I read with interest the email about Mercedes lease terminations. I have just returned a CLS AMG after 4 years and was charged over £1,200 for damage to bodywork, wheels and front screen. Like your correspondent the car was collected by Jet, whose driver crossed out the word "damaged" above the list of interior and exterior elements, recording only marks.

I had sent the car to a garage two days earlier to repair all damage and I can be certain there was no interior or bodywork damage. Mysteriously, by arrival at Mercedes a number of bodywork scratches and dents appeared. Furthermore, the tiny chip in the windscreen, barely visible with the naked eye, had become an 8mm wide gash. What also surprises me is Mercedes ignorance of contract law.

The only obligation in my hire contract was to keep the vehicle "in good condition and properly maintained." There is no doubt that the vehicle was returned in very good condition for a four-year-old car. What Mercedes is attempting to do is retrospectively apply a condition standard that was not part of the contract and then erroneously refer to the sum demanded as a "Default Sum".

Clearly, they have not demonstrated that there has been default and their photographic evidence is dubious to say the least and will be directly contradicted in Court by the garage that carried out the body repairs for me. Even where minor damage is accepted, it is easily arguable that it falls within the definition of fair wear and tear.

I am so disgusted by Mercedes behaviour in this matter not only will I not use Mercedes Finance again but I will never again buy a Mercedes, and I would urge your readers to similarly beware.