Mercedes Finance

So, it all starts with my happy day in September of 2008, when I took delivery of my new E Class Mercedes. I loved it and my family loved it. Nice car. The sales team were all smiles of course – no doubt because they had sold a £42,000 car.

The car was OK – there are some negative aspects of the model – but it was a good car overall, and very comfortable.

After 3 years – I had the decision to buy the car for the balloon payment or hand the car back and get something else. With the recession starting to kick in from late 2008, expensive vehicle prices went down – and stayed down. The 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 with Mercedes Finance – they were intransigent).

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.

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

This was from Dan Beecher – the De-Fleet Recoveries Manager:

The car was over the agreed mileage – so that charge is not contested.

I can’t work out what this picture is supposed to show – what’s the big striped thing someone is holding? Anyone know?

Not sure what the squiggly yellow markings are – nothing to do with me. Maybe the light is catching the lens or it’s part of their markings.

More yellow markings… but ‘damage’ is unseen or in accord with a 3 yr old car

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’.

I talked today (14th Sept 2011) to Michelle from Mercedes Benz Financial Services (they phoned me).  As I protested the charges, she offered to reduce the bill by £400 (and after I said I was blogging the interactions, although she said that didn’t affect the offer). But I’m in for a fight – I’ll settle for £1000 total, which is nearly £400 for ‘poor condition’ and just over £600 for excess mileage.

Here’s the T&C’s which I signed – 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 valid and can be argued over.

Another letter from dated on 19th September 2011. They again refer to the Return Standards Booklet and their website – but the booklet (and the website referred by it) are only supplied after the contract has been signed – and so don’t apply. They refer to clauses 4.2 and 10.1.4 which only say ‘Good Condition’. Clause 4.2 also says ‘in accord with the manufacturers recommendations’ – but if those recommendations are only provided after the car is driven away – I cannot see that they can apply.

Reading through the Agility agreement confirms my from-here-on  firm decision – NEVER to lease/buy PCP  another Mercedes – the language is so hostile!

Here’s the letter:

Here’s my reply to gouging-for-money Mercedez-Benz Finance. It looks like I’m focusing on the lack of the booklet detailing the stringent return standards as a plan – but even so, I’m not intending to part with any more money for a ‘good condition’ car. And if they put a black mark against my credit – I’ll even refuse to pay the extra mileage charges.

Leave a  blog comment to tell me what you think…

Mercedes-Benz Finance now know about this blog, and the wording of this letter suggests that they recognise it’ll be placed online. I’m placing it here – even though their language is carefully used to convey reasonableness. Actually, they are totally ignoring my point that stringency can’t be added after a contract has been agreed. Also – my car was in ‘good condition’ when returned, not just ‘good’ – but ‘very good’. That’s all their clauses on the contact ask for. Of course, the reality is that it’s their viewpoint against mine. It feels like the fight is heating up, which I’m warming to.

So, as you’ll notice, I have a new person now. It’s no longer Mr Beecher. I have a real heavy on me now – Mark Telford. He’s the recoveries supervisor. Oooh..

Short and sweet, this one. I’m telling them that I’m not paying any more. I’m getting into this fight. The car was in ‘good condition’ by anyones objective  standard.

Well, over 6 months after the last letter – they called again. Just hoped they’d somehow forgotten it – but I guess these big corporations have their systems and sometimes it takes a little time – although 6 months seems an awful long time. The bill is “in dispute” so I can’t see how they can send it to debt collectors. Anyway – I’m kinda looking forward to a stream of calls. This one is from someone called Hilary Brookes at DLC. Hey Hillary – you’re famous now! Here it is:

I’m just going to write to them to say that the bill is in dispute – but I imagine it will mean little to them.

If anyone has any suggestions -please email me at:  baron(dot)turner(at)gmail(dot)com

Well, it looks like my stroppy tone was probably uncalled for. DLC (the debt collectors) called today and said they’ve closed the case down and returned it to Mercedes Finance. So I guess I’ll be hearing from MF again in due course.

Hilary – maybe you aren’t so bad after all.

I’ll post whatever I get from them…