Hi, eventually they got a negotiator involved and we agreed an amount I was kind of happy with but will never lease a car from them again if that's how they treat customers. If I were you I would stand your ground and just explain yourself reasonably throughout. Only offer then what is reasonable and get a written quote from the Mercedes garage who memtioned the £80. Good luck and let me know how you get on.

I have been leasing a Mercedes for three years and returned it two months ago. I received a bill for £1,500 - £450 for excess mileage which was agreed, and then a further £1,100 for wear and tear, which was simply ridiculous. I paid around £200 which I deemed fair and called Merc to dispute the remainder. The chap on the phone listened to my complaint and said he would get back to me. A week later I received a standard letter, which bore no relevance to the call and referred me to 4.2 in my contract which they said stated the car should be returned free from damage (rather than the contract stating 'good condition'. I wrote a reply (which I have pasted below) and again I received an exact copy of the first letter - incredible! I wrote again stating that this must have been a mistake as they surely would not be so rude. I received a call from customer services checking I received their letter and I said 'did you receive my reply as your letter was irrelevant'. He said yes and that he apologised and would send a correct response. A month has passed with no letter or no call until tonight their debt collectors rang!!! They offered me a 25% discount but I said no and i am set to call Mercedes. Hopefully my letter below will help understand my issues. Does anyone have advice / experience as to the claims I am making? The problem seems to be that Mercedes say they issue guidelines for reasonable damage, but I never received this and am prepared to swear an oath in court on this basis. Anyway, read on... Thank you for your correspondence regarding my disputed invoice from Mercedes Benz; however I feel it does not reflect the conversation I had with your colleague and my grievances with the bill received. The Mercedes leased from you was my third lease car I believe; so as a seasoned leaser, never have I been issued with such an invoice before, despite the car being in a similar condition to my previous leases. This has clearly caused me distress when I was presented with such a huge bill. I fully understand that Jet Logistics are not responsible for assessing the car, but I have the following issues with Mercedes’ assessment: The marks highlighted are – in my opinion – completely reasonable wear and tear. A three-year old car has been returned yet you’re asking me to fund its return to showroom condition. No lease I have ever undertaken has made such a punitive and cynical demand. This is very cheeky. The basis of the problem is highlighted by your letter. You refer to clause 4.2 which you claim states the vehicle should be returned ‘free of damage’. Actually clause 4.2 describes the car needing to be returned in ‘good condition’. The odd chip or 2cm mark does not constitute a car in less than good condition in my opinion, or that of a major online buying guide who describe good condition as: ‘Cars that show wear consistent with their age. There are no major mechanical or cosmetic problems. The paint still looks good, but possibly has some scratches or dings. Some minor touch up might be needed. The interior has minimal wear on the seats and carpet. The tyres are in good shape and have some life left to them. A four-star car ideally has its maintenance records available, a clean title, and can pass inspection’. It is impossible to argue that the car I returned does not meet this – or any - definition of ‘good’ condition. Despite your invoice coming complete with reference to prescriptive minimum sizes of alleged damage, at NO POINT EITHER PRIOR OR DURING MY LEASE did I sign, or was issued a document that advised me of any minimum guidelines for size of chips and marks (which is what your initial invoice refers to), nor any definition of reasonable wear and tear. This is crucial as there is a clear difference between your requirement of ‘free from damage’ (showroom condition) and ‘good condition’, which is what I signed and agreed to in the contract. It’s a bit like me giving you a speeding fine without you being given fair knowledge of the speed limit. How can I adhere to rules that were never issued to me? If I had received any guidelines as to what you deem unreasonable damage, even weeks before the end of my lease, I would have had the opportunity to understand any alternate or amended interpretation of ‘good condition’ and possibly chosen to rectify these minor blemishes for significantly cheaper. As these were not forthcoming, I was left to interpretations along the lines of point 1, 2 and my previous experience of leasing cars from Saab and others. I am now left with a bill that I not only deem unwarranted, but one considerably larger than if I had the benefit of a chance to rectify any repairs locally in advance of returning the car. I do not believe that the pictures provided are sufficiently clear and I am unhappy with the references to some of the alleged marks; and as such I am even questioning whether these were done whilst I had the car. Having spoken in depth with my lawyer I am adamant that by not giving me notice of any prescriptive measurements for wear and tear I cannot be held to these unambiguous terms and subsequent costs when all I received was the said wording about ‘good condition’ – which is exactly the condition the car was returned. I am not unreasonable however, and have paid the elements I agree to be fair and outside of the definition of ‘good condition’ as well as excess mileage. I would hope that this matter now does not go any further – as it would seem a rather reckless way to treat a potential lifetime customer.