A colleague and I hired a car to take us to Heathrow Airport last week. Received a rather jaded Mazda 5, with 18,000 miles on the clock and plenty of scuffs, dents and chips to show for them. I looked the car over and checked the damage sheet supplied by the company, and all seemed to be in order.
On arriving at Heathrow, we parked the car in the designated area to be greeted by a team of the company's staff who buzzed around the car inspecting it for damage. I duly produced the sheet, and was informed that there was a 'new' (or at least previously undocumented) chip on the windscreen. I was shown the chip, and informed that I would be charged £45 (plus, almost more insultingly, a £10 'administration fee'!) for this damage. (It was possibly small enough to be repaired, which of course would be done free by an insurance company on most private policies.)
Only I had driven the car, and I didn't hear or see the offending stone - which I certainly would have expected. But of course, I had not seen it prior to driving the car, so I could have no argument. Even though my employer would be paying, though, I still felt aggrieved.
What was interesting was how much activity there was around returned cars. When we were taken to the desk where damage-related paperwork is dealt with, it seemed like the busiest part of the operation. Fresh on the desk were the bits of a damage report torn up by a dissatisfied customer, and the driver of the next car after ours was also accompanied to the desk. I commented - half-jokingly - that they must be on commission, and the employee dealing with us confirmed that they did indeed receive performance-related bonuses on this work.
In line with forum policy, I shaln't mention the name of the company in question. They're one of the many big-name rental companies with a branch at snip - a location can also identity who they are. But I wonder if this is common experience, and whether all the companies are like this. I've never had any trouble before with damage to hire cars, so is it an airport thing, or big-branch thing?
Edited by Webmaster on 29/06/2008 at 21:29
|
When I get hire cars for work they are often dropped off without me being there - so hard to argue damage was there or not. I win.
In Italy in 2006, the hire car had some scrapes not noted. The car was some way from the desk so I phoned them and they said all fine. I took pictures just in case and set off. Without 40 minutes the car had an HGV in the boot :-( So much for checking scratches as it was now 9 inches shorter and written off.
|
Interesting story. A colleague recently booked a Focus hire car from a company at Heathrow and was given a Mercedes GL (that's their massive American 7 seater SUV). He was pretty pleased with himself until we pointed out the scuff that engulfed the whole nearside, and had pushed in both wheelarches. He had the full insurance so no issue for him, but I reckon the staff had probably damaged it and dumped on the next customer.
In the OP's case, if the car already had plenty of damage then I'd certainly be telling them to get lost. I did that with a Transit where I did take a hit on the screen - the company noticed too, but the screen had half a dozen chips already.
I prefer somewhat battered hire cars. I was given a brand-new hire car in the US once - terrified me for the 2 wks I had it in case it picked up any damage, but they gave it barely a glance when I returned it.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for warning, if I now hire a car with dozens of chips marked on sheet, will reject it as not having enough time to check every single one.
- Matt C
|
I'm convinced this is how some companies make money.
I returned a hire car to Grenoble airport having brimmed it at a nearby garage, about 20 km away. I was charged 20? for not having brought it back full. Not enough to complain (well, I would have, but they make it almost impossible) so I will simply ensure that neither I nor anyone in my company uses that firm again.
|
|
Its almost impossible to find every last mark when collecting the car. Instead of them starting with a blank assessment form, I'd like to see them use the previous checking-in form as the basis - I'm convinced that the same mark gets charged over and over again to a stream of customers!
|
I used to run a prestige car hire firm and we took the view that a chip on the windscreen would not be charged for as it happened reasonably rarely, was beyond the clients control (mostly), could normally be repaired cheaply and it garnered goodwill.
Obviously, there is the temptation to profit from "damage", but we thought this would become a bad habit and always had in the back of our minds the time Watchdog hired a car from a "pay for damage merchant" drove it around the corner onto a low loader and returned it a few days later when yes you guessed it the hirer said damage had occurred.
You always get rumbled in the end if you're dodge.
|
I've had arguments over little chips before, yet the one time a hire car was properly damaged in my care, I got away with it.
The lease company hired me a Peugeot 206 when my Focus was being serviced, which I'd had all of three hours when some wonderful person drove into in a car park and made off, leaing a big crease down the nearside front wing and door. When I returned to the dealership to drop it off, and pick up the Focus, I was running late due to traffic. The driver was already waiting outside the service reception to pick up the hire car, so as a last effort before fessing up, I drove in a wide arc around him, keeping the nearside invisible. I got out of the car ready to confess all. He mumbled something about running late, scribbled his signature on the blank condition form, shoved me the clipboard to sign, gave me a copy and screeched off up the road without even walking around the car.
I bet he was sick as a dog when he got it back. I was half expecting a phone call or something, where of course I would have denied all knowledge, but heard nothing whatsoever. Still can't believe I got away with that.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 30/06/2008 at 12:07
|
There are only a few rental companies that allow you to have all excesses removed. Some just won't do it any price. Those that do allow you to buy the extra insurance, charge a hefty premium and/or may still make you liable to damage to tyres/wheels and windscreen/glass.
The best deals on removing these excesses I have found is via Holidayautos [part of Lastminutedotcom].
