Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

[Arnie365]

warning - quite a long read but I think I have raised some interesting points that may help others

Hi

I VT'd my car with Mercedes Benz Financial services last November following templates on this site (they sent me their standard form to sign which I refused because it referred to excess mileage which I do not acknowledge as a legitimate charge). No issues with condition of the car or collection, all smooth. Then I received a bill for excess mileage of just over £1,000.

I wrote back to dispute this stating I didnt believe it was payable under my right to VT under the CCA 74 etc etc.

I was then referred to Mercedes complaints process so wrote a formal complaint noting that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I have a statutory right to voluntarily terminate the agreement provided that I have paid at least one half of the total amount payable. My liability under the agreement is limited to half the total amount payable ONLY and any terms under the agreement which imposes additional liability directly or indirectly is strictly prohibited by the Act.

The response simply said it is payable and was within the contract which I signed and the VT form I signed (which as above I had refused to sign so shows how much detail they look at each case on).

In my second stage response I again made reference to the CCA 74 and asked them to confirm exactly where in the Act it confirms that excess mileage is a legitimate charge. I asked them to confirm that should I have gone under my contracted mileage they would have offered me a rebate given that the finance costs increase approx. £10 per month per 1,000. If not then I deemed the charges to be punitive which are excluded from the act to protect consumers.

I also made the point very strongly that the Mercedes Benz salesman had in fact reduced my annual mileage allowance to get the finance within my budget and advised me to "just VT it" when the time came. I had never heard of Voluntary termination prior to this and having had over 12 cars on finance including the last 3 being Mercedes financed through MBFS with no VT's against my name, I did make the point that surely they could see I don't make a habit of this!

Again the response from MBFS was just that it was within the T & Cs of the contract I signed. I should have read it etc etc. They also asked me for evidence that the salesman had told me to reduce my mileage to get my costs down and "just VT it".

So for my third stage response I went to great lengths to express my frustration that they were not addressing my queries so that I could reach any other view on liability than it is not payable. I laid out very clearly every question I had and put in bold the content I was looking for in reply.

Again this was;

• which clause of the CCA 74 expressly states excess mileage is payable? I pointed out that my signature only appears on page 2 of the contract within the box referring to the agreement being under the CCA 74. My signature does not appear on the next several pages which consist of their own punitive T & Cs which are merely appended to the rear of my agreement. I believe there is good reason for this!
• Would they have given me a rebate for going under my contracted mileage and if not how do they justify charging for going over when your monthly costs are directly linked to the mileage contracted (punitive!)?
• I said I of course had no record of a conversation with the salesman from nearly 4 years ago, so conversely could they provide me with induction/training material given to their sales teams expressly prohibits/educates on misselling (that we all know goes on and is most prevalent with Audi from what friends have told me with some crashing down to 5,000 miles a year to get the deal within budget!).
• I asked that if mileage was a factor in the condition of the car upon return, why do the vehicle return standards not differ as someone doing 20,000 miles per annum (and paying the monthly premium to do so) has to return the car in the same condition as someone doing (and paying for) 5,000 per annum when they have a higher chance of incurring damage because of increased road time.
• I asked, that without breaching the data protection act, could they confirm if they have ever waived the alleged excess mileage charges for other customers and if so to set out how their circumstances changed from mine.

The response started off by apologising for her colleague not addressing all of my queries and confirmed that she would within. What do you know? I still didn't get the answers to the key points above and was told that this was their final response.

I wrote back saying I was dismayed that yet again my queries hadn't been answered and asked for confirmation that MBFS were therefore refusing to answer my fundamental queries in an act of admission of liability or was it an error to have not answered them? I have received an email reply today saying they have given me their final response and their position remains that the invoice is payable and to refer to the ombudsman if I am still not happy!

I have an impeccable credit rating and have never had any financial disputes whatsoever. I have confirmed to them that if they provide the evidence I have requested and can convince me that the charges are payable I would of course pay them. They are refusing to answer my queries though and therefore not affording me the opportunity to make an informed decision. I can only draw the conclusion therefore that they know the charges aren't payable.

I have replied to their latest email saying that as they have refused to answer my questions, I do take this non reply as an admission on their part that the charges are not payable else they would have provided the evidence to convince we otherwise.

I will refer to the FOS and requested that they suspend the invoice until the matter has concluded and that they do not put any marker on my credit file given whether the invoice should exist is in dispute and not whether it should be paid.

