207CC end of Passport Agreement COMPLAINT to Peugeot - Buyer Beware - Peugeot Forums
Peugeot Forums - Peueot - Citroen Community
Home :: Peugeot Forums :: Rules :: Articles :: About Us :: Partner Vendors :: Advertise


Go Back   Peugeot Forums > Peugeot Models > 207
PeugeotForums.com is the premier Peugeot All Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
View Poll Results: Legality or Peugeots actions Legal or Not ?
Legal 3 100.00%
Ridiculous 0 0%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Like Tree8Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21-05-13, 10:15 PM   #1
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5
Default 207CC end of Passport Agreement COMPLAINT to Peugeot - Buyer Beware

I'm posting a copy of the letter I have sent today to Peugeot following some rather disappointing treatment in regards to some minor scuffs on the alloys after owning the vehicle for 3 years doing 12000 miles less than my agreement and finding out the amount they have levied is for something not actually carried out. I'm not sure of the legality of Peugeots actions but buyers beware. I feel compelled to make this public.

20 May 2013

Reference to:
Peugeot Financial Service (PFA)
Vehicle Model: 207 CC Allure 1.6 VTi 120 -1P
Contracted Mileage 30000

I recently returned my car that I purchased through the Peugeot Passport Scheme. The car was examined and inspected by a third party company call Manheim DeFleet Services.

Upon inspection the company (Manheim) advised that Peugeot specify criteria to be met on return of a vehicle of which they identified in their report as “Scuffed” Front Left and Right Alloy Wheels. This is listed as equipment on the report and the description is as expected “Alloy Wheel”. They advised Peugeot would be levying a fee on this finding and that they measure anything over a certain degree of length and photograph for Peugeot, though I can find no reference to this measurement or distinction in the agreement I signed.

Manheim, at that time, gave an option for the customer (myself) to object to the finding as it could be classified as fair wear and tear. They did not require any charges to be paid at that time and advised that the report would go to Peugeot to then communicate as required. The charge they quoted for the “Scuffed damage is £60 per wheel excluding VAT – with an action of “Alloy Smart Rep”.

On the 17th May we received a letter from Peugeot requesting the cost of the damage found in the report. I’ll quote this for clarity: “As you’ll see, any missing items, incomplete documentation or damage which falls outside of fair wear and tear, has been charged”.)

We called Peugeot and objected to the cost of the scuffs as in our own opinion a vehicle of 3 years old which they graded as “Grade 1“ was, in our own opinion, fair wear and tear for a vehicle of its age. Please note, in the contract we signed at the point of purchase, there were no details of how they define the term “fair wear and tear” and the term used in the agreement we signed was to return the vehicle in “good condition”.

We argued for a while and asked to escalate to a supervisor as the representative on the call said there was nothing to be done, Peugeots’ findings are final, that they employ a specialist company for their vehicle inspections and the costs therefore are due – also citing we signed an agreement and it’s in that agreement that they feel that this is covered.

I then asked my husband to speak to Peugeot on my behalf which he did and challenged Peugeot again regarding the condition of the vehicle and the cost associated with the scuffs on the alloys.

As you can see from the header of this letter and within the attached agreement, that we had an agreed contract of up to 30,000 miles over the 3 year period. We actually had driven just under 18,000 thus making the car of extra value to Peugeot.
They actually charge for the mileage over the contracted mileage at 9.96pence per mile – so mileage is a valuable commodity on a car that is returned to them. Should we be sending them a bill for £1195.20 for the additional 12,000 miles that we could have done in the car?

They were not prepared to move on this or that we had been a customer with Peugeot for 7 years (owning 3 Peugeot cars in succession) or that they would probably make quite a bit more on the car than the £120 + VAT (£144) that they wish to charge us based on the low mileage and Grade 1 condition of the car. They also threatened us that non-payment would incur late fees even though the delay was to appeal/dispute the charge. We ended the call frustrated, bullied and completely at the mercy of Peugeot.

The inspection company had admitted to my husband that it was unlikely that Peugeot would pay £120 plus VAT for the repairs to the wheels. We determined to ask for evidence of the repair and so we called back Peugeot.

We asked them to provide evidence that the work had been carried out in accordance with what we had been asked to pay for. The manager stated clearly that the vehicle had already been sold by auction and no repairs to the vehicle were done. Upon hearing this, my husband questioned how they can ask for money for repairs that are not carried out. He was told that PFA is a separate institution and they incur a loss of that amount due to the findings of the report. He asked them which organisation PFA came under and they said Peugeot. They are charging for work they have not done on a vehicle that Peugeot, as a whole, will have made a considerable amount of money on based on the vehicle’s condition and low mileage. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that Peugeot set a maximum price for the vehicle when it went to auction to even out their alleged loss of £120 excluding VAT.

