The Mercedes Finance PCP Plan Start

It all started with my happy day in September of 2008, when I drove my new E Class Mercedes out of the showroom. I loved it and my family loved it. Nice car. The sales team were very happy of course - no doubt because they had just sold a £42,000 car.

It was OK - there are some negative aspects of the model - but it was good overall.

After 3 years - I had the decision to buy the car for the PCP balloon payment or hand the car back and get something else. With the recession kicking in from late 2008, expensive vehicle prices reduced on the market - and stayed that way until now (because we still have a poor economy). The PCP balloon payment of £19,000 plus was too expensive. I would have had the car - but I could buy the same car for £16,000 or so - so I decided to hand the car back (after trying to negotiate along these lines with Mercedes Finance - they were intransigent).

I know you, as reader, cannot know who I am or vouch for my honesty. All I can say is that this car was in very acceptable condition for a 3 year old car. And, I know enough about greedy finance companies to know that they will gouge for money even where there is no basis for it.

So I started to get the car into the condition that they needed. From the start, I knew they needed good alloys, the right tires, MOT (even though it only needed that after my contract elapsed, but it sailed through). A couple of minor dents were sorted out, etc. This car was in good condition. Not new condition - but certainly good condition for a three year old car. The tyres alone cost £800 - a whole new set. The alloys cost me £220 to spruce up, and a couple of light cosmetics - and an MOT.

On Sept 1st it gets picked up by a couple of guys on behalf of Jet Logistics - they look over the car and take it back. A week later - the letter comes through... next post..

The first bill from Mercedes Finance

The mileage was over the agreed - that charge is undisputed.

Picture 1 of supposed poor condition

I can't really work out what this picture is supposed to say, or where there is poor condition. The car was in very good condition.

Picture 2

Not sure what the yellow markings are for - it must be part of their process, or the light catching perhaps. Nothing to do with me. They appear to be pointing out something with the bumper. It's not in new condition - but it's good for a three year old car.

Picture 4

Again there's a load of yellow markings - not from me. Either the light catching the lens, or part of their markings.

New call and Mercedes Finance TandCs

Had a call from Michelle at Mercedes Benz Financial Services. It turns out 10.4.1 has a clause which covers the return, but this is the only thing that can be taken into account with the return standards. I’ve underlined it in the bottom right – the subjective term ‘good condition’.

As I protested the charges, she offered to reduce the bill by £400 (and after I said I was blogging the whole thing, although she said that didn’t affect their offer). But I’m in the mood for a fight – I’ll settle for £1000 total, which is nearly £400 for ‘poor condition’ and just over £600 for uncontested excess mileage.

Here’s the T&C’s which I had signed (without reading, as most of us do) – but the return standards booklet was only received after I’d paid (or signed to pay), so it isn’t valid. Only term 10.4.1 is the valid clause to be argued over.

My response to their initial letter

I called the company - but the 'case' hasn't been 'loaded' yet, despite them being able to send me a letter and me having finance with them for 3 years. Thought it best to write anyway - here's the letter:

Another Letter from Mercedes-Benz Finance

Letter from Mercedes Finance dated 19th September 2011. They cite the Return Standards Booklet and Mercedes website – but the booklet (and the website directed by it) are only given after the contract has been signed – I can't see that they apply. They refer to clauses 4.2 and 10.1.4 which only say ‘Good Condition’. But Clause 4.2 says ‘in accord with the manufacturers recommendations’ – but those recommendations are only derived after the car is driven away – I cannot see that they can possibly apply legally.

One thing - reading through the Agility agreement properly confirms my firm decision – NEVER to lease/buy PCP  another Mercedes – the language is so hostile! On prnciple I won't have another Mercedes either.

Here’s todays letter:

My Reply to Mercedes Finance

Here's my reply to Mercedez-Benz Finance. It looks like I'm honing down on the lack of the booklet detailing the stringent return standards - but even so, I don't intend to part with any more money for a 'good condition' car. And if they put a black mark against my credit - I'll also refuse to pay the extra mileage charges.

Leave a comment to tell me what you think...

Letter 3 - 24th September 2011

New letter - new person. Not Dan Beecher any more, but the supervisor called Mark Telford. Must be a heavy!
They know about this blog now, because they refer to the wavy lines, which I'd only queried in the blog, not in any letters. Their language is very careful - they want to sound reasonable - but they aren't acknowledging my point that extra stringency cannot be added after a contract is signed. The car was returned in what I believe any objective person would agree with - good condition - which is the only thing that their contract refers to. Extra booklets supplied as I drove the car away cannot be taken into consideration. Here's the letter:

My Reply to Letter 3

This reply is short and sweet - I'm just not prepared to provide any more money on the basis of added stringency after the contract has been agreed.

Bringing in the Debt Collectors

Amazingly - 6 months after my last contact with Mercedes Finance (aka Mercedes-Benz Finance), they finally called again, tried to get payment, and have referred the matter to a debt collection agency. Cool - this was what I wanted! Well, I guess I'd prefer the whole thing to die quietly, but I also fancied a bit of a battle. I also wanted to experience a debt collection agency and these harsh persistent calls that we hear about in cases on the radio, etc.
So, this letter came though today (Saturday 7th April 2012), even though the amount is clearly "in dispute". It's from Hilary Brookes from DLC. So, Hilary, this is your 15 minutes, maybe longer, of fame.

I'm just gonna write back to say that the bill is 'in dispute', not that I expect that to make any difference.

If anyone has any suggestions, please email me at baron(dot)turner(at)gmail(dot)com. And thanks for all the support so far, including encouragement to continue the fight.

Case Closed by Debt Collectors and Returned to Mercedes Finance

Well, it looks like my stroppy tone may have been uncalled for (unless it's that tone that resulted in the following). DLC (the debt collectors) left a message, and said that they've closed the case down and returned it to Mercedes Finance. So I guess I'll be hearing from Mercedes-Benz Finance again in due course.

Hilary - maybe you aren't so crusty after all. Let's have some coffee after this is all over.

I'll re-post whatever I get from MF...

Problem Resolution!

Finally a chap from Mercedes-Benz Finance called and they've waived the whole charge for damage and have even reduced the extra mileage charge. Cool.
The called said they have completely revised their program for the return of cars in the PCP or leased plan. They've outsourced it to another company in order to provide an objective service, and they have reduced the stringency of car analysis. Critically - he accepted that extra stringency cannot be added after the signature event. Now customers are required to read the return standards prior to the final sealing signature. They've also stopped this close analysis of special lamps which conveys the idea of 'trying very hard' to find problems.
I'd like to think that this blog has caused this - but he also said that other people have complained too - so I guess that shows the value of complaining.