Don't forget the extra grand for the dodgy damage charges.
m5rcc to Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#9
"dodgy"? There are guidelines to follow...
Sam_Crow to m5rcc
20 Sep 17#10
Watch C4 Dispatches: Secrets Of Your New Car. Shows exactly how much they follow the 'guidelines'.
m5rcc to Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#11
I did - that show was presented by a moron who went against his own principals in leasing a brand-new MB.
Why would you expect damage not to be charged?
scottishpunter to Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#17
I have handed back three lease cars and have never paid a penny. You do see newish cars with big dents in them driving around and you think "why did you not claim that on your insurance?", so I would agree that these type of drivers should not go for a lease. Or if you live in an area where you know a new car will be deliberately damaged, but for most drivers this will not be an issue.
Mada06 to Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#19
Do you not take care of things?
118luke to Mada06
20 Sep 17#20
Its more a case of the other wreckless morons who don't care about your property. You never suffered from a classic car-park hit & run?
Mada06 to 118luke
20 Sep 17#25
Yes the wear and tear guidelines account for small imperfections. Running a bill for £1000+ like he suggested would to me indicate the car has been treated very poorly.
118luke to Mada06
20 Sep 17#30
The guidelines aren't legally binding. You'd have to chance it that you have a lenient assessor when you come to handing the keys back. Having dealt with ex-company lease cars before i know some assessors will pick up on every detail then hand an invoice to the company. Some are more lenient though like a Passat was missing some trim and had a cracked rear light cluster but it diddnt get charged for.
Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#12
Mate, you go for it.And enjoy.
m5rcc to Sam_Crow
20 Sep 17#13
I already have a leased car and have leased previously with no issues.
I'm relatively new to the leasing thing... but recently been on the threads for leasing and wondered whether it is better to wait until q4 for a better deal than this? Personally I think this is quite a good offer.
m5rcc to kungfusu
20 Sep 17#21
Then you'd know the same car is available for £300 less elsewhere...
kungfusu to m5rcc
20 Sep 17#28
Indeed as per your previous comment.. that wasn't quite my question though.
m5rcc to kungfusu
20 Sep 17#32
But it answers it because the cheaper deal would not make this deal a "good offer".
kungfusu to m5rcc
20 Sep 17#33
I did say "quite a good offer".. but yes your link was cheaper... any thoughts about waiting on q4 for better deals?
m5rcc to kungfusu
20 Sep 17#35
Good deals come now and again, not because it's the end of a quarter or what not. Best when a car has come to the end of its production cycle or there is fleet of twenty odd cars in a specific spec that need shifting. The X-Trail deal posted earlier is one such example.
kungfusu to m5rcc
20 Sep 17#37
Hmmm.. good to know. Thanks
othen
20 Sep 17#22
We see so many of these rental plans advertised here that it is hard to know what is a good deal and what is not.
With this one the cost is £4,334 to rent a £17,195 car for 2 years and 20,000 miles. That works out at 25% depreciation, which sounds reasonable until one realises that the new car would not cost £17,195, but probably at least £2,000 less (I negotiated £6,000 off my current Superb estate when I bought it new 4 years ago, so I think this is a reasonable assumption). In that case the depreciation is about 30%, perhaps that is still good? My current Skoda has depreciated to just about half its new value in 4 years, so perhaps a 30% loss in two is okay?
I'm rather thinking aloud here. I've always bought new cars for cash previously - and generally been able to save around 20% compared to the manufacturer's price (the exception being my Porsche, no discounts there!). These days so many people seem to be going for rental deals like this one, so I'm wondering whether I should do the same when it comes to changing the Skoda (or perhaps I keep it for a decade and amortise the cost over a decade).
My conclusion: I still don't know whether this is a good deal or not (either compared with other rental deals or buying new) - so I'll sit on the fence and not vote yet.
![Fresh Breakfast Meat Box (Using code) @ Campbells Meat [Haggis / Lorne Sausage / Bacon / Black Pudding & More]](/images/topics/208684_1.jpg)
![[Xbox One] Q. u. b. e: Director's Cut on Deals with Gold](/images/topics/208716_1.jpg)
Opening post
2 Year lease
10k Miles per year
£999 up front
£145 per month x 23
No admin or broker fees
Total cost: £4334
All comments (115)
Shows exactly how much they follow the 'guidelines'.
Why would you expect damage not to be charged?
Some are more lenient though like a Passat was missing some trim and had a cracked rear light cluster but it diddnt get charged for.
For your information...
With this one the cost is £4,334 to rent a £17,195 car for 2 years and 20,000 miles. That works out at 25% depreciation, which sounds reasonable until one realises that the new car would not cost £17,195, but probably at least £2,000 less (I negotiated £6,000 off my current Superb estate when I bought it new 4 years ago, so I think this is a reasonable assumption). In that case the depreciation is about 30%, perhaps that is still good? My current Skoda has depreciated to just about half its new value in 4 years, so perhaps a 30% loss in two is okay?
I'm rather thinking aloud here. I've always bought new cars for cash previously - and generally been able to save around 20% compared to the manufacturer's price (the exception being my Porsche, no discounts there!). These days so many people seem to be going for rental deals like this one, so I'm wondering whether I should do the same when it comes to changing the Skoda (or perhaps I keep it for a decade and amortise the cost over a decade).
My conclusion: I still don't know whether this is a good deal or not (either compared with other rental deals or buying new) - so I'll sit on the fence and not vote yet.
:-)