We told Peugeot’s representative that we felt that the activities appeared fraudulent and therefore refused at that point to pay for something that has not been done, for which we were reminded that we had signed an agreement for and would be levied late fees for not complying with PFA’s demands. My husband asked if he could speak to someone else higher in the organisation and was told he would not get a different or satisfactory answer so was directed to contact the Financial Ombudsman as a final option to disagree with Peugeot’s findings.

He then asked for details of their Complaints Procedure.

The Peugeot representative did not follow or adhere to their complaint’s procedure: which indicates that we should have been referred to a member of the Customer Services Team in the first instance and then onto the appropriate manager and then Head of Department. None of these options were presented. Their approach was arbitrary to say the least.

My husband expressed that it was quite appalling to sour a long-standing customer relationship that has been worth thousands of pounds to Peugeot for the sake of £144 especially to pay for cosmetic repairs to a vehicle that have not even taken place.

The complaints procedure was sent by Peugeot and included a copy of our signed agreement (terms and conditions). A single line had been highlighted for which they are attributing the scuffing of the alloy wheels as being part of the agreement that was signed. The section highlighted is as follows in the “Terms and Conditions”

17.8
Scratches
Prominent scratches to chrome/bright metal/inserts constitute abnormal wear.

Firstly I’d like to say this is ambiguous and to my mind does not equate to the alloy wheels. There is no detail in the agreement explicit to the condition of alloy wheels although there is a heading entitled “Tyres”. There is nothing in the agreement relating to “fair wear and tear” only the term “good condition” is specified which I feel I adhered to in the vehicle being classed as Grade 1 (Clause 5.6).

Furthermore, as the alloy wheels are not chrome, and they wouldn’t be classed as inserts I can only assume they are referring to the words “bright metal”.

I have searched Peugeot’s website for any reference to the term “bright metal” and brochure for the 207cc for the term “bright metal” of which I can find no reference in either. I’ve searched for the definition of the word alloy to find anything similar to the term “bright metal” or “chrome” or “insert” neither of which can be found. I’ve attached some research as such. If they really wanted to include “equipment” such as alloy wheels that they would be specifically mentioned as such. There is only ever reference to the alloy wheels as “alloy wheels” on every brochure or on their website. Therefore I conclude that this statement of which I signed does not constitute the alloy wheels. It is ambiguous and therefore can’t be interpreted as such unless explicitly defined in their agreement.

I would like this to be investigated as I don’t feel I have either breached my contract or should be liable for costs and that Peugeot (PFA) are sending out an invoice for repairs that have not been carried out. The Manager had specified during the call that the car had been sold and no repairs had been carried out. Therefore I feel they are acting fraudulently and certainly not in the interest of their customers.

I would like a refund and an apology and from Peugeot (PFA) and I would hope they would be investigated as such in relation to this complaint.

I don’t always feel that people are listened to and the corporate might of companies such as Peugeot feel that they can treat customers as they choose without recourse.

I have sent a copy of this letter to:
Peugeot
Finance and Leasing Association
Financial Ombudsman Service

It’s sad that they have lost any more custom from me in the future and I certainly will be making my view and treatment publically available.

Yours faithfully

Kelly
EsaMami likes this.
Disgruntled is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 22-05-13, 12:09 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: falkirk
Posts: 14,179
Default

The charge they have levied is for the damage done as they say it means the wheels are not as they should be this is the reduction in value that they believe is relevant the fact they did not bother to repair the wheels prior to sale really does not matter !

I agree with you that the repairs should have been done if they are charging you for it but to be honest they all do it not just Peugeot so all you will be doing will be moving to another manufacturer who will treat you the same at the end of your lease
reliable406 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 12:55 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sunderland, Tyne & Wear
Posts: 464
Default

It's 6 and 2 3's when it comes to this kind of thing. They can argue that the money you've been charged is to cover the cost of a repair or a loss in value (it's reasonable to argue that a potential buyer could/would negotiate a reduction in price or that at auction, the bids would not go as high) so I really don't think you'll have any luck chasing the "You didn't fix it so I'm not paying" argument as they are entitled to claim for loss of value irrespective.

You also have little or no chance of them taking into account the mileage - sucks but that's the way it is in that regard.

The only chance you have (in my non-legal-professional opinion) is to try to get them to reconsider if it's fair wear and tear or not - if you can get it reclassified then the charges go away (or hopefully)

I'd probably agree with you that the bright metal doesn't include the wheels, but it's not 100% clear - I'd think that refers to mouldings, badges, grilles etc.

