Voluntary Termination Charges.

[Rimax]

Hello, I have voluntarily terminated my vehicle. I am now in a battle with the collection company Manhiem. The car was 8 years old with minor wear and tear and was auctioned off before I even had a letter from anyone. I have asked for proof of the work done to the car as I am being charged nearly £700 for " work done" by Manhiem. I have been told they do not need to provide proof of the work done. Is this true!!!!!
For me to pay £700 without photo evidence is slightly beyond belief.
I would appreciate any help you can provide.
Thank you

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Hello,

This link will be a good starting point, http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ry-Termination

The onus is on them to provide evidence, I would hope you took photos of the vehicle before you handed over?

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Hello Rob,
Thank you for your message. So as I thought, Shoosmiths who are acting on behalf of Manhiem, have to provide proof of the work allegedly done to the vehicle. Is this correct as I have to respond to Shoosmiths in the next couple of days and want to ensure that I have all information related to this correct.
Thank you.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Hello Rob,
Thank you for your message. So as I thought, Shoosmiths who are acting on behalf of Manhiem, have to provide proof of the work allegedly done to the vehicle. Is this correct as I have to respond to Shoosmiths in the next couple of days and want to ensure that I have all information related to this correct.
Thank you.

Hi Rimax yes they would have to prove it, the so called damages can only be ordered by a court so they cannot just demand it. If they don't have evidence of any repairs how can they show any loss? The car was sold at auction so they could of easily sold it privately for more money but chose not to. The vehicle is 8 years old so its bound to have some scratches and dents etc.

Can you clarify who instructed Shoosmiths? You say Manheim but I am just a little surprised by that because it's the finance co's vehicle and Manheim are just the auctioneer selling on behalf of the lender.
IF you can also provide any letters from Shoosmiths with any personal info redacted would be useful.

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Evening,
Thank you again. I have looked at the first and only letter( all other correspondence was by email) and I stand corrected Shoosmiths are working on behalf of Gmac. I could email all the emails to you but haven't a clue how to do this on this site.
Great so if they have done the repairs then there should be proof, so I shall ask for such.
Thank you.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Oh I see, well if they are all sent by emails, you could just copy and paste the content on here? Obviously remove your name and any sensitive information too as this is a public forum, including your email address. Once i've read what they have said I will be able to get a better understanding of how to help you.

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Ok, I am sorry ahead of time there are a few.
Dear sir or madam,
I have received a letter dated December 23rd but received December 29th from you regarding termination of my car finance, my reference number is
Could you please inform me of your dispute process regarding the costs of the repairs Manhiem have quoted on collection of the Vauxhall V referenced.
I feel the that the gentleman who processed the examination has not taken in to consideration what was discussed at that time.
I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide as quoted in your letter I only have 14 days to make my enquiries.

Good Afternoon,
I write withreference to the above matter

After personalreview of your Vehicle Inspection Report I can confirm that all damages presenton the vehicle are outside of our client’s fair wear and tear guidelines.

In respect of theRear Bumper Dent I can confirm that, as stated within our clients fair wear andtear guidelines, the vehicle body must be sound, well maintained and free fromany panel damage or disfigurement. Permanent damage to the chassis or underbodywill not be acceptable.

The same wouldalso apply to the Front Bumper Chip, the Post Left Scratch and the BonnetScratch; if chips or scratches have exposed primer or bare metal, or falloutside of the allowed 25mm, some form of repair will be required to thevehicle. Therefore you remain liable for these repair costs and the damagesexceed our client’s guidelines.

Our client hastaken the age of the vehicle into consideration when reviewing the damages onthe vehicle as shown to the following;

- Left Front Wheel Trim (Scuffed)
- Left Rear Wheel Trim (Scuffed)
- Right Rear Wheel Trim (Scuffed)
- Right Rear Door Scratch (100mm+)
- Right Front Door Chips (5 – 10mm)
- Right Front Door Moulding (Chips)
- Right Front Wheel Trim (Scuffed)
- Right Quarter Panel Scratch (100mm+)

You will note youhave not been charged for these repairs.

With theinformation above I can confirm that you remain fully liable for the currentoutstanding liability of £1052.31.

However in a viewto come to an early and satisfactory conclusion I can confirm that I am able tooffer you a discount towards the repair costs reducing the outstanding balanceto £929.20 in full and final.

This payment wouldneed to be made in cleared funds to the office within 30 days of the date ofthis email.

I look forward toreceiving your payment by 13 February 2016.

Kind Regards

Thank you for your email dated 14th January 2016.

In response to this I would like to know what the process is regarding Disputing the findings the examiner from Manheim found on the car.
Do I deal with yourselves regarding this or do I go through Manheim
I have previously asked with regards to this and nothing has been explained to me and the option has not been provided as I was told by GMAC and Manheim
There are some points that need clarifying in the report they have submitted.
I look forward to hearing from you


Dated 28th January2016

Good Morning ,

I write in regardsto the above mentioned matter and in response to your below email.

I can confirm thatyour opportunity to dispute you any damages included within your Vehicle InspectorReport is now directly with Shoosmiths. If you have any disputes, pleaseprovide me with specific details to your disputes to allow me to investigatethese.

