To me, these all seem like normal wear and tear after a 2-year lease. The first two are tiny paint chips or even just dust that wasn’t fully cleaned. I didn’t notice the last one on the windshield but based on the photo it is less than 3mm which should not be charged based on their instruction about lease return inspection “Chips are only chargeable if they are more than 0.3 cm in diameter”.
Has anyone else had a similar experience with Mercedes-Benz Financial?
Can I discuss with them with my reasons and ask for waving the charges?
Can I request a re-inspection or ask for repair by myself?
Any advice on how to handle this fairly?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions or shared experiences!
Thanks! The website in the link has the following descriptions:
The following vehicle conditions will result in excess wear and use charges:
Holes, cracks, gouges, tears, or cuts in the sheet metal or bumper, regardless of size
Dents that are larger than the size of a credit card
Scratches that are through the paint and larger than the size of a credit card
The sixth and each subsequent scratch per panel that is through the paint and smaller than the size of a credit card
Tears, cuts, holes, or burns to the interior, regardless of size
Damaged safety items, regardless of size (e.g., torn seat belts)
Glass or lights that have cracks, stars, holes, or plugs (a star is a chip with one or more legs, and a plug is considered unsafe for vehicles with supplemental restraint systems, windshields with 3 or more chips will results in excess wear and use charges).
Collective damage, regardless of size, that is caused by a single event (e.g., hail damage)
Seems I have good reasons to dispute based on these writings. I will give them a call and keep you guys posted. Thanks!
I also found a pdf online with more detail, but it seems very old: lease-return-guide.pdf
We only talked about the windshield charge. I said it is a chip, not a crack so it should not be charged. They discussed and said they agree it is a chip, but the charge is still valid because the windows need to be changed for security reasons. I said if it is a chip I should not be charged as their website didn’t say a chip will be charged, only more than 3 chips. Then they said it belonged to “glass broken” so it is still a valid charge no matter what it is called. At last, they even don’t want to admit that they agree it is a chip and said they charge based on the inspection report and the only thing I can do is to contact the inspection company to change the report.
Any suggestion? Is contacting inspection company to ask them to change it to a “chip” helpful?
Good luck! Sounds like you’ll need to escalate until you get someone higher up with a semi-functional brain (tough dealing with MBZ corporate) to fight a semantics battle as you clearly have a small chip and absolutely no cracks. Here are a couple of links to AAA and Safelite explaining what’s fixable and what’s not. Unless yours is very deep, it should it easily be filled with resin and be as safe as new. Hate to say it, but you may have to go to small claims if they don’t cooperate and you’re determined to beat their BS charge.
Another somewhat less authoritative source but it does a good job explaining the difference between chips and cracks.
All damage charges totally BS. Shame MB.
Assuming that you do not have windshield or end of lease protection, fight with them.
Go local dealership and take a few pictures of their CPOs with chip on windshield. Send to MBUSA and ask how can they certify cars with safety hazard that can penetrate into their brain