However, if you renting far away from home, then the annual "excess cancelling" insurance offered by companies such as insurance4carhire is unbeatable for value and complete peace of mind.
|
|
|
DP wrote (full post above): '... bet he was sick as a dog when he got it back. I was half expecting a phone call or something, where of course I would have denied all knowledge, but heard nothing whatsoever. Still can't believe I got away with that...'
Am I the only one on here who's less than impressed with someone who's deliberately avoided owning up for damage?
It's hardly surprising some hire companies treat punters badly when strokes like this are pulled on them.
DP, I'm no saint, but if I borrowed your car and it was damaged, not only would I tell you, I would put it right/compensate you to your satisfaction, and still feel bad about it, even if it wasn't my fault.
|
DP wrote
In which case can you reply to his post (or whoever else's post you're replying to) and not someone else's at the end of the thread please as it puts the thread completely out of order for anyone reading in 'threaded view' mode.
DD.
ps, have now moved your post to correct place.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 30/06/2008 at 22:24
|
DD.
You haven't moved it to the correct place, there's a jbif one in the way.
Thanks for the mini-lecture, but half the time when you try to put a post in the middle of a thread, the software sticks it on the end anyway.
I wouldn't be bothered about that, but if you're going to tick people off, get your own house in order first.
|
ifithelps,
Try viewing the thread in 'threaded view' and you'll see the fuller picture of what I am tring to explain to you.
As for ticking you off, I wasn't. You would have known if I had been. For starters I wouldn't have said please ;o)
It was a mere suggestion more than anything else following recent mention by a couple of BR's of some people posting willy nilly and posts not following in order within threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having had dozens of hire cars for work, I can only say it works both ways.
There have been occasions where cars were delivered to us damaged (but unrecorded on the condition sheet) and then the usual tussle with the hire company begins about whether or not damage was already there on delivery.
The flip side is that on one occasion we damaged a car with sadly inept parking (always seems easier to do in somebody else's car...), returned it and the damage was missed on inspection.
Further to that we've also suffered some serious accidental damage from road debris, reported it loud and clear over the phone to the hire company, and then they picked the car up, forgot to fill in an incident form (despite gouged wing and spacesaver fitted to same corner of the car!) and never heard anything more about it.
I just put it down to the usual vagaries of processes managed by fallible, busy people working on low wages with little job satisfaction. Who can blame them for making mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are in our favour, sometimes not! Few people will pay up when it is genuinely not them who caused the damage and fewer still will admit to causing damage if they can get away with it. Therefore it seems the hire companies probably lose out much more than the consumer ever does.
|
"Therefore it seems the hire companies probably lose out much more than the consumer ever does. "
I doubt it. They are in business to make money, and the rates we all pay to hire cars will reflect the cost of damage that has not been attributed to an individual hirer.
|
You're correct of course, my implication is that if the companies lose out then someone has to pay. That someone will always be us, the consumer, as you say.
In an ideal world we'd all admit to damage we had caused ourselves and everyone would enjoy lower hire costs and excesses... Can't quite see that somehow!
|
Been there, seen it and never got done for it.
Returned Hire Car full - 50 litres of fuel on "Final Bill" despite tank being filled 400yds from car hire return.
Replied pointing out I had filled it and capacity of tank is 45 litres therefore it could not be my hire car that needed 50ltrs - refunded in 2 days.
Billed £400 for missing spare alloy and tyre 3 weeks after car hire - replied that I was just out of hospital, I could not have changed a wheel and how many other people had hired the car after me - the car was being returned for auction when they noticed.
never heard another word.
|
|
My guess is that each branch manager has a target to reach for damage charges.
|
I can vouch for HolidayAuto's additional cover doing what they say it does. My car accident I described above was via HA and they paid out. I had to initially pay the excess and then claimed it back via Holiday Auto. In fact the initial excess was 100 Euro less than the norm too. Probably took a couple of months to get my money back though.
Compared to other companies cover it is more comprehensive and a lot cheaper. A year earlier I paid for "full" cover but that did not protect you from everything.
Hope this info helps someone as I've had to rely on this and came out okay.
|
|
When I hired a car in Spain a couple of years ago I went over it fairly carefully with the hire people, who were mainly German. I gave it back undamaged apart from a wheel trim I had graunched a bit worse than it had been. I pointed this out, but they didn't care.
|
|
|
|
To answer the OP yes, in my experience, this is unfortunately a common practice by rental car companies in the UK. I rent cars a lot and have never had a problem in any other country with a rental car company accusing me of damaging their cars. It's known in the trade as "Claims Management" and I went through a phase where I was getting a claim for damages pretty much every time I rented. The franchises at Heathrow seem to be the worst and they seem to mainly target corporate customers, presumably on the basis that a)you will just pass it on to your company insurance and b)your corporate contract means you can't rent from anyone else.
In the past I've had very heated exchanges with several major rental companies about what I saw as a systematic way of stitching up customers. Only one (Sixt) seemed to be in any way shocked that their franchises were doing this and promised to do something.
My only suggestion is to take the time and complete the damage report before taking the car and then get it signed on return. Alternatively, just view it as yet another reason for avoiding Heathrow.
|
|
|