Please respond tothis email within the next 7 days.


I look forward tohearing from you.

Dated 2nd February 2016

Good morning,

Thank you for your response dated 28th January with regards to my email dated 18th January 2016, of disputing the outcome of Manheim's examination of vehicle registration

With regards to this I would like to know how is someone able to dispute the work done to the vehicle when it has been taxed, new mot applied and sold on at Auction before I even received any correspondence from anyone at all regarding the work that had been done.

I strongly dispute your "damage value" as I considered any damage there was on the vehicle was minimal and therefore considered to be deemed as fair wear & tear. The damage was certainly not over and above the "industry fair wear and tear" you state.

Section 100 of the Consumer Credit Act only states that "reasonable care" must be taken of the goods and there is certainly no prescription to return the car in showroom condition.

Dated 4th February 2016

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your below response.

I can confirm that I have referred to my client regarding your account and will respond accordingly to your email once my client has got back to me.

Apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Kind regards


Dated 17th February 2016

Dear

I write in regards to the below emails.

I can confirm that your balance outstanding, as stated in our letters dated 23 December 2015 and 12 January 2016, is £1052.31, broken down as follows:-

Vehicle Asset Protection - £436.20
Repairs - £616.11

I note from your correspondence that you are disputing the repairs.

The damages shown in the Vehicle Inspection Report are outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines. The Guidelines were provided to your at the point of Voluntary Termination. By continuing through the process and signing to agree with the terms and conditions, this shows that you have been made aware and agreed to the guidelines.

To clarify, the following repairs are due and payable:-

Rear Bumper- This damage is in regards to a dent in the bumper that is over 100mm. This damage is not within the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines which is why you have been charged £292.11.
A Post L Scratched - This damage is in regards to a part panel refinish and is outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines. As stated within the guidelines, very minor dents of up to 10mm are allowed. This damage is far more severe at 30-100mm, therefore, the charge of £64.00 stands.

Front Bumper Chips – This damage is in regards to chips to the paintwork that are outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines.

Bonnet Scratched – This damage is in regards to a scratch on the bonnet that is over 100mm and is outside of the Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines. Therefore, the charge of £196.00 stands.

The Fair Wear and Tear Guidelines state, “If chips and scratches have exposed primer or bare metal, some form of repair will be required.”

I have attached enlarged images of each of the damages for you to review.

All of the damages are a reflection of the quality to which you returned the vehicle in and these damages have, in turn, depreciated the value of my clients vehicle when sold at auction. I therefore stand by my clients claim and confirm that you remain fully liable for the outstanding balance of £1052.31.

However, in a bid to resolve this matter amicably my client would be prepared to accept the sum of £890.00 in full and final settlement on the strict condition that you made this payment within the following 30 days as one lump sum payment.

If you are not in a position to settle for this amount, then we can reach a monthly payment arrangement that is affordable for you to repay the full balance of £1052.31.

I look forward to receiving your response within the following 7 days.


Dated March 1st 2016

Dear

Thank you for your email, your comments have been noted.

If you are claiming that the damage to the bonnet and the postscratched were on the vehicle before you purchased it, then I would requiredocumentary evidence from the Dealership to verify the same. Upon receipt ofthe Dealership confirming that these damages were on the vehicle prior to youtaking the vehicle out on finance, I would then be in a position to refer to myclient for their consideration. To clarify, without this documentation, youremain liable for each damage to the vehicle that is outside of the fair wearand tear guidelines in accordance with the vehicle inspection report and theterms and conditions of your agreement.

In regards to the stone chips to the front bumper and the rearbumper dent, under the fair wear and tear guidelines you will note that “some light stone chipping, andvery minor dents up to 10mm are acceptable…..if chips or scratches have exposedprimer or bare metal, some form of repair will be required. Minor scuffing tobumpers, up to 25mm is acceptable” Youcan very clearly see from the enlarged image that I already emailed to you,that the stone chips to the front bumper have exposed primer or bare metal. Aswell as this, the rear bumper dent is over 100mm, which is evidenced by theruler beneath the dent, and is therefore outside of my clients fair wear andtear guidelines. You were sent the fair wear and tear guidelines and you signedand returned the VT paperwork to my client, copy attached, which indicates thatyou agreed with the sums that would become due and payable following yourVoluntary Termination.

I am under no obligation to provide you with evidence of anyrepair done to the vehicle before auction. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974,Section 100, you will note that my client are allowed to increase the sumrequired to recompense the creditor for that contravention due to the fact thedamage incurred to the vehicle has depreciated the value of my clients vehicle.You are contractually liable to pay the full repairs sum to my client, and Istand by my clients claim in that regard.


