VT with RCI - my experiences so far.

[BeardManMatt]

Update,
Car collected on Monday the 17th February by Manheim. My experience of the inspector/collector was that they were fine to deal with.
He called me in advance to give me a rough time, he was prompt on the day and well mannered. I offered a cuppa to get off on the right foot. I sorted that and he went for a look around the car. I had taken loads of photos so was happy enough to leave him to it unattended.

He came back to the door after 10/15mins or so and ran through the report. Attached below.
Now i knew there were a couple of imperfections like a branch scrape from tight cornish lanes and there were 2 stone chips on the end of the bonnet. These he said were fair wear and tear. The one item he did mark down was where the seatbelt had obviously been trapped in the door and had dented and removed paint. Probably my youngest son in a haste to get out and back inside to his toys!
He has marked it down as a £138 charge.
I explained to him that i wouldn't want to sign the report as i wasn't keen on being liable for any amount. he was perfectly happy with this and ticked the 'customer refused to sign' box. I did however sign his gps tracker app that said he had been to my address and had taken the car away. I did check and there was nothing obvious about liability attached to that. It was all electronic on the tablet.
I have heard nothing from RCI yet but will update when i do.
Regards,

[BeardManMatt]

Evening all,
I have had a letter from the end of agreement team at RCI, i have attached it below.
They are asking for £138 for 'Damages'.
As detailed in rob's guide i will be asking for a full and complete breakdown as simply sending a headed letter with a chart showing 'Damages' £138 is unacceptable.
I will be asking for proof of the alleged damage in the form of photos both before and after the repair along with a copy of the receipt for the work having been completed.
I feel without this proof it is tantamount to theft or at the least an unscrupulous demand for money that i cannot be sure they needed.
The report from Manheim shows i have maintained the car to a better than reasonable condition so therefore i believe they have no case to ask for any monies at all.
I shall draft a reply and post as soon as i can.
Any pointers on items to be specific about would be appreciated
Matt

*EDIT* having a problem uploading the images after re sizing. will post when possible

[BeardManMatt]

RCI Letter

[BeardManMatt]

My attempt at a reply:

R0b*would you be able to throw a cursory glance over it?






End Of Contract Department
Nissan Finance
Rivers Office Park
Denham Way
Maple Cross
Rickmansworth
WD3 9YS
*
By email:*vtteam@rcibanque.com

*
To Whom It May Concern,
*
Re: Condition of vehicle following voluntary termination*
I am writing to you with reference to the above matter and your letter dated 26/02/2020.*
Please note that liability in relation to the alleged outstanding balance for excessive damage to the vehicle is denied.*
*
I would like to address your letter and claim of ‘Damage’ in a number of points below:
*
The report from your appointed agent ‘Manheim’ who inspected the vehicle prior to collection on the 17^th*of February states ‘Damage’ and a charge of £138.*
*

1. I do not believe this is a reasonable breakdown of costs and is too vague to demand remuneration.

*

1. As above, how has RCI determined*the cost to be*£138?*

*

1. Is this the only quote that was obtained to determine the cost of repair?

*

1. There is no proof of damage attached to your payment demand and no photo to show that the repair has been carried out.*

*

1. There is also no evidence to show that not affecting the repair would have damaged RCI financially and to what effect.*

*
*
*
*

The vehicle was returned with a recorded mileage under the recognized UK average for its age. I believe that this alone would increase the vehicle resale value and compensate RCI for any damage that could be classified as beyond fair wear and tear. Proof of this is indicated by the emphasis RCI places on excess millage when a debtor is exercising their right to Voluntary Termination.

Your letter states that you have used BVRLA guidelines to determine that the unprecedented damage does not meet the standard of fair wear and tear.*
I would like to point out that although the contract states that RCI would use the BVRLA standard to assess any damage when the vehicle is returned, the CCA 1974 states that I only need to take reasonable care of the vehicle.
It is my view that the BVRLA Standard sets a higher standard than the reasonable care standard (which is a low standard) and according to Section 173(1) of the CCA 1974, any contractual term that imposes additional liability whether directly or indirectly that conflicts with the CCA 1974 is deemed void.*

The BVRLA standard does not take into account the age and the use of the vehicle. It is unfair to hold a vehicle that is 3 years old and used by a family to the same standards as a newer vehicle used less frequently by a single person.*
It is reasonable to assume that as a vehicle used in the above manor by a family will, as the vehicle gets older and more use, be more at risk of wear and tear.*

I would suggest a fairer way of dealing with any suggested damage is to apply the ‘CAP HPI vehicle conditions standard’ method of evaluation. The CAP HPI method puts the vehicle into a Good, Average or Bad condition and does take into account the vehicles age and use.
I believe my vehicle would fall into the ‘Good’ category considering its age, condition, use, and the inspection report issued upon collection.

