# Which arguments work when disputing lease return charges?

One argument works far more often than any other: the evidence does not prove the damage is beyond the limit. Arguments that the company suffered no loss, that the car was under its mileage, that it passed an MOT, or that the collection driver said it was fine have failed in every decision we have read.

Last reviewed 13 November 2026. Published by Handback Check (https://damagereclaim.co.uk), an independent UK service that checks lease return bills. Canonical page: https://damagereclaim.co.uk/guides/arguments-that-work-and-fail/

## What has worked

| Argument | What happened |
| --- | --- |
| The photo has no scale and the scuff may be under 50mm | Two £80 wheel charges removed [1] |
| The photo does not show the damage at all | A £65 charge removed [2] |
| The photos are not clear enough | £660 of charges removed [3] |
| The company has to prove each line | A wheel charge removed [4] |
| The late return charge does not match the contract dates | £43.75 waived [5] |
| This wheel's scuff is inside the 50mm limit | A wheel charge refunded [6] |
| The fault was there when the car was supplied | A £368.97 seat charge refunded with interest [7] |
| I can prove the services were done | £600 of service charges removed [8] |
| The inspection evidence does not support the bill | Most of a £9,605 bill withdrawn, plus £150 compensation [9] |

## What has failed

| Argument | Why it failed |
| --- | --- |
| "You sold the car without repairing it, so you lost nothing" | The BVRLA guide allows the charge whether or not the repair is done [10] [11] [12] |
| "I was well under my mileage" | Agreements do not offset mileage against damage [13] [14] [15] |
| "It passed an MOT" | The return standard is a different test from road legality [13] |
| "The driver said it was fine" | The company, not the collection agent, decides the charges [16] [17] |
| "The BVRLA guide is not law" | It is the industry standard, and using it is reasonable [10] |
| "I already had it repaired" | A repair without a transferable warranty can be charged again [18] |
| "I was never told about the standard" | The agreement referred to it and the guide is public [3] |

## Three practical lessons

1. **Argue the evidence, line by line.** The ombudsman goes through a bill one charge at a time. One decision assessed 23 separate lines. [2]
2. **Concede what is plainly chargeable.** In several cases the customer accepted some lines, and the dispute focused on the ones in doubt.
3. **Complain to the company properly first.** Bills were often cut before the ombudsman was involved: £1,727 to £931, £1,240 to £965, £880 to £430, £705 to £615. [11] [19] [16] [17]

## How to read this

These are 23 published decisions, chosen because they deal with return charges. They are not a random sample and the ombudsman decides each case on its own facts. Read the [full digest](https://damagereclaim.co.uk/ombudsman-decisions/).

## Quick answers

**What is the best argument against lease return charges?** That the company's photograph does not show damage beyond the fair wear and tear limit. It is the argument behind most of the charges removed in the decisions we have read.

**Does low mileage reduce end of lease damage charges?** No. The ombudsman has rejected that argument repeatedly, because agreements do not provide for it.

## Sources

1. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-6218638 (MINI Financial Services)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6218638.pdf)
2. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5495134 (Leasys)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5495134.pdf)
3. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-6223826 (ALD Automotive)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6223826.pdf)
4. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-4605998 (Alphabet)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4605998.pdf)
5. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5975214 (LeasePlan)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5975214.pdf)
6. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5860940 (Volkswagen Financial Services)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5860940.pdf)
7. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-4430513 (Alphabet)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4430513.pdf)
8. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-3501206 (PSA Finance)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3501206.pdf)
9. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5446648 (Volvo Car)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5446648.pdf)
10. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-6280295 (Arval)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6280295.pdf)
11. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5371089 (Skoda Financial Services)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5371089.pdf)
12. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5896019 (Arval)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5896019.pdf)
13. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-6074117 (Novuna Vehicle Solutions)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6074117.pdf)
14. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5794559 (Santander Consumer Contract Hire)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5794559.pdf)
15. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5735204 (ALPHERA Financial Services)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5735204.pdf)
16. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5714458 (Volkswagen Financial Services)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5714458.pdf)
17. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5588300 (LeasePlan)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5588300.pdf)
18. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5679986 (PSA Finance UK)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5679986.pdf)
19. [Financial Ombudsman Service, decision DRN-5984117 (Volvo Car)](https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-5984117.pdf)