Tweet
Long story short I have tried everything and every template I can find on this site in order to try and get FCA Automotive Services to drop an excess mileage claim of £643.92 when I VT'd my vehicle just under a year ago. They will also not drop the collection fee of £138.29. I have been successful in getting them to lower the damage charges to only £60 which I am happy to pay. I will post the full transcript below.
I believe I VT'd the vehicle for the "right" reasons as I was returning to University and wasn't going to be working so I could no longer afford to run the car. The excess mileage occurred due to an unforeseen increase in miles due to taking a work placement that was further away than my previous job.
Dear sir/ madam
I am writing further to your letter dated 23/10/2018, which I only received via e-mail on 28/03/2019, due to my address not being updated on your system for which I notified you on 25/09/2018.
You will be aware that I have to date paid a number of instalments totalling an amount which exceeds more than half the total price payable under the agreement. Accordingly, I calculate that there are no further instalments to be paid.
Please note that liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excessive damage to the vehicle is denied. The vehicle was maintained in a reasonable condition throughout the period of the agreement and therefore such damage charges you are claiming would amount to fair wear and tear; the vehicle does not need to be returned to you in any better condition other than a reasonable one. Photographic evidence was taken prior to the vehicle being transferred to you which clearly shows that the vehicle was in a reasonable condition. The onus is on you to prove that the alleged damage caused was more than reasonable fair wear and tear. Also to note is that the vehicle was used when entering into the agreement, as such the price of the vehicle reflected the condition of the vehicle at the time which was a used condition with existing wear and tear.
As you will be aware, I exercised my right to terminate the agreement under Section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “Act”). In doing so, Section 100(1) of the Act limits my liability to one half of the total price payable which excludes any compensation for breach of contract. As the collection charge imposes an additional charge over and above one half of the total price payable, the charge is deemed void as per Section 174 of the Act. Accordingly, I am under no obligation to pay the charge at all.
Liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excess mileage is denied. It is clear that upon exercising my voluntary termination right, the ability to recover any sums exceeding one half of the total price payable no longer exist. Had I not exercised this right, and instead continued the agreement until the hire period expired and opting to return the vehicle, then the excess mileage charges would have applied as the limited liability rule would not be engaged.
With regards to Section 100(4), the duty is to take reasonable care of the vehicle and to avoid any negligent act or omission that causes physical damage to it whilst in my possession. I have yet to see any evidence from FCA Automotive Services which indicates that the excess mileage has resulted in physical damage beyond reasonable wear and tear. I would also point out that the same point was raised in the Mercedes-Benz Financial Services (UK) Limited v Cahalane case (Willesden County Court, 26 February 2018) and failed on the basis that there was no correlation between the excess mileage and a failure to take reasonable care of the vehicle.
Finally, I would remind you that as a consequence of terminating the agreement under Section 99 of the CCA 1974 and having met the relevant criteria under S.100(1) of the CCA 1974, my liability is limited to one half of the total price payable. Any additional costs, expenses, compensation or otherwise relating to a breach of the agreement are irrecoverable.
I would appreciate your comments to the above and together with any evidence you have in your possession. In the absence of a substantive response, I have nothing further to add and consider this matter to be closed.
Yours faithfully,
...
Dear ...,
Thank you for your email.
Take Reasonable Care
We believe independent bodies should set standards for care that's why we don't use our own guidelines, although we are entitled to use our own. Across most industries
if someone rented an item, the customer doesn't determine fair care, the owner does, we use the British standard (BVRLA).
Other Customers
We don't comment on other customers or companies, please note all companies have various types of contracts.
Repayment Plan
Our collection function work with customers to assist repayment without causing financial hardship. You may request a repayment plan from
our collections function (0333-207-5582).
Damages
The BVRLA guidelines state costs maybe the actual repair costs or the loss of value cost.
In general if a member of the public is comparing items (same type/features/specification), whether food, clothing, appliances, vehicles, etcetera if one has a
fault (blemish, scuff, tear, missing item, misalignment, dent...), they don't want to pay 100% of the value, this principle is a loss of value, it may vary from the cost to rectify.
Hopefully so there isn't any confusion, the inspection conducted by our agents was to determine the degree to how the vehicle was cared for. A tolerance
for damage is allowed, but it needs to be considered Fair wear and tear (FWAT). Although we owned the vehicle and are entitled to use our own guidelines we don't, we
use the British standard (BVRLA) to determine FWAT.
Prior to starting the VT, you were sent a VT Request letter that stated if the vehicle is returned then the inspector would use the BVRLA guidelines to determine damages.
The BVRLA set the inspection guidelines, the auction houses set the prices, it's not in their interest to inflate prices as they want the best prices at sale.
Issues should be rectified prior to returning the vehicle.
We have reviewed the inspection report (attached), the Rear Bumper charge has been removed. QTR Panel L reduced to £48.00.
Dents on body panels exceeding 10mm or paintwork exposed are not permitted by the BVRLA.
Scratches/Scuffs on body panels exceeding 25mm or paintwork exposed are not permitted by the BVRLA.
