BCA Inspection Issue - Fraud?

[Tom_Sauce]

Hi all,

Today I had a BCA inspector pick up my car.

He spent 20 minutes and then phoned me to let me know he had finished.

It's 2 years old and has driven 14k miles and is in excellent condition apart from a couple of minor scratches.

I asked the inspector if there was any chargeable damage to which he replied "No, there's a couple of scratches but they are considered wear and tear" he agreed that it was in excellent condition and asked me to sign a box on his phone and one on his tablet.

He didn't mention or point out any damage. After I signed the boxes he drove off.

5 minutes after this I received a email from BCA with 4 images and a bill for £330.

I had no opportunity to query or take any extra photos etc

I think this is at best dishonest and possible fraudulent behaviour.

I'd like some other people's constructive opinions on this please?

Thanks

[voram]

No doubt you took your own photos to record the "couple of minor scratches". How do they compare with the other photos?

[Matt_E_Mulsion]

Not another Mercedes is it???

[Tom_Sauce]

Yes - I have my own photos of the car but didn't take anything detailed or upclose

This was because I was not given the opportunity to as they where not pointed out.

My issue is that the BCA inspector verbally told me there where no issues and no charges, then drive off and emailed me the issues.

I have a real issue with this. Do BCA inspectors get any cut of the fines issued maybe?

[Tom_Sauce]

Matt_E_Mulsion said:

Not another Mercedes is it???

No it was a VW with VWFS

[mikeyr]

Did you sign something saying no damage OR did the document include the damage stated? (did they email you the form in PDF format or such like?)

I'd agree with you that I'd be furious if told it was fine verbally and then followed up with a request for money.

[Tom_Sauce]

mikeyr said:

Did you sign something saying no damage OR did the document include the damage stated? (did they email you the form in PDF format or such like?)

I'd agree with you that I'd be furious if told it was fine verbally and then followed up with a request for money.

I basically just signed a box on a phone and tablet. The bloke said just sign here so I did, he didn't mention a single issue. Silly mistake possibly on my behalf. This is my 3rd lease and never had any issues with BCA before so I trusted them.....

[voram]

Post the photos here so we can see what they're talking about, and how your own photos compare.

[Tom_Sauce]

I was basically just handed a phone and tablet with a box in. It looks to me like he had hidden the fact that he had added the 'damage' and not scrolled up on the tablet or phone to show me so he could get my signature and scarper.

[Tom_Sauce]

voram said:

Post the photos here so we can see what they're talking about, and how your own photos compare.

There's no real need, my issue is not that there are scratches, it's the fact he blatantly lied to me saying I wouldnt be charged, then dishonesty got me to sign the 'paperwork' and drove off.

[Tom_Sauce]

Here you go, these are two 'scratches' that they want £165 which are the most laughable.

However, I'm more annoyed with how they have gone about it. I think it's fraudulent.

[ChrisNic]

The last job in the world I would want is to be doing lease car collections and the driveway inspections.

Had they told you on the spot that you were going to be billed £330 what would you have done? Accepted the charges or spent the next x minutes debating with the guy the validity or not of the charges?

Imagine doing that every single day for every collection, I can see why it much easier to lie and let the customer appeal it after the event.

[Sheepshanks]

Tom_Sauce said:

I was basically just handed a phone and tablet with a box in. It looks to me like he had hidden the fact that he had added the 'damage' and not scrolled up on the tablet or phone to show me so he could get my signature and scarper.

To be fair, if he'd been honest with you there would have been a massive argument, so why would he do that?

I think standard procedure is tell VWFS to go forth and often they drop it.

[Silas22]

Had something similar when handing back our courtesy car to the hire company, they spent a long time looking over the car and came over for a signature. O/H was the one with car in her name so she dealt with it, she asked if it was all OK, and they replied yes.

However, like you, she was offered up a box to sign in, with nothing else on the screen. She could have signed for anything!

I had expected them to come back just like you did, so made sure that I saved the recording from our CCTV with audio as I don't think there would be any other comeback.

[Tom_Sauce]

ChrisNic said:

The last job in the world I would want is to be doing lease car collections and the driveway inspections.

Had they told you on the spot that you were going to be billed £330 what would you have done? Accepted the charges or spent the next x minutes debating with the guy the validity or not of the charges?

Imagine doing that every single day for every collection, I can see why it much easier to lie and let the customer appeal it after the event.

They should do their job, be honest and professional. If they can't handle people disagreing with their decisions and have to be deceitful then they should get a new job.

What would of happened would have been me politely disagreing with him, taking my own detailed photos and NOT signing the agreement.

There is no excuse for lies and dishonesty.

[Tom_Sauce]

Sheepshanks said:

Tom_Sauce said:

I was basically just handed a phone and tablet with a box in. It looks to me like he had hidden the fact that he had added the 'damage' and not scrolled up on the tablet or phone to show me so he could get my signature and scarper.

To be fair, if he'd been honest with you there would have been a massive argument, so why would he do that?

I think standard procedure is tell VWFS to go forth and often they drop it.

There wouldn't have been an argument. I'd have just disagreed, not signed anything and handed the car back. If these inspectors can not 'handle' people disagreing with their decisions, as long as these disagree TS are done in a calm and professional manor then they need to get a new Job. Other then threats to their safety, I can not see any reason to lie.

[Sheepshanks]

I wonder if people just say "ho hum" and pay these charges? Surely pretty well everyone is going to argue once it's a few hundred quid.

Even if it was direct debited off you it's easy enough to reverse.

[CarCrazyDad]

ChrisNic said:

The last job in the world I would want is to be doing lease car collections and the driveway inspections.

Had they told you on the spot that you were going to be billed £330 what would you have done? Accepted the charges or spent the next x minutes debating with the guy the validity or not of the charges?

Imagine doing that every single day for every collection, I can see why it much easier to lie and let the customer appeal it after the event.

So you'd lie and have a customer sign a form which is them agreeing to £xxx of deductions without their knowledge?

Lovely chap.

I had a lease car a few years ago and mine went back with a few small marks similar to those pictured and I had no extra charges, I did have to pay £140 for 2 wheel refurbishments (kerbing etc) other than that, is was fine

There was a handbook which outlined what was considered wear and tear and what isn't, compare that to the measurements etc given by the inspector on your car.

[clockworks]

If leasing companies and their agents are having to resort to these tactics to make a profit, maybe they should just put up the monthlies and accept that secondhand cars will show a bit of wear and tear.

[ChrisNic]

CarCrazyDad said:

So you'd lie and have a customer sign a form which is them agreeing to £xxx of deductions without their knowledge?

Lovely chap.

I had a lease car a few years ago and mine went back with a few small marks similar to those pictured and I had no extra charges, I did have to pay £140 for 2 wheel refurbishments (kerbing etc) other than that, is was fine

There was a handbook which outlined what was considered wear and tear and what isn't, compare that to the measurements etc given by the inspector on your car.

Maybe read what I said again.