Just to add to as they quoted in one of the emails, I did not sign any documents relating to costs for damage before or after the vehicle was collected, they have put my electronic signature on the document sent to me with the costs of the repairs done to the car, after the car was sold at auction.
The only form I signed was a proof of collection and I signed a PDA to state, so I was told, for the damage detailed no mention of costs. If that was the case I would not have signed it.
I am extremely grateful for all your assistance

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

The emails are helpful and useful, I will try to write something up for you by tomorrow. Is the electronic signature differ from your usual signature? can you show that it is different from any other signature? If they have lifted a signature and put it on a document then that could amount to fraud and deceit, which I would personally want to put to them but only if you are certain you did not sign anything as to costs, and if you can show that it was a digital signature such as one on a PDA that what your standard signature would be. If they have indeed done this, then that is certainly a counterclaim you could make and put Shoosmiths on notice about this.

The fair wear and tear guidelines are for commercial leasing and vehicle renting not personal use vehicles. GMAC are also not part part of the BVRLA institution so I fail to see how they can rely on them. Also, Shoosmiths have omitted the fact that the car need only be in a reasonable one, to pay for those charges without any proof of costs paid for them, GMAC cannot prove they have incurred a loss just because it was sold at auction and the repairs are likely to put the car in a better condition than a reasonable one.

Before I draft anything, if you could answer the first point that would be helpful

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Hello Rob,
Concerning the first point you can definitely tell this is a signature through a pda. I have not signed the paper work personally. The copy of documents with the costs on was sent in the post. I was not advised on prices if any at the time I signed the Pda, it was my understanding I was signing to show there was wear and tear to the vehicle and was not corrected when I questioned the examiner. I did at the time dispute issues to the car with the examiner but nothing is stated on the paper sent to me regarding this.
Thank you very much for your time I am so very grateful.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Thanks Rimax,

I'll knock something up later this evening

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Amazing thank you.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Here we go, have a read of this and let me know if it makes sense and you are happy with it

----------------------

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write further to your email of 1 March 2016.

To reiterate my previous correspondence, 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.

You state in your email that you require documentary evidence that the damages were already sustained prior to the vehicle being purchased on finance however your client also cannot prove that the damage was caused by me. Your client failed to view the vehicle prior to the beginning of the agreement and the onus is on your client to prove that the alleged damage caused was not only as a result of me but that the vehicle as a whole and not the damage, falls below a reasonable condition.

I also note that you refer to the “fair wear and tear guidelines” and presumably you are referring to the BVRLA Guidelines. Unfortunately, the guidelines you refer to are of no relevance to this situation for two reasons. Firstly, your client is not a member of the BVRLA which has been confirmed by the trade body and secondly, the guidelines are used specifically for the leasing and renting commercial vehicles of which, the vehicle in question was purchased under a consumer credit agreement is not for commercial purposes but a personal one. Furthermore, a vehicle which is deemed to be in a reasonable condition would satisfy the following (but not limited to):

1. Regular servicing
2. Valid MOT
3. Small stone chips and scratches resulting from motorway driving
4. Any minor scratches or dents
5. Minor scuff marks on alloy wheels

As I mentioned above, the vehicle was returned to your client in a reasonable condition and therefore any claim for compensation as a result of any vehicle damage is denied. Your client is not entitled to any compensation outright under s.100 of the CCA 1974 and must show (with evidence) that the vehicle was in an unreasonable condition. Nonetheless, your client appears to have failed to mitigate any loss as a result of the alleged damage that they claim has been caused by me. It is common knowledge that vehicle sold at auction are unlikely to give the best return whereas your client could have simply sold the vehicle personally or alternatively to a dealership, either of which would have likely given your client a higher valuation of the vehicle. Therefore, your client has failed to reasonably mitigate any of their losses that they are claiming.

Notwithstanding the above, it has also come to my attention that you have supplied me a document of costs relating to the damages your client is claiming that I purportedly signed myself. For the avoidance of doubt, at no point did I sign any document containing costs of the vehicle however, I did provide my signature on a PDA device which I was informed and stated that I acknowledged the collection of the vehicle. It appears that your client has “lifted” the electronic signature and attached this to the document of costs. In doing so, your client is therefore committing a criminal offence of fraud and/or fraudulent misrepresentation as well as deceit. May I also point out that the signature on the document bears no resemblance to my usual signature and it is quite clear that the signature is an electronic one. As you will no doubt be aware, fraud is a serious offence and I am surprised that your client seems to have resorted to such actions in an attempt to reclaim any further sums outside of the limited liability.

In light of the above circumstances, should your client wish to pursue the alleged charges, I fully intend on defending the matter including a counterclaim for the above offences.

Please confirm that your client agrees to remove such charges.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely/faithfully,

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

Hi rob,
Wow that is an incredible letter. It is amazing. I am going to send this now to them and we shall see what I receive in response. I will keep you informed. I am so grateful for your time, help and guidance. Thank you doesn't seem enough.

[R0b]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

No worries, there is a couply grammatical errors I've corrected, so you may wish to re-read it again.

Can I ask what the below is for?

Vehicle Asset Protection - £436.20

[Rimax]

Re: Voluntary Termination Charges.

It was for Gap insurance and Warranty. I cancelled these in the first 14 days and they sent me cheques to refund the amounts, Gap £349.00 and Warranty £349.00. I was still paying these off in my monthly payments and have been told by Shoosmiths I still have to pay this back. Gmac also informed of this also.