As a result of the above points in regard to the condition, the vagueness of the report, and the lack of any proof of damage, condition and repair. I will, on receipt of a return email consider the matter closed.
*
Please confirm by return email that you agree to the above and that this matter is now closed.*
*
Yours faithfully,*
*

[R0b]

Looks fine but be aware, they aren't obligated to have the car repaired before claiming the money from you, just in case they respond I would expect something like that.

*

[BeardManMatt]

Looks fine but be aware, they aren't obligated to have the car repaired before claiming the money from you, just in case they respond I would expect something like that.

I don't doubt you, but why is it that they can charge me without doing the work?*

Surely if they don't get the work done and then charge me subjectively that is at the least unscrupulous? even, obtaining money under false pretences?*

[R0b]

Because whether they choose to repair the car or not is entirely up to them, the fact is the car has been damaged and that in of itself entitles them to the cost of repair as compensation, so it's not money under false pretences.

If I damage something of yours that wasn't worth repairing either because of hassle or time and minor cost, you'd still expect compensation for the damage caused. Same principle applies here, compensation is determined by the damage because that is the loss.

[BeardManMatt]

how long is reasonable to be waiting for a reply when engaging with RCI?*


Obviously we have bigger things going on worldwide at the moment but so far its been 2 weeks give or take a day.*

Its going to take an awful long time to get this sorted if it takes 2 weeks to reply to me every time i send an email!

So currently nothing new to report other than RCI's lack of contact.

[R0b]

Well recent events might have an impact on responding so I think you may need to be a little reasonable there, however you can still follow up with a further email to them saying it's been two weeks and you haven't heard back, and ask them to give you a reply.

Having said that, the ball's in the court of RCI so I don't see why you would want them to rush a reply out to you.

[BeardManMatt]

Morning,

I received a reply from RCI on the 27th March, as below.*

I will have a go at drafting a reply but immediate things that jump out are:

They have ignored the suggestion to use the fairer and more appropriate CAP HPI method.

They also have not provided evidence of any damage other than a piece of headed paper with a printed box and the sum £138. It may aswell be written on the back of a paper napkin. to me it has no basis and is not proof of damage.*


I will have a search on the forum to see if there is anymore guidance on disputes.*


Cheers all



Dear Mr #### ######,

Thank you for your recent email and apologies from our delay in response.*

On review of your email I understand that you wish to dispute the outstanding balance of which I’m sorry to hear, hopefully with my response I can provide you with some clarification as to why you have been charged and come to a resolution.*

I understand you disagree with the damages charges which have been highlighted in your Vehicle Inspection Report. On review of the Vehicle Inspection Report, *I can see from the photos that have been taken that unfortunately the damage falls outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines that have been set by the BVRLA. Sadly although this is not the answer you may have wanted, you have agreed by signing your contract that if any damage has not been repaired before the Vehicle Inspection Report then you would be charged for damage costs. You would have had the opportunity to get any damaged repaired before the inspector reviewed the vehicle by an approved garage, *but sadly this was not done.

You have advised that you feel we have “lack of any proof of damage”, unfortunately I would have to disagree, on the basis we have had a trained professional from Manheim review you vehicle and we have the photos of the damage as evidence.*

The cost of the damage charges is benched marked against other approved garages to ensure we provide a fair price for the damage highlighted, I understand you have requested proof that the damage has been repaired but unfortunately we are not obligated to provide such evidence, *I apologise I cannot meet your request.*

You have mentioned in your email that you have returned the vehicle with less mileage than you agreed which we thank you for, but unfortunately as this was the case we would not reimburse you for this, nor would be offset this against the damage charges. In your contract you have confirmed that if you go over your mileage allowance then you will be charged at 8p per mile, it does not say that you would reimbursed money if you have chosen to do less mileage than you agreed as you decided what your annual mileage allowance would be. I’m sorry this may not be the answer you wanted.

