters about how this matter will be passed on to their solicitors and I will be liable to interest on the amount and legal costs.

Where do I stand on this? I did not think to take photo evidence, but i doubt they have either as I am sure the car has been sold on by now.

I think they are right cheeky barstewards pushing for this. Will it go to court over such a small amount?

Many thanks.

Gary

[shywazz]

Since its been near going 5 mths since you returned the said car, it would be on the dealership to prove that the damage was indeed there when you returned the car, when you left the car upon return a report of the cars condition would have being made, and logged... Claiming you made damage to that car would be indeed hard to prove unless there did take photos etc that same day you returned it, otherwise anyone could have made the damage after you walked away.........any1 can claim anything after so long a period has passed, but without proof it would be hard for there claim to suceed.....

[garygumps]

Just to clarify.

The "damage" was noted on an inspection report when an auction firm appointed by RCI came to collect the car on 2 October 2007. I was at work and had my dad deal with the hand over as I honestly couldn't see any problems. I was not aware of any "damage". I immediately wrote to dispute the report that day and thought after all this time that RCI had agreed with me.

Then the latest letters arrived.

[garygumps]

Bump

Anyone???

[Conniff]

Ask for a breakdown of this charge. an exact amount like that is not realistic. Have they in fact had the repair done, have they sold the car and knocked that amount off the selling price and how do you come to an exact selling price for a car and decide it would be worth £100 more if that scratch wasn't there.

There are too many ifs in this that I would request further info before I considered paying any demand like that.

If they say they can't sell the car until the repair has been done then say you will get a quote for the work. It will probably come out with a good rub of Tcut.

[garygumps]

Originally Posted by Conniff

Ask for a breakdown of this charge. an exact amount like that is not realistic. Have they in fact had the repair done, have they sold the car and knocked that amount off the selling price and how do you come to an exact selling price for a car and decide it would be worth £100 more if that scratch wasn't there.

There are too many ifs in this that I would request further info before I considered paying any demand like that.

If they say they can't sell the car until the repair has been done then say you will get a quote for the work. It will probably come out with a good rub of Tcut.

Thanks Connif.

They haven't acknowledged any of my 2 letters about this, all I get is a wall of silence. I'm inclined to push this further just to be awkward about providing evidence that the work was carried out.

What does anyone think about the actual fact that this is above "wear & tear" and has anyone ever challenged what "wear & tear" is? Is the opinion of the finance company the final word? This was honestly the only mark on the car, the rest was immaculate, 2 years old with only 5000 on the clock. Hardly used. I just think it is terribly picky and pedantic of the inspector.

What about the fact they left it 4 months. Is that reasonable legally and fair? Surely they would be "out of time" legally sort of to demand this now. What kept them so long?

[Conniff]

How long and deep was the scratch Gary, and was it very noticable?

Also, if the past letters were not so, then ensure that all future correspondence is sent recorded delivery and get some brown envies from the local paper shop, they look more official with the recorded sticker on than the usual white ones used.

[garygumps]

Originally Posted by Conniff

How long and deep was the scratch Gary, and was it very noticable?

To be honest, I can't really remember how bad it was , but it was something that never bothered me in a "....oh that dent/mark really annoys me and ruins the look of the car, I must get that repaired" kind of way.

What annoys me is that I always assumed that if you took reasonable care of the car and had it serviced and such (which I did), that reasonable wear and tear (acceptable for age/milage) was allowed.

In my case I feel that i am being penalised for the only defect on the car, it didn't even have any paint chips! etc.!

It seems that these inspectors are judge & jury on the condition of the car. I'm really sorry that I was not there for the handover.

It seems to me that these inspectors/finance company get a real hump that you are VT'ing their agreement and this is a way of getting back at you.

[garygumps]

Just got another standard letter from RCI, stating amount still outstanding and matter will be forwarded to recovery service is same not received within 7 days blah, blah, blah.

I cant believe the arrogance of these people! they have never acknowledged or addressed the points raised in my 2 letters

Surely thay must be on shaky ground here considering it took 4 months for them to contact me? Is this reasonable? I don't think so, even if I did agree that I owed them this money.

Can I take it further and raise a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman?

I thinked they,ve messed up by taking so long to ask for this money and are now chancing their arm and stonewalling me.

Any thoughts?

[smvtuser]

The British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association produce an industry guide to "fair wear and tear" which you may be able to buy bvrla

If RCI have ignored your letters, you should be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

[garygumps]

Complaint form filled in and ready to post tomorrow.

[garygumps]

Received another communication from RCI!

This is a full pack stating that they are pleased to inform me of my final liability. This time it is asking for £217! A completely different figure!

It is as if the whole process has been "reset" . I have no idea how this figure is calculated. At least with the first lot, I could reconcile it with the inspectors assessment.

I have sent a rather "scarcastic" letter back to them , also informing them that i have raised a complaint with the FOS (Ombudsman).

To be honest, I'm not filled with hope that I can even negotiate with these people as it is easier to correspond with a brick wall!

Ah well.

Gary

[Conniff]

i agree with a sarcastic letter. Too many send either crawling or nice letters when the occassion does warrant one.

You mustn't pay anything until they have satisfied your request for a breakdown, expecially not this new inflated bill, and definately not until you have a copy of the repair bill which I don't suppose they have had done.

Did you fill in your part of the logbook and send to DVLA gary?

If the car is over 3 years old and you still have the details you could try the VOSA site and see where the MoT was done if it was due one and that will give you an idea if it is still in the town where you live.

[garygumps]

Hi Connif, nice to know someone is following this

Yes I did inform inform the local DVLA here in N Ireland way back in October, but the car would still be under 3 yrs old and I have no idea where it is now.

Do I have the right to ask for proof of repair? I was under the impression that any monies due for damage above "wear&tear" was basically to compensate for loss of value????

[Conniff]

You certainly do have the right to proof of the repair, you have the right with everyone that is demanding money to proof of what they say it is for.
Wear and tear tor whatever, you still have the right to the paperwork if you are paying for it, that should have been included with the second bill really, not just a demand without proof, be a nice little business for someone else, just going through the phone book and sending demand letters to everyone.
It looks like a sum they have plucked out of the air, and because you weren't happy with the first bill, added some more and sent it again.

[garygumps]

Having thought about this a bit more, I'm becoming more convinced that this is all good ammunition for my complaint with the FOS.

1- 4 month delay to start with.
2 - Not answering correspondence.
3- A whole new "bill" without explanation.

All adds up to show what an arrogant incompetent bunch they really are.

[garygumps]

Not much to report lately. Since the FOS has become involved, I've not had any word from RCI I don't know exactly what way it works, but presumably FOS has written to RCI saying they've received a complaint.

Although FOS acknowledged my application, they returned it last week and asked for copies of all letters and such, which i forgot to include before . Got all that stuff sent away at the start of the week.

I eventually worked out the second figure RCI are demanding. When the inspection was done, I was "penalised" £100 +VAT because there was no service history with the car. In my initial letter of dispute, I explained to RCI that no service history was applicable because the car was less than 2 years old and the first service had not been due when I returned the car. They seemed to accept this as any of their subsequent demands for payment had not included this. Now its back on the table!!!