Voluntary Termination with Mercedes Benz Finance

[RugbyRules]

I would like some advice on the following situation if possible please.

I recently Voluntarily Terminated a PCP finance deal with Mercedes (MBFS). I used the very helpful template template letter provided on this site to action the VT and the car was successfully collected on 15 November 2018.

Prior to collection I ensured that the vehicle was clean (inside and out). The vehicle was well within the mileage limit (pro rata) and I also paid for the alloy wheels to be fully refurbished, as there was some kerb damage.

On the day of collection, the agent of BCA (on behalf of MBFS) inspected the car and did not find any damage to be reported. The weather was fine and dry and I took my own set of pictures (outside and inside) to show the condition of the vehicle upon collection.

On 22nd November I received an invoice for GBP455 from MBFS and a letter to say "when your vehicle was inspected and collected it was assessed in line with our return standards". However, the same letter goes on to say damage was found to the vehicle after "further inspections at the De-fleet centre".

The specific damage that was mentioned in the letter was:
1. Scratches to the left and right hand rear quarter panel (GBP 210 each panel)
2. Load area carpet scuffed (GBP 35)

I have written to MBFS to say that I do not accept any liability for these damages as they were not caused by me and did not exist when the car was handed over to the collection agent on 15 November 2018. I have also stated that MBFS has not presented any evidence of the damage and certainly no evidence that the damage was incurred while the vehicle was in my custody. I understand that it is the responsibility of MBFS to provide this evidence and that it is not my responsibility to prove that the car was not damaged.

I have not received any response to my letter. However, I have received a further demand for payment of the invoice for GBP455.

My question is, what to do next? Should I:
(a) Call the number on the most recent payment demand to discuss the matter or;
(b) Write again to MBFS to refute the claim for damage or;
(c) Do nothing and wait for an inevitable further demand for payment?

Any pointers you can offer with the above would be much appreciated. Thanks

[R0b]

Make a formal complaint. You should keep everything moving forward in writing as evidence and record purposes.

If Mercedes have ignored your letter to provide evidence that proves the damage was caused by you then you should bring that up in your complaint letter and ask them to explain why they have ignored your request to provide evidence yet continued to demand money from you.

It would also be helpful to remind them that the BCA agent did not make a note of any damage when it was collected and so the logical explanation is that the damage occurred whilst it was in BCA's possession and so they should be looking to recover any damage from them, not you.

[RugbyRules]

Many thanks for the swift response. I will write a further letter of complaint to MBFS highlighting the points you mentioned.

I will revert with any developments

[RugbyRules]

A further development since my last post.

I wrote a letter of complaint to MBFS and sent this (signed for) yesterday.

I have returned home this evening to find that I have received a reply to my original letter, from the De-fleet administrator.

This letter is both confusing and factually incorrect. the first 6 paragraphs discuss mileage excess. Our vehicle mileage allowance was agreed at 20,000 per annum over 4 years and we returned it with 69939 after 1,413 days of ownership. So this was well inside the pro-rata calculation of 77,424 miles. We have not been charged for excess mileage on the final invoice, so this further confuses the matter.

The last paragraph of the letter refers to the damage for which I have been invoiced, it reads as follows:

"In regard to the damage, this would not have been highlighted on collection of the vehicle, as they only ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy. The collection driver will not point out damage. The damage in the images is age related and falls outside of our Vehicle Return Standards. as the damage falls outside of our Vehicle Return Standards, I am able to confirm that the charge stands."

I have several objections to this:

1. The collection driver did inspect the vehicle thoroughly and took pictures inside and out.
2. No damage was found at the time of collection. I was even able to get the collection driver to remove, what he originally thought to be, alloy wheel damage from his report, as there was a little tyre fitters grease on the wheel rim.
3. There were no "images" enclosed with the letter so I have no means of knowing what they mean by "age related damage". There is no definition of age related damage in the guidance notes relating to returning the vehicle.

It seems like they have sent out a generic response letter which does not appear to relate to our vehicle. I guess I need to write another letter containing all of the above back to MBFS?

Any further thoughts?

[RugbyRules]

I have received a call today (11 Jan 2019) from the de-fleet centre in Telford, asking me how I wish to proceed with the matter.

I explained that the vehicle was collected by BCA on 15 November 2018 and that the alleged damages were not present at that time.

The member of the de-fleet team told me that the person who collected the vehicle was just a driver and that I should have arranged for a separate inspection up to two weeks prior to collection. I replied that I had advised MBFS, in writing, that the car was ready for collection and then handed the vehicle over to the BCA collection agent, in complete accordance with their instructions.

At no point was I offered a further inspection, including in the letter from BCA which gave details of the collection date and means of handover.

I repeatedly asked for evidence that the damage had occurred while the car was in my possession, to which they replied: we have an inspection report that was carried out at the de-fleet centre. I told them that this was not evidence that any damages were caused by me, as the vehicle was no longer in my custody at the point of the inspection.

They also asked me for my photographic evidence that the car was not damaged on the date of collection. At this stage, I have refused to provide those photographs as I suspect that they will either find fault with them or say they do not contain sufficient detail of the allegedly damaged areas. Instead I repeated my request for them to provide evidence of the damage that was caused by me. The lady I was speaking to said she cannot provide that evidence because they do not have it, as the inspection had not been carried out prior to collection.

They then threatened that the outstanding invoice will be placed in the hands of a third party debt collection agency. I asked them not to do this as there is no basis for the invoice and I am not liable for the charges.

I was then told that the only way to prevent the matter being passed to a debt collector was for me to register a formal complaint, so the file could be placed in the hands of the resolution department. I explained that I had already written to complain three times to MBFS at Milton Keynes (the address on the invoice and all correspondence), to be told that the de-fleet centre is in Telford and they haven't got copies of those letters.

Eventually, they agreed to accept the phone call as registration of my complaint and I agreed to send all of my correspondence via email to the resolution manager. They will respond in three working days apparently.

Can you advise if I am correct to withhold my photographs at this point and to continue to ask MBFS to produce any evidence they may have of the damages?

Many thanks

[R0b]

I don't see a benefit in withholding evidence really. The burden of proof rests with MBFS to show that the car did not have the damage they are claiming to be caused by you at the time of collection. If they didnt bother to take photographs then that's their problem. This isn't a reverse burden of proof - the party claiming something has happened must prove it

[RugbyRules]

Thank you. This is useful.

I will include my photographs with the letters that I send across to them.

Just for clarification from your comment above. Am I correct in saying that the burden of proof rests with MBFS to show that the car was damaged at, or prior to, the time of collection? Or, is it the other way round. I am asserting that there was no damage and MBFS are required to prove what I am saying is correct. This would seem counter to their argument for claiming damages from me?

[Nodbadthebad]

Hi

How did this turn out?