Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

[Eatyourveg]

Hello everyone, I have recently VT'd a car with Skoda Financial Services and now have a bill for £1700, £500 of which is refurbishment charges the rest is excess mileage.

I am on my third SUV model from Skoda on a pcp (still running) and took out another pcp on a hatchback model in 2014 to replace an ageing 2nd car.

On the hatchack I have now VT'd the mileage was set at 7k per year and no more than 36k total to bring the monthly price down but I was told not to worry as it could be lost in trade in values and would not be expected to be charged for any excess if I was trading the car in for another new/pcp deal.

All was fine until my wife developed a second chronic illness and we lost 40% of our income.

I VT'd the car in July after paying 50% in fact one extra monthly payment than needed due to someone at SFS telling me it was a month too early with just over 36k.
It was fully serviced but I handed it back to the dealer a week or so before the MOT as it would need taxing etc. This was all agreed as fine at the dealers and they said they had never had a problem with a VT and sometimes advise this rather than trading in!

I heard nothing from Skoda until late August when they simply said I had to pay the above charges, no mention of what the damage was or if it had been needed or not.

I used a template from thid site to explain I would not be paying any excess mileage charges and felt I was mis-sold a financial package just to get a sale for the dealership.

I also demanded a breakdown for the refurbishment costs.

Skoda have got back to me with a breakdown of refurbishment costs and pictures. I have my own and do not disagree however am I to be made responsible to pay these when the car has probably been auctioned without prior repair? Or is the onus on them to prove it would be worth less in it's current condition?

As for the excess mileage they are quoting section 99 (2) of the CCA and stating a clause in their contract - which is now void as the VT per CCA terminates that contract?

I have stated I contacted them on numerous occaisions for settlement figures and to check if I could VT and due to their opaqueness I over paid by one month and I would like that amount to be taken off the refurbishment charges. They ignored that.

I am now writing a second letter where I will again deny excess mileage and ask for invoices or proof that work has been undertaken on the car.
I will also threaten to VT the Suv I also have with them on pcp asap if I am not happy with the outcome as a mattet of principle.

Has anyone else come to a positive conclusion on such a matter? There are loads of threads in various places online but I have only seen one where BMW just eventually gave up asking for £1k due to excess mileage.

Thankyou for your patience in reading all that!

[R0b]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Morning,

I see you have read the many threads, and no doubt the VT guide which explains everything. The position does not change with you so it is up to you as to what you want to do.

If you were told that you wouldn't be charged for excess mileage then you can rely on that but I assume this information was said verbally? If so, did you get it in writing or did you have anyone there to witness what was said that could back up your story?

The argument about not repairing the car is a bit wishy washy but there is a general duty (though not a legal one per se) that the courts expect parties to mitigate their losses, that is to say, they should make reasonable attempts to prevent any further losses. So yes, your argument can be twofold: (1) that they failed to carry out any repairs to the vehicle in order to get a better selling price and (2) that it is common knowledge that selling a car at auction attracts the lowest resale value as opposed to selling it via a dealer or privately as well as any commission fees on top of this. So for those reasons, they cannot recover their losses arising from the damaged vehicle.

The other argument is that the cost of repairs would have put the car in a better condition than your obligations which is a reasonable condition. Therefore imposing a higher duty than required contravenes the CCA so it is void and unenforceable. What they should be doing is obtaining the market value of the car in its current condition against the market value of the same vehicle in a reasonable condition and if there is a discrepancy, then they are entitled to the difference.

Whether or not you agree to pay the refurbishment charges is up to you but do your homework first. The selling price at auction does not reflect the condition of the vehicle and you should look at what prices could have been obtained against what it was sold for i.e. get some free valuations online such as WhatCar, Parkers etc. or go into WHSmith or Asda or something and look at the valuations in the Parkers Guide to get an idea. If the difference in value is less than the refurbishment charges then you could offer something to them to show you are being reasonable.

[Eatyourveg]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Morning,

I see you have read the many threads, and no doubt the VT guide which explains everything. The position does not change with you so it is up to you as to what you want to do.

If you were told that you wouldn't be charged for excess mileage then you can rely on that but I assume this information was said verbally? If so, did you get it in writing or did you have anyone there to witness what was said that could back up your story?

The argument about not repairing the car is a bit wishy washy but there is a general duty (though not a legal one per se) that the courts expect parties to mitigate their losses, that is to say, they should make reasonable attempts to prevent any further losses. So yes, your argument can be twofold: (1) that they failed to carry out any repairs to the vehicle in order to get a better selling price and (2) that it is common knowledge that selling a car at auction attracts the lowest resale value as opposed to selling it via a dealer or privately as well as any commission fees on top of this. So for those reasons, they cannot recover their losses arising from the damaged vehicle.

The other argument is that the cost of repairs would have put the car in a better condition than your obligations which is a reasonable condition. Therefore imposing a higher duty than required contravenes the CCA so it is void and unenforceable. What they should be doing is obtaining the market value of the car in its current condition against the market value of the same vehicle in a reasonable condition and if there is a discrepancy, then they are entitled to the difference.