Scuffs on wheel trims exceeding 50mm (whole circumference) or any damage to spokes are not permitted by the BVRLA
As a goodwill gesture to settle the dispute we previously removed £143.00 from your damage charges.
Your O/S balance is £1,063.21.
I believe I VT'd the vehicle for the "right" reasons as I was returning to University and wasn't going to be working so I could no longer afford to run the car. The excess mileage occurred due to an unforeseen increase in miles due to taking a work placement that was further away than my previous job.
Dear sir/ madam
I am writing further to your letter dated 23/10/2018, which I only received via e-mail on 28/03/2019, due to my address not being updated on your system for which I notified you on 25/09/2018.
You will be aware that I have to date paid a number of instalments totalling an amount which exceeds more than half the total price payable under the agreement. Accordingly, I calculate that there are no further instalments to be paid.
Please note that liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excessive damage to the vehicle is denied. The vehicle was maintained in a reasonable condition throughout the period of the agreement and therefore such damage charges you are claiming would amount to fair wear and tear; the vehicle does not need to be returned to you in any better condition other than a reasonable one. Photographic evidence was taken prior to the vehicle being transferred to you which clearly shows that the vehicle was in a reasonable condition. The onus is on you to prove that the alleged damage caused was more than reasonable fair wear and tear. Also to note is that the vehicle was used when entering into the agreement, as such the price of the vehicle reflected the condition of the vehicle at the time which was a used condition with existing wear and tear.
As you will be aware, I exercised my right to terminate the agreement under Section 99 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “Act”). In doing so, Section 100(1) of the Act limits my liability to one half of the total price payable which excludes any compensation for breach of contract. As the collection charge imposes an additional charge over and above one half of the total price payable, the charge is deemed void as per Section 174 of the Act. Accordingly, I am under no obligation to pay the charge at all.
Liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excess mileage is denied. It is clear that upon exercising my voluntary termination right, the ability to recover any sums exceeding one half of the total price payable no longer exist. Had I not exercised this right, and instead continued the agreement until the hire period expired and opting to return the vehicle, then the excess mileage charges would have applied as the limited liability rule would not be engaged.
With regards to Section 100(4), the duty is to take reasonable care of the vehicle and to avoid any negligent act or omission that causes physical damage to it whilst in my possession. I have yet to see any evidence from FCA Automotive Services which indicates that the excess mileage has resulted in physical damage beyond reasonable wear and tear. I would also point out that the same point was raised in the Mercedes-Benz Financial Services (UK) Limited v Cahalane case (Willesden County Court, 26 February 2018) and failed on the basis that there was no correlation between the excess mileage and a failure to take reasonable care of the vehicle.
Finally, I would remind you that as a consequence of terminating the agreement under Section 99 of the CCA 1974 and having met the relevant criteria under S.100(1) of the CCA 1974, my liability is limited to one half of the total price payable. Any additional costs, expenses, compensation or otherwise relating to a breach of the agreement are irrecoverable.
I would appreciate your comments to the above and together with any evidence you have in your possession. In the absence of a substantive response, I have nothing further to add and consider this matter to be closed.
Yours faithfully,
...
Dear ...,
Thank you for your email.
Take Reasonable Care
We believe independent bodies should set standards for care that's why we don't use our own guidelines, although we are entitled to use our own. Across most industries
if someone rented an item, the customer doesn't determine fair care, the owner does, we use the British standard (BVRLA).
Other Customers
We don't comment on other customers or companies, please note all companies have various types of contracts.
Repayment Plan
Our collection function work with customers to assist repayment without causing financial hardship. You may request a repayment plan from
our collections function (0333-207-5582).
Damages
The BVRLA guidelines state costs maybe the actual repair costs or the loss of value cost.
In general if a member of the public is comparing items (same type/features/specification), whether food, clothing, appliances, vehicles, etcetera if one has a
fault (blemish, scuff, tear, missing item, misalignment, dent...), they don't want to pay 100% of the value, this principle is a loss of value, it may vary from the cost to rectify.
Hopefully so there isn't any confusion, the inspection conducted by our agents was to determine the degree to how the vehicle was cared for. A tolerance
for damage is allowed, but it needs to be considered Fair wear and tear (FWAT). Although we owned the vehicle and are entitled to use our own guidelines we don't, we
use the British standard (BVRLA) to determine FWAT.
Prior to starting the VT, you were sent a VT Request letter that stated if the vehicle is returned then the inspector would use the BVRLA guidelines to determine damages.
The BVRLA set the inspection guidelines, the auction houses set the prices, it's not in their interest to inflate prices as they want the best prices at sale.
Issues should be rectified prior to returning the vehicle.
We have reviewed the inspection report (attached), the Rear Bumper charge has been removed. QTR Panel L reduced to £48.00.
Dents on body panels exceeding 10mm or paintwork exposed are not permitted by the BVRLA.
Scratches/Scuffs on body panels exceeding 25mm or paintwork exposed are not permitted by the BVRLA.
Scuffs on wheel trims exceeding 50mm (whole circumference) or any damage to spokes are not permitted by the BVRLA
As a goodwill gesture to settle the dispute we previously removed £143.00 from your damage charges.
Your O/S balance is £1,063.21.
Comment