Emkay

Agreed - albeit I have been reading various forums and it seems that 'unfair outcomes' are not uncommon. Some people have been 'hit' for non-manufacturer approved repairs when they have made good damage (to an extremely high standard) through places such as chips away or body shops. One dude even got hit for insurer approved repairs at a body shop - the car had already been sold by the auction company and there was no 'loss', but they were still trying to charge him £700 because the light didn't 'bounce' right when they held some device up to the car (totally undetectable with the naked eye). It's like the end of a tenancy - you just know the landlord is going to find minor things that are wrong, try and charge you for them, not do the repairs then try and pass the cost on to the next tenant when they leave in 2 years time!

Maybe I was naive with this being my first lease return as I fundamentally saw little wrong with the car apart from the rear bumper and a couple of scuffed alloys, which I was totally happy to pay for. My (admittedly limited) experience of auctions is that cars go through on a conveyor belt basis and most buyers are unconcerned by minor dents and scratches as this is to be expected in cars of a certain age. I have no problem with paying some money to solve problems that I caused. I simply dispute that the cost of fixing 2 (fairly minor) scratches on 2 separate doors runs to £220. I don't even think one of them properly falls under the criteria of chargeable damage. I was not even aware it was there until the guy came round and started going across the car with his weird device and getting super anal about everything - if you need some weird device to see it then the naked eye is certainly not going to spot it at auction! Either way, and as someone who picked up a brand new Skoda on the day my old one went back, it has certainly left a sour taste in the mouth. Especially as I pretty much know the damage is not going to get fixed and that the amount they are charging probably doesn't properly reflect the 'loss' they will suffer at auction.

This is toss - it's 3.5 year car which is going straight off to auction. I can't for one moment imagine anyone is actually going to bother doing the work. A bit like airport hire car companies! :-( Growl. Just looking round the internet - apparently Mercedes are even worse for this type of thing.

I don't recall seeing anything about the exact size / depth of scratches in the context of reasonable wear and tear.

I don't have a problem with paying £180 for the alloys and the rear bumper and throwing in £20 as a gesture of goodwill. I totally agree that I have to pay something. My issue is that the extra scratches identified, for which they are attempting to charge me £220 are small and, in my view, reasonable in the context of a 3.5 year old car. What would happen if I refused to pay the extra? Would they really bother taking me to Court for £220?

The assessor came out today. He was anal in the extreme and I suspect this is a ploy to try and get as much money out of me as possible for fairly minor repairs. I got hit for 2 alloys at £35 a go and then £110 for a scuff on the rear bumper that has gone all the way through. I totally agree with these charges and I am happy to pay £180. He then 'found' 2 scratches he wasn't happy with on separate doors. Both were fairly insignificant (in my view) and I am genuinely surprised he picked them up. He then tried to charge me £110 per door!!! I am willing to pay for the alloys and the rear bumper. I don't accept his assessment of the rest of the damage considering reasonable wear and tear to a 3 and a half year old car that has done 35,000 miles. When I took out the lease the contract simply made reference to reasonable wear and tear - I don't recall ever having my attention drawn to the lengthily list of extremely anal things BCA would try and charge for. I didn't sign anything and am going to offer them a couple of hundred quid on the basis I think anything above that is totally excessive. It's like BCA have turned up and uni-laterally decided that the damage to the car is worth £420. What do you think they will do? If they decide to 'go legal' am genuinely happy to go to the Small Claims Court and argue that the damage to the doors is so minor it should fall under 'reasonable wear and tear'. Sounds like one of these scams car hire companies do - charge people for minor damage then never repair it.

Cheers, thanks - I read on another forum that this sometimes isn't 'enforced' and that some people have returned cars with bigger scuffs and not heard anything. Does anyone have any practical experience of dealing with BCA?

Hello everyone - it's my first post so please play nice! I have recently ordered a new Octavia Vrs (Challenge Edition) and I am returning my current Vrs (which is on lease) through BCA Logistics in a couple of weeks time. I have had the car for over 3 years - I am just wondering what condition they will expect it to be in? There are 1 or 2 minor scratches and a couple of the alloys have scuffs. But overall nothing that you wouldn't expect on a car that has done 35,000 miles. It looks like the car is going off to auction (as opposed to a dealer forecourt). Skoda Finance told me to consult the BCA Logistics website for info about expected car condition on return, so I did: The BCA Logistics guide to 'acceptable wear and tear' is quite confusing + I don't really want to start spending time and money doing repairs if I don't need to. I have read elsewhere that a car of this age and mileage will be straight off to auction and that no-one will care about a bit of reasonable 'wear and tear' and I probably won't get charged. Does anyone have any experience of returning through BCA Logistics? Should I spend a bit of money sorting the car out to avoid the possibility of a ridiculous bill at their commercial rates?