Sorry this has gone on a bit but I am genuinely dismayed at the approach. If they are so confident they can levy the charges then why not produce the information I feel I have reasonably requested three times now?

Any advice on next steps? Any experience with the FOS on approach to take?

Many thanks in advance for any help!

[R0b]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi Arnie,

Don't expect to get anywhere with them, all they are interested in is getting money back. You are right that breaching the mileage is a contract term which they have verified themselves but at the end of the day the law says your liability is limited to half the amount and explicitly excludes any breaches of the contractual terms.

They can't default you on your credit file the agreement has now been terminated and any attempt to do so will give rise to an action for breach of data in that they are not accurately reporting.

I have had success when complaining to the Ombudsman although it didn't go as far as I had hoped - see the letter I have uploaded below. It is a much smaller sum than yours but either way they won't be entitled to it and in any event you can reject the Ombudsman's decision and Mercedes will still need to go to court over it, which I would be highly surprised if they do. It could be hit and miss with the FOS but I did put in my complaint plenty of evidence relating to the law of the Consumer Credit Act and some authorities which confirmed the position. Despite sending them the final decision letter the Ombudsman thought to write to Santander and ask them to 'review'. The initial bill was around £379+ and at some point without me knowing nudged it down to £45 for scuffed alloy (very minimal) and £70 collection fees.

You could maybe argue that the limit of 5,000 miles was not suitable for your needs and Mercedes in turn given you an agreement which was clearly not suitable even though they were aware of your mileage? No you don't have evidence of an oral agreement 4 years ago but if their salesperson is more interested in the commission than giving you what you need then that may be something you could mention.

[dcpenno]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Dear sir

I understand your frustration I am the same almost exactly but in my contract Page 2 in TERMINATION YOUR RIGHTS it states in my agreement pay half return vehicle in good condition then says "you will not have to pay anymore money" does yours, I have gone to FOS but seems they are on the creditors side

[roygbiv]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

warning - quite a long read but I think I have raised some interesting points that may help others

Hi

I VT'd my car with Mercedes Benz Financial services last November following templates on this site (they sent me their standard form to sign which I refused because it referred to excess mileage which I do not acknowledge as a legitimate charge). No issues with condition of the car or collection, all smooth. Then I received a bill for excess mileage of just over £1,000.

I wrote back to dispute this stating I didnt believe it was payable under my right to VT under the CCA 74 etc etc.

I was then referred to Mercedes complaints process so wrote a formal complaint noting that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, I have a statutory right to voluntarily terminate the agreement provided that I have paid at least one half of the total amount payable. My liability under the agreement is limited to half the total amount payable ONLY and any terms under the agreement which imposes additional liability directly or indirectly is strictly prohibited by the Act.

The response simply said it is payable and was within the contract which I signed and the VT form I signed (which as above I had refused to sign so shows how much detail they look at each case on).

In my second stage response I again made reference to the CCA 74 and asked them to confirm exactly where in the Act it confirms that excess mileage is a legitimate charge. I asked them to confirm that should I have gone under my contracted mileage they would have offered me a rebate given that the finance costs increase approx. £10 per month per 1,000. If not then I deemed the charges to be punitive which are excluded from the act to protect consumers.

I also made the point very strongly that the Mercedes Benz salesman had in fact reduced my annual mileage allowance to get the finance within my budget and advised me to "just VT it" when the time came. I had never heard of Voluntary termination prior to this and having had over 12 cars on finance including the last 3 being Mercedes financed through MBFS with no VT's against my name, I did make the point that surely they could see I don't make a habit of this!

Again the response from MBFS was just that it was within the T & Cs of the contract I signed. I should have read it etc etc. They also asked me for evidence that the salesman had told me to reduce my mileage to get my costs down and "just VT it".

So for my third stage response I went to great lengths to express my frustration that they were not addressing my queries so that I could reach any other view on liability than it is not payable. I laid out very clearly every question I had and put in bold the content I was looking for in reply.

