Is it unreasonable to ask for proof a vehicle has been repaired before handing over the cash?
The reason I ask is I damaged a hire vehicle, returned it and held my hand up straight away.
I am not trying to wriggle or squirm out of paying for damage which I have done.
Photographs were taken there and then in my presence while returning the vehicle however, two requests for proof of repair have been ignored. If they can take photos on return why can a quick video not be shot showing reg plate, vin number then a walk around showing the repair ? Not on a mobile phone I hasten to add.
How do I know the hire company have actually repaired the vehicle or more to the point
not dumped it at auction still with the damage?
Are all hire vehicles at the end of life sold in pristine condition?
This then makes me wonder how you would know if a car had been in an accident requiring a total body reshell if the hire company themselves underwrite the insurance policy?
Would this show up on any HPi check ?
|
They are only charging you for the damage,they dont always repair,just goes against the costs and writedown of the car when its sold and if its got damage will sell for less.
Many badly damaged cars sold as 'unrecorded' because they self insure.
|
Thanks for your reply.
If they were only charging for the damage would they go to the trouble of preparing a workshop estimate for repair ?
|
They dont have to repair the car, but they can charge you for the damage. what they do with your money is up to them.
|
|
If they haven't had it repaired, how do they quantify the damage? They might well recycle the damage against future, unwary, customers. Query the charge until satisfied, I suggest. Unless its too late....
|
I'm already into that route. I have the check out sheet and check in.
The side of the van looked like it had been parked behind a hockey goal during a practice session. This was all recorded.
I already raised this with them so it's pretty obvious they do not repair the vehicles.
Like I said at the top, I don't mind paying for the repair of the damage I did but I do object to being taken for a ride on costs.
The lesson here is if you have to hire a vehicle take the max. insurance available. All it takes is someone to damage the vehicle while you are not around and you are on the hook.
If I am quoted for a cost to repair then I expect my money to be used to do that repair and shown an invoice or some other legal form of proof that is what has been done.
To syphon this off somewhere else doesn't seem right.
I know it goes on all the time pots which are marked for one thing being used for other uses and look where that has got us.
|
I've submitted estimates to insurance companies before now, with a clause at much lower cost:
"To repair at my own expense, or loss of value. At my own discretion".
They've always gone for the latter option and I've happily driven around in an old banger with some more dents in it.
|
If it is purely cosmetic what's the point in repairing it now? If they are going to keep the van a few years it may get another ding the day after it's repaired so the van is off the road again.
They will either use money as compensation to offset the lower value when it's sold or they will do the repairs just before selling.
Of course you can always purchase insurance so this doesn't become an issue.
|
If it is purely cosmetic what's the point in repairing it now? If they are going to keep the van a few years it may get another ding the day after it's repaired so the van is off the road again.
The point is I have been quoted for repair, not for loss of value or anything else. The paperwork is a workshop quotation for repair. What happens to it a few days later is of no concern to me, that is between the hire company and the next customer.
If I am quoted and expected to pay for some work then I expect that work to be done.
I don't quote my customers for work, tell them to pay for something they have no evidence of having been done then decide to pocket that money while not having done the work.
Edited by gmac on 22/01/2010 at 10:23
|
you lost all your right to demand anything when you damaged the vehicle.
As i said, they have no legal obligation to repair the vehicle but you have a legal obligation to compensate them.
|
I'm not demanding anything.
As I said at the top of the post I damaged the vehicle, I will pay for it.
If I have to pay for loss of value in the vehicle then that is fair enough but why can't they bill me for loss of value? Why bill me for repair if they mean loss of value?
|
Isn't cost of repair the same thing as loss of value in some ways?
Years ago someone reversed into the side of my car and then drive off. Fortunately a witness left a note for me with a description and the vehicle reg no. Police involved, claim against his insurance etc.
Thing was, I was just about to sell the car, so I ended up trading it in at a discount of the cost of repair, as quoted for the insurers. So the cost of repair turned into my loss at that point. Now of course if they then bill others for that damage as well that's another matter...
As an aside, the insurers then washed their hands of me as there was 'no longer damage to be repaired' and a fairly painful (for the other guy - he tried to lie his way out of it) legal battle ensued to refund me my loss.
|
Isn't cost of repair the same thing as loss of value in some ways?
I would say not but I'm sure someone will be along to say otherwise.
In a market where supply is low people will pay more for a vehicle with damage than in times of oversupply where they can pick and choose.
The cost to repair is fairly constant (labour rates, parts prices) but the achievable price at auction is market driven.
|
|
If I am quoted for a cost to repair then I expect my money to be used to do that repair and shown an invoice or some other legal form of proof that is what has been done. To syphon this off somewhere else doesn't seem right. I know it goes on all the time pots which are marked for one thing being used for other uses and look where that has got us.
You'll be expecting Gordon brown to use VED to pay for the upkeep of the roads next LOL ;0)
|
|
I know, I'm so old fashioned :)
|
Legally they can only expect you to pay for what they have actually lost. Not an imaginary amount that they pick out the air.
Not what they think it would cost to repair.
If they choose not to repair then surely they can only charge you loss of value upon resale due to that fault.
If the car went to auction and was sold for £500 less because of 5 or 6 scrapes including yours, I can't see how legally they could claim for more than that portion of the losses.
