Conciliation service case studies

Here are some examples of disputes handled by our conciliation service. The final example was eventually resolved after referral to the BVRLA's Aribitration Panel.

Leasing

Dispute over end of contract charges

Mr A was unhappy about a receiving a bill of over £300 for damages he claimed did not occur whilst the vehicle was in his possession. Mr A believed that the inspection made by the collection driver was the end of the inspection process and was unaware that the vehicle was also to be inspected at a later date. Mr A criticised the supporting documents supplied by our member, which he claimed did not clearly demonstrate that damage on the vehicle was outside of the industry standard fair wear and tear guidelines. In addition to this Mr A did not believe that our member could prove beyond responsible doubt that no damage was sustained to the vehicle after it left his possession.

To decide whether or not Mr A was fully aware of his and our member’s responsibilities during the collection process we requested a copy of Mr A’s terms and conditions and a description of our member’s return process. Our member had to establish that Mr A was informed and understood his responsibilities of the return’s process. To verify whether or not Mr A had been charged for damage outside of fair wear and tear we reviewed a copy of the collection report and the engineers report.

After reviewing all the evidence we were satisfied that our member provided Mr A with a full description of the returns process. Our member stated that six weeks before the vehicle was collected, Mr A received a vehicle return pack which included a copy of the industry fair wear and tear guide and an overview of the collection process. Our member also indicated that their terms and conditions clearly stated that the vehicle would undergo a full inspection following collection. Mr A had agreed to and signed these terms and conditions.

Upon review of the collection and engineer’s report, we were satisfied that our member had carried out an inspection in line with the industry standard fair wear and tear guidelines and that the charges imposed on Mr A were correct and in line with his agreement with them. We found no evidence that suggested that the vehicle was damaged between collection and the full inspection.

We concluded that our member did everything they could to ensure that Mr A had understood the returns process, in addition to this we felt that our member had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the repair charges.

COMPLAINT REJECTED

Rental

Dispute over end of rental damage after an unattended return

Mr B returned his rental vehicle outside of office hours and as requested checked the car and dropped the keys into a designated box. He claimed that the vehicle had no new damage on it when it was returned. An inspection was carried out by our member three hours later and new damage was noted on the vehicle. Mr B disputed this damage, claiming that it could have been caused after the vehicle was returned. He was also unaware that he was still responsible for the vehicle after it had been returned and challenged our member for the lack of transparency over this issue.

To decide whether or not Mr B was fully informed that he would be responsible for the vehicle until it had been checked, we requested a copy of Mr B’s rental agreement and our member's terms and conditions.

Our member supplied us with the pre rental inspection form which indicated that the customer signed and agreed to the condition of the vehicle. Our member also pointed out that the rental agreement clearly states that, ‘the vehicle remains the responsibility of the hirer until it has been terminated by a company representative’. The customer signed and agreed to the terms of this agreement. After examining a copy of this agreement we concluded that this clause was transparent enough to the customer.

In light of the available evidence, we concluded that our member’s rental agreement clearly explained that the customer would be responsible for all damage until the rental vehicle had been checked by a member of staff. In addition to this Mr B signed the rental agreement indicating that he understood and agreed to the conditions of his rental.

COMPLAINT REJECTED

Arbitration Panel

Dispute over end of contract charges on a lease vehicle

A month after the end of Miss A’s lease agreement she was surprised to receive a letter outlining charges for damage outside of the fair wear and tear guidelines. Miss A believed that these charges for alleged damage were fraudulent and did not reflect the condition of the vehicle when it was collected from her house.

Over the following months Miss A contacted our member several times to try and understand what the charges were for and how they were applied. Our member provided Miss A with a copy of the engineer's report, which they believed substantiated the charges. Miss A felt that the information provided by our member was inconsistent and that they had not properly addressed all of her concerns regarding costs and the fact that some damage could have been caused after the vehicle was collected. Miss A approached the BVRLA to investigate the matter further.

We studied the engineer's report and requested photographs and repair invoices of the damage from our member. We asked our member why it had taken so long for Miss A to receive an invoice for damage. Our Member admitted that their body shop had to complete the repairs before invoicing which took a little longer than expected. We also asked our member to respond to Miss A’s specific points concerning how the charges were applied and why some damage not noted on collection appeared on the engineer's report.

After looking into the evidence we were unable to find any proof that our member had caused additional damage to the car or that the charges imposed by our member were inflated or fraudulent. However, we were disappointed with the level of customer service Miss A received and the length of time it took for our member to respond to Miss A’s original dispute. In light of our investigation we rejected Miss A’s dispute.

Miss A was not satisfied with our investigation into her dispute and still believed that our member had over-charged her for damage to the vehicle. She requested that the BVRLA’s Arbitration Panel to investigate the matter. The panel reviewed all the documentation from both parties and concluded that the vehicle had been returned in a condition below fair wear and tear. However the evidence provided by our member did not show the vehicle to be in a really poor condition and the committee agreed with Miss A that the reparation costs were excessive. The panel agreed that the charges for damage should be reduced by 50%. Both parties were satisfied with the outcome of the panel's investigation.