Again this was;

• which clause of the CCA 74 expressly states excess mileage is payable? I pointed out that my signature only appears on page 2 of the contract within the box referring to the agreement being under the CCA 74. My signature does not appear on the next several pages which consist of their own punitive T & Cs which are merely appended to the rear of my agreement. I believe there is good reason for this!
• Would they have given me a rebate for going under my contracted mileage and if not how do they justify charging for going over when your monthly costs are directly linked to the mileage contracted (punitive!)?
• I said I of course had no record of a conversation with the salesman from nearly 4 years ago, so conversely could they provide me with induction/training material given to their sales teams expressly prohibits/educates on misselling (that we all know goes on and is most prevalent with Audi from what friends have told me with some crashing down to 5,000 miles a year to get the deal within budget!).
• I asked that if mileage was a factor in the condition of the car upon return, why do the vehicle return standards not differ as someone doing 20,000 miles per annum (and paying the monthly premium to do so) has to return the car in the same condition as someone doing (and paying for) 5,000 per annum when they have a higher chance of incurring damage because of increased road time.
• I asked, that without breaching the data protection act, could they confirm if they have ever waived the alleged excess mileage charges for other customers and if so to set out how their circumstances changed from mine.

The response started off by apologising for her colleague not addressing all of my queries and confirmed that she would within. What do you know? I still didn't get the answers to the key points above and was told that this was their final response.

I wrote back saying I was dismayed that yet again my queries hadn't been answered and asked for confirmation that MBFS were therefore refusing to answer my fundamental queries in an act of admission of liability or was it an error to have not answered them? I have received an email reply today saying they have given me their final response and their position remains that the invoice is payable and to refer to the ombudsman if I am still not happy!

I have an impeccable credit rating and have never had any financial disputes whatsoever. I have confirmed to them that if they provide the evidence I have requested and can convince me that the charges are payable I would of course pay them. They are refusing to answer my queries though and therefore not affording me the opportunity to make an informed decision. I can only draw the conclusion therefore that they know the charges aren't payable.

I have replied to their latest email saying that as they have refused to answer my questions, I do take this non reply as an admission on their part that the charges are not payable else they would have provided the evidence to convince we otherwise.

I will refer to the FOS and requested that they suspend the invoice until the matter has concluded and that they do not put any marker on my credit file given whether the invoice should exist is in dispute and not whether it should be paid.

Sorry this has gone on a bit but I am genuinely dismayed at the approach. If they are so confident they can levy the charges then why not produce the information I feel I have reasonably requested three times now?

Any advice on next steps? Any experience with the FOS on approach to take?

Many thanks in advance for any help!

Hi just wondering if there had been any outcome in relation to your correspondance with MBFS and the excess milage charge. I am thinking of following the same path and would be good to know whether i need to budget for the over milage.

[dcpenno]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi Arnie

Where did you get your car I got mine from Warrington and had similar advice although my contract was 10,000 miles and average mileage for me would be 12,000 to 25,000 dependant on contract locations, this was explained to salesman but was advised to VT early to avoid excess mileage charges, I am already on with Ombudsman however initial review from advisor is charges will remain, Mercedes have already instructed dept company to recover the money but Ombudsman has asked Mercedes to put on hold until the final answer comes back from them.

Dave P

[R0b]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi just wondering if there had been any outcome in relation to your correspondance with MBFS and the excess milage charge. I am thinking of following the same path and would be good to know whether i need to budget for the over milage.

Roy, unfortunately I do not have any further court cases that I have become aware of, and certainly nothing which is binding from the High Court or above. I have recently come across a case in 1960 which was based on the old Hire Purchase Act where it was alleged that the vehicle was not in a reasonable condition and that a contractual term allowed them damages. The Court held that the car was in a reasonable condition and the contractual clause was void and unenforceable as it contradicted the Hire Purchase Act (same provisions pretty much based on the CCA).

The only copy available is by the Law Society in London, which I have had no chance to review yet. The information on this case is limited and until I read the full case, can't give any indication of its relevance.

However, another case in relation to good condition of the car and to some extent in relation to excess mileage is the Court of Appeal Case of Brady v St Margaret's Trust 1963. Lord Denning said the following which is of some use:

I would like to say that it is not right to assess damages under this head on the basis suggested to us by Mr. Harris, namely, that you are to take the initial price as evidence of the condition of the car. The price in these hire-purchase agreements is no guide to the condition of a car. There should be evidence by the hire-purchase company to show the condition of the goods at the time the agreement was made and to show how far the hirer has defaulted under it. As I read this clause, the hirer's duty is to keep the car in the condition in which it might reasonably be expected to be if he had looked after it properly. He need not put it in a better condition than it was when he hired it. He need only keep it in the condition in which a reasonably minded hirer would keep it. Thus he would repair it if there was an accident, and he would do the immediate repairs in the course of running the car, but no more. The hire-purchase company should give evidence of any default on his part in that duty.