Keep nipping them and go higher up the food chain if nothing is forthcoming - will be interesting if nothing else!
|
My take on it would be that you need to put them back in the position they were in before you damaged their vehicle. They established this by a quote to repair the damage. When you paid for this damage you had in effect returned them to the position they were in before the damage.
I dont really see that weather they chose to do the work or not is your concern unless they charged you for the time the vehicle was off the road for repair.
Did they charge you for loss of hire as if they did then I would say they should really have had the work done.
I wonder if I damaged my own car if my insurers would offer a cash setlement rather than repair the car - I suspect yes if I asked, which in effect would be the same.
|
|
A car hire agreement is a contract. In the event of damage to the car the hirer is entitled to receive whatever compensation is specified in the hire contract. If it says the full cost of repair to the vehicle then that is what you have to pay.
|
But if the repair does not take place then there is no cost surely? What they should state is that they are entitled to the valuation of the cost of repair.
When retailers started to 'refund the difference' if the item could be bought cheaper somewhere else some smart Alec walked in to a shop and asked for the cash difference of two products which were for sale at two different retailers. They were told that it would not be possible to refund something which had not been funded in the first place.
Edited by Fullchat on 23/01/2010 at 00:26
|
|
|
|
To close off this thread.
I took some advice and the legal stance is the company can charge you for the repair without actually having to do the repair.
The hire company does not legally have to give you an accurate check out sheet detailing all damage. If you pick up a vehicle after dark in a dimly lit car park you could end up paying for someone elses damage on return.
Thank you to all the above for your replies.
Edited by gmac on 25/01/2010 at 17:30
|
What concerns me about this if it as as you have found is how do you establish a fair cost of repair?
If actually carried out then an invoice would be raised and paid. But if they never intend to do the work any figure can be pulled from the air. Surely in law they have duty to minimise your costs??
|
No they dont have a legal duty to minimise your costs. And you really dont want them to fix the car as they will hit you for loss of earnings as well as other ancillary admin costs.
|
|
You serious AE? So you scrape a wing on their Mondeo and they bill you a guestimate of £1500... you'd just shrug and pay up?
|
|
|
you really dont want them to fix the car as they will hit you for loss of earnings as well as other ancillary admin costs.
You actually get billed for the above in the repair quotation anyway.
You will be billed the other ancillary costs - admin fees & engineer fee.
You are also billed for the loss of earnings in the repair quote as they bill you full hire rate for the time the vehicle will be off the road.
|
You are also billed for the loss of earnings in the repair quote as they bill you full hire rate for the time the vehicle will be off the road.
...I forgot to add the final kick in the vegetable patch is VAT is to be added to the final amount.
It is written in law 19% is to be added to the final sum knowing the work is not being done. Now that is creative accountancy making money from nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did the "advice"originate? As MM says, the rental co have to minimise losses. As someone stated elsewhere, refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram:) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylet/PI
|
Where did the "advice"originate?
>>
It's in the civil code of the country where the hire took place. The hire company has the option of replacing the whole panel at your expense even if it is repairable.
How it works is the hire company must get a quote from engineers who are regulated by the authorities.
As I have experienced before, this results in a hyper inflated quotation which you must pay.
Previously my own car was damaged in a supermarket car park, nothing major just looked like it had been caught by a runaway trolley though no one saw or owned up to it. Under the above process I was quoted 473? to repair the bumper. It cost 30? to fix paying for it out of my own pocket at the same paintshop.
As MM says the rental co have to minimise losses. As someone stated elsewhere refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram:) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylet/PI
Do the above and you get black listed which will affect your ability to get credit such as a mortgage.
|
It's in the civil code of the country where the hire took place. >>
That is the clincher. Your hire t&c are governed by the law in the jurisdiction as stated on the hire agreement. You can find lawyers willing to argue your point of view, with you thinking you have a strong case, and then to find that the opposing party either uses the "Arkel v Pressdram" response and/or takes you on in court and you lose.
And what is the lesson of this story then? Do what I do - follow step of 4 of this guide,
www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-car-hire
and buy superCDW cover.
Edited by jbif on 26/01/2010 at 09:36
|
buy superCDW cover.
This may help reduce costs but I imagine the cover provider will only pay out what they consider reasonable costs.
If they dispute the costs, it's still your name on the paperwork. Of course if you don't live there and have no intention of going back this may not concern you.
In the case above, the actual part for repair cost less than 510? new. The final bill is just under 2200?. I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable cost.
|
This may help reduce costs but I imagine the cover provider will only pay out what they consider reasonable costs. >>
I have never had a problem with superCDW. I just drive back in, they see I have superCDW, I hand back the keys and off I go. Never been held up inspecting the car for damage and signing for damage. In one case in the USA, I pointed out that the bumper was very badly damaged but again was just waved through. Nothing to pay, no queries, no hassle, never, ever.
Edited by jbif on 26/01/2010 at 10:15
|
|
I can remember years ago dealing with a hire drive company who had their own in house repair shop and part of their terms and conditions were all repairs were carried out by them. On one occasion it would have been cheaper to get the repair done at the main dealers as I had obtained 2 quotes prior to informing them of the damage but they had to do the work and my insurance was happy to pay their fees as it was part of their t&c's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