Whether or not you agree to pay the refurbishment charges is up to you but do your homework first. The selling price at auction does not reflect the condition of the vehicle and you should look at what prices could have been obtained against what it was sold for i.e. get some free valuations online such as WhatCar, Parkers etc. or go into WHSmith or Asda or something and look at the valuations in the Parkers Guide to get an idea. If the difference in value is less than the refurbishment charges then you could offer something to them to show you are being reasonable.

Hi Rob thankyou for such a speedy reply!

I have no witness or written statements re: not being charged excess mileage.

I am going to send a version of the excess mileage template letter #2 but offer to pay the refurbishment charges in full - if they agree not to record a default against me and fully close the matter as per attached screenshot.

If they do not agree with that then they are obviously going to pursue for the total amount?

I did also read somewhere the FCA are investigating VWFS for excess mileage agreements/charges but can't find anything online?

I will still VT the second car I have with them when I get to 50% (without damage or excess mileage) I think I am done with PCP'ing!

[R0b]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Anything said verbally is always hard to prove which is probably why it was said to get the sale as you have suggested. When you start asking for those sort of statements in writing a lot of the time they might refuse or backtrack because they know its not true.

They may not pursue the whole amount at all they might just write it off or they may pass it on to a debt purchaser who might pursue it.

Not sure about the FCA investigating VWFS specifically but they are looking at the market as a whole. The link is here https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-sto...-motor-finance

You should report your issues directly to the FCA so they are aware. Though they won't do anything specific in your situation, it might help them in their investigation and if you refer to the above link when making a complaint to them.

[Eatyourveg]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Thanks again [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

I'll update on any further developments.

[Eatyourveg]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Update,

I sent back a modified version of the second excess mileage letter template to Skoda.
I also included an offer to pay the refurbishment costs in full if it was not misconstrued as admission of liability and that no adverse reports be filed against me in respect of the pcp agreement.

I have just received a further response from Skoda simply saying their decision is final and saying I have six months from the date of this letter to raise the issue with the FOS.
No further payment demands have been issued.

I am of a mind to ignore this now as I am not interested in taking this up with the FOS.
The CCA is unchanged no matter what clauses are claimed to superseed it and I have offered to pay the refurbishment costs already.

Would it be better to reply stating this or just leave the ball in their court?

[R0b]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Update,

I sent back a modified version of the second excess mileage letter template to Skoda.
I also included an offer to pay the refurbishment costs in full if it was not misconstrued as admission of liability and that no adverse reports be filed against me in respect of the pcp agreement.

I have just received a further response from Skoda simply saying their decision is final and saying I have six months from the date of this letter to raise the issue with the FOS.
No further payment demands have been issued.

I am of a mind to ignore this now as I am not interested in taking this up with the FOS.
The CCA is unchanged no matter what clauses are claimed to superseed it and I have offered to pay the refurbishment costs already.

Would it be better to reply stating this or just leave the ball in their court?

Really its up to you, I am of the view that a response would show that your position remains the same. You could keep it short and say that you are disappointed by their decision however given that you have offered a concession in an effort to settle matters. However, your position remains unchanged in that you are confident that the Consumer Credit Act explicitly limits your liability as set out in section 100. If they are of a different opinion, they are welcome to sue for the alleged debt in which case you will robustly defend any claim brought against you. You might want to further add that as both parties are now at a stalemate you have nothing further to add and no further correspondence will be entered into except where it is their intention to commence legal proceedings.

Obviously the part about bringing a claim is enticing them but you don't have to include that if you don't want - the above is just an example of what you could reply to.

[Eatyourveg]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Really its up to you, I am of the view that a response would show that your position remains the same. You could keep it short and say that you are disappointed by their decision however given that you have offered a concession in an effort to settle matters. However, your position remains unchanged in that you are confident that the Consumer Credit Act explicitly limits your liability as set out in section 100. If they are of a different opinion, they are welcome to sue for the alleged debt in which case you will robustly defend any claim brought against you. You might want to further add that as both parties are now at a stalemate you have nothing further to add and no further correspondence will be entered into except where it is their intention to commence legal proceedings.

Obviously the part about bringing a claim is enticing them but you don't have to include that if you don't want - the above is just an example of what you could reply to.

I will reply to them as I don't really want this hanging over me!

Thanks again for your advice [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

[Eatyourveg]

Re: Skoda VT Excess Mileage & Refurbishment Charges Advice Needed!

Update, I haven't had the chance to reply in writing to Skoda as we have just had our 2nd daughter and have been busy doing parent stuff.

I have recieved another final demand from Skoda from their Head of collections (the 2nd so far) so I took the bait and called to clarify my position from my previous response which I belive they just disregarded.

It didn't get me anywhere and the call ended with the same outcome as demanded in the letter - more letters or calls (which I stated I would not be answering and to write to me only) or the case being passed to an external debt collection agency. I said I would not be dealing with any third parties as the contract was ended when the VT was executed.

I'm sure I have read that elsewhere but can I ignore third parties? And that the information should not be given to them in an ongoing dispute under the data protection act?