They're not entitled to the excess mileage under the contractual clause but they might argue it has caused damage beyond a reasonable condition. They would have to prove this was the case but 99.9% of the time no evidence or condition report is conducted at the time you enter into the agreement. So it follows that they cannot claim something on which there is no evidence.

[roygbiv]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Roy, unfortunately I do not have any further court cases that I have become aware of, and certainly nothing which is binding from the High Court or above. I have recently come across a case in 1960 which was based on the old Hire Purchase Act where it was alleged that the vehicle was not in a reasonable condition and that a contractual term allowed them damages. The Court held that the car was in a reasonable condition and the contractual clause was void and unenforceable as it contradicted the Hire Purchase Act (same provisions pretty much based on the CCA).

The only copy available is by the Law Society in London, which I have had no chance to review yet. The information on this case is limited and until I read the full case, can't give any indication of its relevance.

However, another case in relation to good condition of the car and to some extent in relation to excess mileage is the Court of Appeal Case of Brady v St Margaret's Trust 1963. Lord Denning said the following which is of some use:



They're not entitled to the excess mileage under the contractual clause but they might argue it has caused damage beyond a reasonable condition. They would have to prove this was the case but 99.9% of the time no evidence or condition report is conducted at the time you enter into the agreement. So it follows that they cannot claim something on which there is no evidence.

I really think you should stop giving people advice that they can fight excess milage charges, on the basis of:

You cannot quote any case law where your view has been supported by a judge
Your arguments are based on conjecture, including advising individuals to just ignore third party claims for excess mileage
You have stated on a number of occasions the regulator has supported the position of the finance companies in that excess mileage charges are valid - this is a HUGE warning sign given the ombudsmen is their to support the retail end user
You are unable to cite any examples where an individual has successfully argued against excess millage other than where the finance company has decided not to pursue the claim anymore.

[R0b]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

I really think you should stop giving people advice that they can fight excess milage charges, on the basis of:

You cannot quote any case law where your view has been supported by a judge
Your arguments are based on conjecture, including advising individuals to just ignore third party claims for excess mileage
You have stated on a number of occasions the regulator has supported the position of the finance companies in that excess mileage charges are valid - this is a HUGE warning sign given the ombudsmen is their to support the retail end user
You are unable to cite any examples where an individual has successfully argued against excess millage other than where the finance company has decided not to pursue the claim anymore.

Hi Roy,

Sounds like you are on the side of the finance companies, yet you have not provided yourself any reasoning as to why a claim for excess mileage won't succeed. But I respond to your following comments:

There is no case law I am aware of recent that specifically tackles the question of excess mileage. There is however, several authoritative books on consumer credit such as the Law Society's book on Consumer Credit, The Law of Consumer Credit and Hire, which indicate that a debtor's liability is limited to 50%, and sums accrued (past tense) e.g. paid more than 50% are not refundable as they have accrued. If a person has missed a couple of monthly instalments before termination then he will also be liable for those payments.

Equally, on reading the CCA provisions, also indicates that a debtor's liability on termination is restricted and does not include any sums that are payable which are for compensation or damages for breaching the agreement. So if a finance company cannot claim back any sums where the debtor has breached the terms of the agreement e.g. excess mileage, then the only other option they could claim that under is that the car was not in a reasonable condition as it has exceeded the mileage stipulated in the agreement.

So, referring to the case above I have mentioned Brady v St Margaret's Trust and the quote from Denning: the price of the car at the time is no indication of the condition of the car, and if a HP company wishes to dispute the condition, then it is expected for them to provide proof.

As for the Ombudsman, yes there have been instances where the Ombudsman favours the finance company but in other instances they have supported the debtor. At the end of the day the FOS are not legally trained and it is not their duty to interpret the law, that is for a court to do. They simply look at what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore if they feel that these charges are fair and reasonable in their eyes, does not necessarily mean that they are lawful. Debtors are not legally required to accept the Ombudsman's decision and ultimately it is up to the finance company to take action to recover the sums they allege by bringing a claim to court.

I have seen excess mileage charges range from a few hundred quid to thousands, whilst I can understand that it is not appropriate to bring a claim against the debtor for a small sum, it would certainly not be unrealistic where the alleged damages are over and above the £1,000 mark as it would then be worth the while. Yet for some reason, finance companies choose not to do that and it begs the question, why? Surely if these claims were enforceable then we would have lots of case law to talk about but for some reason, there is very little or nothing to go from. Perhaps they do not want to do this because there is a good chance that a decision will go against them and it is a better money maker to just recover monies from people who are simply not aware and believe they actually have to pay it.