Probably not what you want to hear but unfortunately, at the end of the day, it isn't about what's fair, it's about what's legally enforceable under the contract.

Last edited by BigSlavey; 22-05-13 at 12:58 AM.
BigSlavey is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 22-05-13, 08:30 AM   #4
chopper1192
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Instead of moaning at us when it Not our fault, you should have come here in the first place whereupon we would have advised you that Passport is a financial mugs game in every conceivable way. Right from the moment you start making payments for no material gain, right up the the parting shot where they charge you £200 for air freshener because you farted in the car 11 months ago, they're bleeding you dry.

Move on, live your life, and actually buy your car next time.

Last edited by chopper1192; 22-05-13 at 08:32 AM.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 12:03 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Gibbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Southport
Posts: 11,670
Default

Its the same with their current "just add fuel" scheme. Its in the very small print about charging you for any wear and tear.
__________________
Planet Diags: Sefton - Merseyside
Gibbo is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 01:14 PM   #6
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5
Default

I feel the terms and conditions do not specify the alloys and therefore are not part of what I had signed. It's a shame that one persons definition over another is fair game either. They should have fixed it if charging for a repair and they said they were not obliged to provide proof even if they had. I still feel a car with 18000 miles is worth more to Peugeot than a car with 30000 miles and they are the ones placing a cash value on the mileage it shouldn't be one rule for them and playing by other rules for the customer.
Disgruntled is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 01:19 PM   #7
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5
Default

Passport is a mugs game, you're right but at the time there were few options on owning that nice shiny new car I wanted without going on finance. I'm far from the only one to have to borrow to buy a car. Ambiguous terms and conditions in the small print that are not clearly defined do not make up for being able to charge without good reason just because they feel they have to levy a charge. It's not unreasonable to ask for proof work is being carried out that you are insisted you have to pay for. In fact I feel it's my right as a customer and consumer.
Disgruntled is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 07:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
storeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oldham, UK
Posts: 5,906
Default

All lease agreements regardless of who supplies the lease term are liable to charges when they come to an end. The cars almost need to look like they just come out of the showroom to guarantee there won't be a charge. A 'company car' I had was supplied through a lease company and when it went back I recieved a bill for over £1000. Most of that was for missed services which was eventually removed as I was able to prove that most of the services they said I missed had actually been done at the dealers. Some of the items they were charging for I accepted as I thought they were reasonable - the car wasn't mint when it went back but I got the charges down to less than £100 from over £1000

Most if not all lease cars go straight to the auction if the driver doesn't take the option top buy at the end so none of the repairs they charge you for get done. The charge isn't for repairs - it is for loss of value. Because there are imperfections the car will sell for less.

Google for information regarding lease car return charges and you'll find sites that detail what the car inspector is looking for. Any scratching or damage to the alloy wheel spokes is a chargeable item. About all you can get away with is very light scratching around the extreme rim of the wheel. Paint chips and small dents less than 1cm diameter to the bodywork will be accepted as long as it hasn't gone right through the paint and the primer / metalwork isn't visible.

I guess that legally they are allowed to claim payment for the devaluation due to damages. Scraped alloys are not fair wear and tear though alloys only get scraped by being kerbed etc. It would quite rightly be considered as negligence.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by storeman; 22-05-13 at 07:27 PM.
storeman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 22-05-13, 08:44 PM   #9
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5
Default

As you stated I'd consider fair wear and tear as the scuffs were on the rim of the alloy, regardless of the statement the final amount of money fetched as auction goes into Peugeots coffers. They will make more money keeping a customer of 3 successive Peugeot cars and forget about the niggles. The scuffs I feel we're fair wear and tear the contract signed had no reference to the alloys everything but. The charge levied was for repairs so they are effectively charging for something that does not occur. That is not right in my book. Irrespective I stand by my comment in regards to the mileage in which they place a monetary value in their contract and the car I owned did 12000 miles less than I was contracted for, returned early and paid in full to the end of the term and returned with tax left on the vehicle to the end of the month. It's not the amount it's the principal. I would expect to go o the dentist shake his hand and be shown the door and be charged for a root canal. It's not good business practice and I question the legality of it. They have not made a loss on the vehicle and it was back and forth to Peugeot with various issues during the time I owned it. Should I be within my rights to ask for a deduction in my payments for the time not in my possession? At times you should stand for your rights as an individual and not let the corporates steam roller and bully you into a corner!
Disgruntled is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 23-05-13, 07:54 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Pew-got's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A bit further south than you!
Posts: 486
Default

We cannot settle the case for you, but a small claims court can. Have you tried that route????
__________________
Peugeot 307sw 2.0HDi Pack 110CV (2003)
Pew-got is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Peugeot Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:36 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.