Hi everyone. First post here.
I would like some advice regarding damage claims made by RCI Finance after a VT of a Renault Clio.
A bit of history:
I VT'd our Clio back in June. As expected it was not plain sailing. After jumping through a whole load of hoops I managed to get Renault to collect the car. I have all my phone calls recorded for evidence purposes. I have also take photos of the condition of the car.
A Manheim representative made an appraisal of the car on collection and found nearly £800 of 'faults'. This included a missing service stamp in the log book, Renault also decided to add a missing monthly payment to the bill. I managed to get this reduced to £467 after providing evidence that the car was serviced and the garage had forgotten to stamp the book and that I had issued notice to terminate the contract before the last monthly payment was due.
My issue is with the remaining £467.
I understand that the condition of the car need not be in any other condition than reasonable. Obviously this is an open term which can be interpreted differently by different parties. For me, I believe it means reasonable by anyone of sound judgement? For Renault, it means complies to BVRLA standards.
After sending emails to Renault explaining that the car is in a reasonable condition and that they should prove otherwise, they have now handed off the 'debt' to QDR Solicitors who are trying to get me to pay up. Renault have also added the outstanding money to my credit file, meaning I have now have an outstanding debt listed against my name. Is this right?
Where do I stand with this? I am reluctant to pay this money as I firmly believe the car was in a reasonable condition given it's 2 and a half year old age, the 15000 miles per year agreed mileage and the fact that it was used by my wife for commuting and picking up the kids. The car is bound to have a few nicks and scratches. I believe in a CAP guide it would be classed as Clean.
Many thanks
Ross
edit: I did not sign any forms of any kind during the process and have not admitted liability for anything.
I would like some advice regarding damage claims made by RCI Finance after a VT of a Renault Clio.
A bit of history:
I VT'd our Clio back in June. As expected it was not plain sailing. After jumping through a whole load of hoops I managed to get Renault to collect the car. I have all my phone calls recorded for evidence purposes. I have also take photos of the condition of the car.
A Manheim representative made an appraisal of the car on collection and found nearly £800 of 'faults'. This included a missing service stamp in the log book, Renault also decided to add a missing monthly payment to the bill. I managed to get this reduced to £467 after providing evidence that the car was serviced and the garage had forgotten to stamp the book and that I had issued notice to terminate the contract before the last monthly payment was due.
My issue is with the remaining £467.
I understand that the condition of the car need not be in any other condition than reasonable. Obviously this is an open term which can be interpreted differently by different parties. For me, I believe it means reasonable by anyone of sound judgement? For Renault, it means complies to BVRLA standards.
After sending emails to Renault explaining that the car is in a reasonable condition and that they should prove otherwise, they have now handed off the 'debt' to QDR Solicitors who are trying to get me to pay up. Renault have also added the outstanding money to my credit file, meaning I have now have an outstanding debt listed against my name. Is this right?
Where do I stand with this? I am reluctant to pay this money as I firmly believe the car was in a reasonable condition given it's 2 and a half year old age, the 15000 miles per year agreed mileage and the fact that it was used by my wife for commuting and picking up the kids. The car is bound to have a few nicks and scratches. I believe in a CAP guide it would be classed as Clean.
Many thanks
Ross
edit: I did not sign any forms of any kind during the process and have not admitted liability for anything.
Comment