So although there is no direct case that appears to have come before the courts, this does not mean that people can reject claims from finance companies.

I suppose what you are saying from your post is that people should actually be paying it? If that's the case I would be happy to hear your thoughts as to why.

[roygbiv]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi Roy,

Sounds like you are on the side of the finance companies, yet you have not provided yourself any reasoning as to why a claim for excess mileage won't succeed. But I respond to your following comments:

There is no case law I am aware of recent that specifically tackles the question of excess mileage. There is however, several authoritative books on consumer credit such as the Law Society's book on Consumer Credit, The Law of Consumer Credit and Hire, which indicate that a debtor's liability is limited to 50%, and sums accrued (past tense) e.g. paid more than 50% are not refundable as they have accrued. If a person has missed a couple of monthly instalments before termination then he will also be liable for those payments.

Equally, on reading the CCA provisions, also indicates that a debtor's liability on termination is restricted and does not include any sums that are payable which are for compensation or damages for breaching the agreement. So if a finance company cannot claim back any sums where the debtor has breached the terms of the agreement e.g. excess mileage, then the only other option they could claim that under is that the car was not in a reasonable condition as it has exceeded the mileage stipulated in the agreement.

So, referring to the case above I have mentioned Brady v St Margaret's Trust and the quote from Denning: the price of the car at the time is no indication of the condition of the car, and if a HP company wishes to dispute the condition, then it is expected for them to provide proof.

As for the Ombudsman, yes there have been instances where the Ombudsman favours the finance company but in other instances they have supported the debtor. At the end of the day the FOS are not legally trained and it is not their duty to interpret the law, that is for a court to do. They simply look at what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore if they feel that these charges are fair and reasonable in their eyes, does not necessarily mean that they are lawful. Debtors are not legally required to accept the Ombudsman's decision and ultimately it is up to the finance company to take action to recover the sums they allege by bringing a claim to court.

I have seen excess mileage charges range from a few hundred quid to thousands, whilst I can understand that it is not appropriate to bring a claim against the debtor for a small sum, it would certainly not be unrealistic where the alleged damages are over and above the £1,000 mark as it would then be worth the while. Yet for some reason, finance companies choose not to do that and it begs the question, why? Surely if these claims were enforceable then we would have lots of case law to talk about but for some reason, there is very little or nothing to go from. Perhaps they do not want to do this because there is a good chance that a decision will go against them and it is a better money maker to just recover monies from people who are simply not aware and believe they actually have to pay it.


So although there is no direct case that appears to have come before the courts, this does not mean that people can reject claims from finance companies.

I suppose what you are saying from your post is that people should actually be paying it? If that's the case I would be happy to hear your thoughts as to why.

I'm not sure that I am saying that folks should pay it. What I am certain though is relying on a defenses based on a book is flakey, further, there appears a lack of solid evidence of cases where the consumer has won.

I actually came to this forum from a google search relating to excess milage. I'm a retail consumer and stuck in the same boat. I wanted to research the legalities. I have done so and drawn my own conclusion on the matter. I would compel everyone else to do the same until you can come up with a silver bullet which can help us all, you must stop giving people false hope built on nothing more than opinion and conjecture and lacking any solid legal reliability.

[R0b]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

I appreciate your opinion and what you decide to do is of course your entirely your choice. Just because there is a lack of case law does not necessarily mean that the defence is flawed. The defence is based not just on the books but also the provisions of the CCA as I pointed to in my previous post - so to say it is false hope and no solid reliability would seem a bit far fetched. I would agree if there is absolutely no grounds in which I am basing it upon but that it not the case.

The Law society book on consumer credit was aimed at solicitors who may work in the consumer credit industry and the other book I referred to is considered a practitioners book on consumer credit and hire, the authors who wrote the book are all barristers practising in consumer credit and hire, 5 of them I believe recommended in the Legal 500 and are also recommended in the Chambers and Partners guide as a pre-eminent chambers for all things consumer credit. So I think it would be fair to say that despite it being just a "book" it does have some weight to it. Of course it is just a book and decisions can go either way, and you may be surprised but where there is a lack of judicial decisions, judges do in fact look to books for a bit of guidance and interpretation.

If you are looking for a silver bullet, make an application to the High Court asking for a declaration to determine whether or not creditors are entitled to charge for excess mileage. The application of course comes at a cost of around £400 which I suppose most people who post on here cannot afford that plus the legal fees on top of that to put forward a strong argument.