Due to the points that I have raised above, unfortunately I will not be closing the account and the balance outstanding will remain at £138.00. I understand if you are not in a position to make a one of payment to clear the balance we have other options available to you to help you get this Final Liability Charge paid off. This includes different payment methods and options to pay over monthly instalments which may better suit you.*

Please don’t hesitate to contact our offices and we would more than happy to help assist you. Our contact number is 0800 678 3172 during our opening hours, *Monday - Friday 09:00am - 17:30pm.
*
Kind regards,
*
*

[BeardManMatt]

I have just checked my credit file and it has gone down by 79 points.*


I do not subscribe to expedian so cannot be sure but it seems likely as i don't have any other credit than a mortgage that my credit file has been marked too.*

I guess thats something else im now going to have to do; start a formal complaint about that.*

[TINY TOTS]

Hi beardmanmatt how did things go once they took the car? Also did you cancel direct debit once u sent vt? I have and I'm expecting loads of letters now from finance company. I sent vt 20.march and cancelled direct debit 25th next direct debit was due today 1 April*
BeardManMatt*

[BeardManMatt]

Hi beardmanmatt how did things go once they took the car? Also did you cancel direct debit once u sent vt? I have and I'm expecting loads of letters now from finance company. I sent vt 20.march and cancelled direct debit 25th next direct debit was due today 1 April
BeardManMatt

Hi,*

My experience with Manheim who collected the car was positive to be honest. The inspector was very pleasant and just got on with the inspection. I politely refused to sign the inspection paper but they are more than aware of why you don't want to sign it.*
After that i just waited for RCI to contact me with their demand for payment.*

I cancelled my Direct Debit as soon as i had proof they had received my VT letter and email. Once you can prove they have received your letter/email then you can cancel the DD without fear of retribution. You are only obliged to inform them of your decision to VT, after that your contract is terminated.

Have you started a thread? Probably best to if you haven't and that way you can just update it and tag Rob or anyone else and they can help you out if its needed.*

Good Luck

Matt

[BeardManMatt]

R0b*

Good evening,

Im not really sure where to start with this one, i have got a few points down on a reply but before i post it...

Some guidance with the below if you can?
RCI responses in red.*


I understand you disagree with the damages charges which have been highlighted in your Vehicle Inspection Report. On review of the Vehicle Inspection Report, I can see from the photos that have been taken that unfortunately the damage falls outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines that have been set by the BVRLA. Sadly although this is not the answer you may have wanted, you have agreed by signing your contract that if any damage has not been repaired before the Vehicle Inspection Report then you would be charged for damage costs. You would have had the opportunity to get any damaged repaired before the inspector reviewed the vehicle by an approved garage, but sadly this was not done.

Am i correct in saying that the CCA 1974 is statute law and that their contract is just that 'contractual' and thus is unenforceable in terms of the BVRLA terms imposed upon me regarding alleged damages and their terms being of a higher standard than fair wear and tear?*
I believe the 2nd part about getting damages repaired as being irrelevant as they A) have provided no proof of damage to me. And B) i don't agree with their assessment of the damage under the BVRLA guidelines.*

You have advised that you feel we have “lack of any proof of damage”, unfortunately I would have to disagree, on the basis we have had a trained professional from Manheim review you vehicle and we have the photos of the damage as evidence.

The cost of the damage charges is benched marked against other approved garages to ensure we provide a fair price for the damage highlighted, I understand you have requested proof that the damage has been repaired but unfortunately we are not obligated to provide such evidence, I apologise I cannot meet your request.

This just seems plain ridiculous to me, please educate me if im wrong but surely a professional company would be able and willing to show proof of the damage they are trying to claim?*
In this modern day is it not easy enough to attach a photo to an email to show what damages they are seeking compensation for.*
Am i barking up the wrong tree with this avenue?
After all, i have not seen their photos and so can't be sure of any damage, perhaps if i had seen them i might even agree with them?*


I wonder if i am at the stage where this is going to go back and forth until someone decides they want to take me to court for £138?


Matt
*

[xs2man]

I guess what you do here really depends on how up for a battle you are.* You have already acknowledged in this thread that the damage was likely done while the vehicle was in your ownership.* Further, you have already mentioned that you credit report has had a negative hit.

If it were me, for the sake of £138, which doesn't really seem all that unreasonable, I would probably pay it and get on with my life.* Otherwise, this could drag out for a long time, all the while affecting your credit score, and might only be recoverable with you taking them to court over this.

By all means, if your principles take priority, and you are willing to fight this at any cost, then crack on.* But my experience of dealing with finance companies is that they are quite happy to ruin your credit score while taking no action, requiring you to make any moves.* If you then offer, at a later date, to pay off the charge to resolve the issue, they will not change their markers on your file either.* You need to take them to court to make them do this, assuming they were proved incorrect in doing so.* Which will be hard if you have already paid the charge.

If it were me, there are more important things going on in the world right now, so I would take the hit of £138 and just forget about it and move on.* It is a small figure when compared to all the other costs associated with the running of any vehicle.