car hire scam

[julian]

A friend hired as car from a main provider, s**t. They suffered a slow puncture flat tyre within 15 miles. Several months later they received a bill, plus other documents by email. One of the documents showed "tyre fault" in existing damage section.


several months on they are continuing harassment and threatening court action.
It was pointed out that there was a discrepancy in receipt provided at the counter and their history document.


it appears to be one of those occasions where a person not taking out the excess protection through them is stung for existing damage.


my friend has alternative insurance but doesn't want to comply with this potential fraud.


has anyone any views? Just pass on to own insurer or stand up for right against this known bully? What would a court claim involve? Would it be like a standard debt claim through MCOL with a chance to defend showing damage existed with counter claim for harassment and loss of amenity due to flat tyre and process in general.

[nightwatch]

They could get their insurer's to take it up for them, they could call them and ask.

[julian]

Thing is the excess policy insurer would probably pay in full on receipt of the paid invoice, but might refuse to reimburse if there was a query over responsibility.

You can buy excess protection for hire cars by paying around £50 a year to the specialist insurer. So when there is a claim, you pay the hire company and send the invoice and proof of payment to the insurer.

Apart from the gall of the company hiring out an unroadworthy car, my friend would be complicit in the fraud by paying an unjust charge and claiming back from the insurer. He expects a full refund, but that may be rejected if a query on the company's potential malpractice were raised. Currently the bill is £243.09 so small claims route.

right vs corporate bullies

[Roger]

"..A friend hired as car from a main provider, s**t. They suffered a slow puncture flat tyre within 15 miles. Several months later they received a bill, plus other documents by email. One of the documents showed "tyre fault" in existing damage section..."

How did your friend deal with this slow puncture.
1/ Repair it themselves?
2/ Change the tyre for a spare?

3/ Call out for assistance sic AA or a garage?

Did they report this to the provider? You see where I am coming from because if a third party (garage etc.) was involved they would have independent witness to what had happened.
Even the wording "..One of the documents showed "tyre fault" in existing damage section. .." This is vague, was the tyre as fitted deficient? Just because it was punctured doesn't imply fault does it? It is very difficult to prove bad driving with a hired Car unless they can categorically prove that Car was sound when it was picked up by your friend.

Challenge them to produce the evidence (sic inspection report etc..) when that Car left the provider!!!

Claiming is one thing proving is something else!

[julian]

It seems when parked after the pressure light went on, the tyres were inspected, rolling over, to see any holes. At that time it was not completely flat, so the intention had been to go a mile down the road to fill. Anyway it was a pancake an hour later.

As unable to change the tyre, due to lack of tools, although there was a tyre, he called the "helpdesk" hoping for the roadside service included in the hire. The said "helpdesk" said it would be some time as they would have to source a tyre. He asked if he could use the AA and they said no as they only use their contractors. The contractor came hours later and changed the tyre, stating the tyre was not damaged but had either a faulty valve or had been incorrectly fitted, but he had to change the tyre, because that was the order?????

Anyway the little s**ts are pressing on ignoring their own docs and avoiding providing the evidence you suggest. They seem to assume because they avoided placing a complete history on the receipt, it is new "damage", despite what their "leaked" document states. There have been other instances of them doing similar and harassing for previous damage, as shown on searches, but no conclusion and no instance of a court claim or case being pursued - that may just be because the defendant has had enough and not posted more.

They have probably sold or are selling the car and are rinsing everybody that ever set foot in it, hoping that nobody will complain - or perhaps everybody took out their super-special, expensive excess cover.

At this point I agree that "Claiming is one thing proving is something else!", but it is not a nice place for him to be, albeit a debt at a very low level. He is tempted to go the full course, including national press. We all see from this site that these companies do not give up when they have a "legal" team on their payroll.

[julian]

Quick update.

Response is "You were in the car when it occurred therefore according to our Ts&Cs you are responsible. " Based on this answer will the Space Shuttle crew be charged for the recent failure to launch?

I believe that the Ts&Cs and their contractual standing are rendered void if there is an inherent fault in the product hired.

[Roger]

Quick update.

Response is "You were in the car when it occurred therefore according to our Ts&Cs you are responsible. " Based on this answer will the Space Shuttle crew be charged for the recent failure to launch?

I believe that the Ts&Cs and their contractual standing are rendered void if there is an inherent fault in the product hired.

You were in the Car following presumably their evidence that it was road worthy!
So please can they supply the checklist that proves that their examination of this vehicle took place immediately prior to their handing the keys over.
That inspection must have expressly included brakes, steering, tyres , water coolant, oil levels etc.. That's inspection of each tyre including the spare!
This inspection must exist and be time and date stamped!

I would have also expected them to train the hirer in where to find the spare tyre and in change tyres.

Since they must have presumably licences etc.. and a duty of care to hirers of their vehicles!

[julian]

They don't appear to provide anything because of their interpretation of the GDPR, names and stuff must be them, perhaps. They also provide on their web site the instruction on how to change the tyre, but not in the car.

The experience is not unique, as they charge for a whole panel to be re-sprayed when a scratch is found, with no evidence of the re-spray. It sees scamming is their business model, making their profits from charging OTT. Of course a worn tyre is dangerous, but using this method of replacing all tyres prior to sale, they save a few hundred pounds. After all, they do have a duty of care to achieve their bonuses.

[nightwatch]

scamming is rife in Spain, if you don't take the insurance with the rental company, they block up to £800 or more on your card, they then charge you for fuel, even though you have filled it up prior to returning it,
damage to car paintwork, even though you have provided Pictures of car when picked up and returned,
Tyre damage, have you seen the hight of the kerbs in Spain? every car has damage but they say the car was ok when you picked it up,

you then spend months trying to negotiate with the head office, who try and tell you "it has never happened before" and will "look into it"

Yeah, just look on social media, 1000's of "one off's"

[julian]

It does seem strange that those there foreigners - S**t appears to be a local (German) family firm - never bother to repair their cars. Perhaps it is the insurance that is sold overseas, and perhaps that is why the hire firms try and replace the cars bit by bit, or should I say, replace their investment of the initial purchase and maintenance of the vehicle.

No matter, the little swine will have a run for their money, should they not stop annoying me and my friend. They stopped over Christmas but off they go again - you were in it, you pay.

[julian]

Well, well, well. Just as I set about writing a claim out for harassment for my friend ( only 30 or so drafts), I find myself in a quandry. The little so and sos have sent him an email (not even paying for paper and postage) saying they are not going to pursue their claim, and hope to see him hire in the future.

Only 9 months on and 5 months of hassle. It seems that it is a business model to con the general public into insurance or into payment. Either way it is wrong.

I am so glad that he didn't blink (I put matchsticks between his eyelids), but they should be made to pay for the hassle and bullying. It is not my call.

Hopefully, others will choose to hold out rather than fold under the pressure, so cutting off this fraudulent source of income.