My lease car was stolen from my driveway last November. I reported it to the police and contacted my insurer, Aviva, and advised the lease company, Lex Autolease.
The insurer settled with Lex Autolease for just over £20,000, even though my research told me the market value of the car was much higher.
The lease company says I owe them just over £3,500 to clear the outstanding lease.
The arrangement was set up in October 2023, with me paying nine months up front and then £469 a month, which was paid for 25 months.
I don’t understand why there is such a large shortfall. Please help.
P.M., Upminster, London.
Insult to injury: A reader was left with a £3,500 bill to clear their lease deal after their car was stolen from their driveway
To lose your car, a Suzuki plug-in hybrid, to thieves in the dead of night was bad enough, but then be told you owed £3,500 to the lease company meant you suffered a puncture in your finances as well.
You might have accepted the insurer’s decision to pay out just £20,000 to Lex Autolease, part of Lloyds Banking, had your own research on the market value of your vehicle matched its calculations.
But you found other models of similar age, condition and mileage in Autotrader online for £24,500.
Your car had been serviced at a Suzuki dealership, and it held a video showing the car’s condition at the time of servicing. Unfortunately, you could not produce the logbook as it was in the car when it was stolen.
I asked Lex Autolease why it had accepted this sum from Aviva when you were sure your car was worth far more than the payout suggested.
At the forefront of my mind was how thousands of drivers are currently in the process of receiving compensation worth £200million after regulator the Financial Conduct Authority last year found some insurers were undervaluing cars when policyholders’ vehicles were stolen or written off.
I have no evidence to suggest Aviva is one of the insurers involved, but I wanted to be sure you had been treated fairly.
First, I asked Lex Autolease why it had accepted the figure when there was such a big shortfall. It said market guide Glass’s had been used to calculate the value and that a VAT deduction contributed to the lower sum.
Managing money in a long-term relationship can be tricky. Do you keep
your finances separate or share everything with your partner?
I’d like to hear how you go about it. Email sally@dailymail.co.uk
Since you had paid VAT as part of the original purchase of the car, I thought it odd that it should then be deducted from your payout. When I asked about this, Lex Autolease passed me to Aviva, which reopened your case.
A few days later it came back with its findings – and a recalculation of your payout.
A spokesman says: ‘In situations where a vehicle is owned by a leasing company, we settle the claim by paying the leasing company the vehicle’s market value.
‘Recently, certain vehicle types, including some electric vehicles, have experienced sharper-than-usual depreciation.
As a result, the market value at the time of settlement can be lower than the amount specified in the customer’s contract, which may unfortunately leave a shortfall.’
Following my intervention, Aviva reviewed the market value using additional market guides and priced the car at £22,353, an increase of £2,899. This included a waived excess fee.
The market value, it explains, is net of VAT, which is a standard approach when a leasing company is involved and where a vehicle attracted VAT when purchased.
It said that how VAT is applied or deducted forms part of the financial agreement between a customer and a leasing company.
You were delighted with this result and although you still face a small shortfall, it is one you are happy to bear.
One way for owners to meet any such shortfalls following a theft or write-off is to buy guaranteed asset protection (Gap) insurance at the time of leasing a motor.
A Gap policy typically covers the difference between the main insurance payout and a customer’s outstanding lease balance.
You told me you didn’t know this type of cover existed, and Aviva confirmed it does not offer it.
You say you will consider it if you lease again, but for now you are taking a break from leasing and have bought a second-hand car outright for £5,000.
Last summer I opened a cash Isa with Barclays and requested a transfer in of a stocks and shares Isa from Quilter.
I was told by my financial adviser that I would have the money in a month. By December nothing had happened.
I need the £28,000 in the account for a new kitchen. Please help as I am 84, have spinal stenosis and feel ignored.
S.R., Southampton.
You told me how you completed and returned the Isa transfer form obtained from Barclays in August 2025.
You had completed the correct form, but it turned out the account number you used wasn’t quite right. You had copied it from an old paper statement, which had been updated when the account went digital.
When you found this out you sent a new application in September using the correct number. Still, you heard nothing.
You went to a banking hub at your local library where Barclays had a representative. She told you she could see on the system that no progress had been made with your application. When you returned later, you were told the problem was with Quilter.
Quilter checked a photocopy of your form and said it had been completed correctly but it hadn’t received the original. You went back to Barclays nearly five months after you made the initial request.
Barclays said once again it had not received your application, blamed Royal Mail and sent out another form, which you never received.
When I contacted Barclays in late December, it said it had tried to contact you many times, including via its banking app and by post, but got no response.
However, after my intervention Barclays sent out another transfer form, this time by Royal Mail special delivery.
The wheels were finally in motion and on January 28 you reported with great relief that your £28,000 had finally been transferred in time to meet your kitchen refurbishment bill.
A Barclays spokesman says: ‘We’re sorry for the inconvenience S.R. has experienced. In this case, the process was delayed because the account details provided to us were incorrect.’
I’m afraid Barclays has declined to offer compensation for the stress you faced. The moral is that customers must ensure all details are correct at the start of any application. But slip-ups like this are bound to happen and shouldn’t be so hard to resolve.
In June I sent a birthday card and parcel to my sister in Tasmania.
The card arrived but the parcel didn’t. I made a claim against Royal Mail for the maximum compensation of £20, although the present cost £39.99.
Royal Mail accepted the claim and offered to refund the £15 postage, but I am still waiting for the money more than seven months later.
T.P., Uckfield.
Royal Mail apologises and has offered to send you the compensation via bank transfer. However, a cheque for £20 has now arrived in the post.
***
Before Christmas I decided to buy a Braun hair removal device from Boots. I paid £288, down from £760. It looked too complicated to use so I returned it to Boots.
However, it has been sitting in a mail centre in Nottingham since I returned it at the end of December.
I have contacted Boots several times but they say that the hold-up is nothing to do with them. Please help me to get my money back.
H.S., via email.
Boots apologises and says you have now been refunded.
***
In January, my twin sister and I took a taxi ride in Paris and were told the fare would be €29.90 (£26.06).
But my Halifax credit card statement showed I had been charged €2,990 (£2,606.08).
Halifax refused a chargeback as I had used chip and pin. When I tapped my card on the terminal the amount was €29.90 but the driver said there was a problem.
He said to try again, which I did but his hand had covered the terminal. I asked for a receipt, which he said he couldn’t provide.
G.P., London.
Lloyds – which owns Halifax – apologises and says this is a case of ‘authorised’ fraud.
You have now been given a temporary refund. It has raised a chargeback, which the merchant has 45 days to dispute.