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I think there is sufficient grounds to argue that they cannot charge excess mileage and is in no way false hope. I would however agree that if a finance company inspected the car and charged for mileage which it was exceeded before the debtor VT'd then there may be a case to argue that those charges do apply. Unless there is a superior court decision (e.g. High Court and above) then I think the arguments will stand up to any claims by the finance company.

You say you have drawn your own conlcusion on the matter, I would be curious as to what that is and perhaps your reasons also?

[Arnie365]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

I appreciate your opinion and what you decide to do is of course your entirely your choice. Just because there is a lack of case law does not necessarily mean that the defence is flawed. The defence is based not just on the books but also the provisions of the CCA as I pointed to in my previous post - so to say it is false hope and no solid reliability would seem a bit far fetched. I would agree if there is absolutely no grounds in which I am basing it upon but that it not the case.

The Law society book on consumer credit was aimed at solicitors who may work in the consumer credit industry and the other book I referred to is considered a practitioners book on consumer credit and hire, the authors who wrote the book are all barristers practising in consumer credit and hire, 5 of them I believe recommended in the Legal 500 and are also recommended in the Chambers and Partners guide as a pre-eminent chambers for all things consumer credit. So I think it would be fair to say that despite it being just a "book" it does have some weight to it. Of course it is just a book and decisions can go either way, and you may be surprised but where there is a lack of judicial decisions, judges do in fact look to books for a bit of guidance and interpretation.

If you are looking for a silver bullet, make an application to the High Court asking for a declaration to determine whether or not creditors are entitled to charge for excess mileage. The application of course comes at a cost of around £400 which I suppose most people who post on here cannot afford that plus the legal fees on top of that to put forward a strong argument.

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, I think there is sufficient grounds to argue that they cannot charge excess mileage and is in no way false hope. I would however agree that if a finance company inspected the car and charged for mileage which it was exceeded before the debtor VT'd then there may be a case to argue that those charges do apply. Unless there is a superior court decision (e.g. High Court and above) then I think the arguments will stand up to any claims by the finance company.

You say you have drawn your own conlcusion on the matter, I would be curious as to what that is and perhaps your reasons also?

Hi R0b, I agree with you on this. Surely if the finance companies were so convinced there would be case law on the subject? My case is now with a debt collection agency having exhausted MBFS' complaints procedure and them refusing to provide information I have asked for. I got to them to confirm that if I had done under my contracted mileage then they wouldnt have offered a refund on my payments even though the car would have been in better condition and been worth more (going off their argument the other way).

The debt collection agency said that if I don't pay they may have to recommend legal action to their client. I have implored them to expedite this! I think it's high time we had some robust case law on the subject win or lose!

- - - Updated - - -

Stockport Mercedes. Was my third in a row I had bought from there. Never again!

[cjm128]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi Arnie,

Do you have any update on the progress of your dispute? I'm at the same stage with Mercedes finance.

Cheers

[Arnie365]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi yes, following my reply to the debt management company to say I was happy for this to proceed to court in July I have finally received a response saying they will now be passing the matter to their solicitors if I don't pay in the next 14 days however have asked me to contact them to discuss 'options'. The only option is drop the invoice as far as I'm concerned!

I'm going to have to start researching CCJs and this part of the legal process now. Anyone able to offer help/advice?

[ostell]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

CCJs are what happens IF they proceed to court and IF you lose and IF you don't pay within a month. When/if a claim arrives make sure you follow the deadlines. The major ones are to acknowledge as soon as you get the form from the court. This gives you 28 days from the date of service to submit your defence. You later get to choose which court the hearing will be in (if you not a business) and tell the court the dates youwill not be available. You will then get a court date and all the paperwork has to be submitted to the court usually 14 days before the hearing.

Court is not what you imagine. Normally it will be a room in the court building, not the main courts, with you, the oppositions and the judge. No wigs or gowns.

[R0b]

Re: Advice on next steps with excess mileage charges please!

Hi Arnie,

If you want to defend this I am happy to assist if you need to but wouldn't worry too much yet as if it does get passed to their solicitors they will have to send you a letter before action, which you will usually have another 14 days to respond before a claim is actually issued.

The debt collection agency can't pass it on to their solicitors anyway only Mercedes can as they are the creditor who may or may not take legal action. If they don't take legal action then they may put a default marker against your credit file instead, which at that point you will need to decide whether to accept it or take them to court for breach of data protection for inaccurate information.