This may apply to cars on "non-maintained" contracts, where the operators of the car are loathe to spend money towards the end of the contract period, but the fear of corporate culpibility in the event of a failure has reduced this considerably.

In many years of experience, this is definitely not the case where the leasing company is responsible for maintenance issues. I.e. A fully maintained contract.

The manufacturers or importers work very closely with leasing companies and independent "whole life cost" companies, such as Kee Resources to ensure that their models score highly in terms of low depreciation and low maintenance costs. Otherwise, the perceived residual values are low and the cost of keeping the car properly maintained over set periods and mileages rocket.

If that happens, lease rentals follow the upward curve and their cars become uncompetitive in the massive leasing market place. Hence, it is in the interests of the manufacturer to ensure that they make heavy contributions to leasing companies for, for instance, failed Dual Mass Flywheels (and consequential clutch replacement), Diesel Particulate Filters etc. This type of ex-gratia support is very rarely seen by private or even corporate buyers.

It is, therefore, now more economically viable for leasing companies to approve repairs, rather than suffer a massive loss at auction when selling a car with a very obvious fault.

Going back to the original posting, a modern day car should be easily capable of covering 90,000 miles without major unexpected problems. But only if the service and maintenance schedule is followed to the letter. And I have to say that many business drivers do not seem to be able to interpret the (admittedly often confused and confusing) handbook and instructions that accompany the car.