Car Rental Rip-Offs
Discussion
Anyone been totally done-over by a rental company?
I rent loads of cars, both work and pleasure and have never been so badly blindsided as a certain orange/white company did recently.
Shopping around on-line, I find the cheapest rental for the period I want. I am not loyal to one brand as the prices fluctuate so much; one day one will be 50 pounds cheaper, the next time I rent another company will be similarly so.
This time I go with the orange company. Very 'easy' supposedly. 100 pounds for a weeks rental of a tiny car at Heathrow. Paid in full, up front.
The car is actually supplied by the green European company, so off I trot when I land.
When I eventually get to pick up the car it seems there is no insurance included, 'Collision Damage' is 10 pounds per day, as is theft cover. Both compulsory.
I check back through the Ts&Cs as I thought I had when taking the rental and see that it is not just the excess waiver that is not included, but the actual cover too.
Like. A . Kipper.
My fault for not reading thoroughly, or getting my lawyer to read through it for me. I made the mistake of assuming that, as with renting a car normally, what you pay is indeed the full and final amount. Well it was the full amount for the rental, just not any insurance. Credit cards only cover the excess and they do not allow you to self insure or to arrange your own cover. (It would have cost me half of the amount I was charged for a week to insure myself on that car for a year)
I would have walked away at that point and taken the train (I did not take the train initially as I thought the rental was cheaper!) but I would have lost the paid 100 pounds, been another 100 pounds out of pocket for a train ticket and be stuck without transport for the week.
Of course the orange company tell me 'we told you so', shame they didn't tell me in terminology I'd actually understand.
Anyone else as stupid/naive as me?
I rent loads of cars, both work and pleasure and have never been so badly blindsided as a certain orange/white company did recently.
Shopping around on-line, I find the cheapest rental for the period I want. I am not loyal to one brand as the prices fluctuate so much; one day one will be 50 pounds cheaper, the next time I rent another company will be similarly so.
This time I go with the orange company. Very 'easy' supposedly. 100 pounds for a weeks rental of a tiny car at Heathrow. Paid in full, up front.
The car is actually supplied by the green European company, so off I trot when I land.
When I eventually get to pick up the car it seems there is no insurance included, 'Collision Damage' is 10 pounds per day, as is theft cover. Both compulsory.
I check back through the Ts&Cs as I thought I had when taking the rental and see that it is not just the excess waiver that is not included, but the actual cover too.
Like. A . Kipper.
My fault for not reading thoroughly, or getting my lawyer to read through it for me. I made the mistake of assuming that, as with renting a car normally, what you pay is indeed the full and final amount. Well it was the full amount for the rental, just not any insurance. Credit cards only cover the excess and they do not allow you to self insure or to arrange your own cover. (It would have cost me half of the amount I was charged for a week to insure myself on that car for a year)
I would have walked away at that point and taken the train (I did not take the train initially as I thought the rental was cheaper!) but I would have lost the paid 100 pounds, been another 100 pounds out of pocket for a train ticket and be stuck without transport for the week.
Of course the orange company tell me 'we told you so', shame they didn't tell me in terminology I'd actually understand.
Anyone else as stupid/naive as me?
The Vambo said:
Sounds like one of those people who complain about £15 Ryanairn flights.
You don't get what you don't pay for.
You sound like one of those people who find it difficult to grasp simple concepts.You don't get what you don't pay for.
With advertised rates like Ryanair, you go through the booking process and add everything on, paying for your entire flight etc up front. Then turn up at the airport and fly.
This situation is like paying Ryanair 15 quid up front, then turning up at the airport and being told that you had to pay an additional fare to be allowed on the aircraft.
Mine was a different set of Ts&Cs, it seems.
Wording of mine was:
Package Pricing Includes
Third-Party Liability (TPL)
Local Taxes
Unlimited kilometres.
Then later in the document:
Not Included in the Rental Price
Collision Damage Waiver (CDW) limits the driver’s liability in the event that the rental car is damaged, subject to the terms of the rental agreement.
Rather than the full cost, the driver is generally only responsible for the first portion, known as their ‘excess’.
This protection applies to all authorised drivers of the rental car.
Theft Protection (TP) limits the driver’s liability for costs incurred by the theft of the rental car – or damage incurred by the theft or attempted theft – to an ‘excess’ amount, subject to the terms of the rental agreement. TP does not cover personal effects, which may be covered by the driver’s own travel or household policies.
Being stupid/ignorant I took that to mean the excesses that I never take out as my card company covers them. I thought that the law was that TPL was all that was needed? Seems I was wrong?
It does not mention anywhere that these are compulsory though.
Wording of mine was:
Package Pricing Includes
Third-Party Liability (TPL)
Local Taxes
Unlimited kilometres.
Then later in the document:
Not Included in the Rental Price
Collision Damage Waiver (CDW) limits the driver’s liability in the event that the rental car is damaged, subject to the terms of the rental agreement.
Rather than the full cost, the driver is generally only responsible for the first portion, known as their ‘excess’.
This protection applies to all authorised drivers of the rental car.
Theft Protection (TP) limits the driver’s liability for costs incurred by the theft of the rental car – or damage incurred by the theft or attempted theft – to an ‘excess’ amount, subject to the terms of the rental agreement. TP does not cover personal effects, which may be covered by the driver’s own travel or household policies.
Being stupid/ignorant I took that to mean the excesses that I never take out as my card company covers them. I thought that the law was that TPL was all that was needed? Seems I was wrong?
It does not mention anywhere that these are compulsory though.
The Vambo said:
oilydan said:
You sound like one of those people who find it difficult to grasp simple concepts.
bigandclever said:
Seems odd. I've just gone through the booking process and it's clear at every stage that CDW and theft cover is included. You can 'upgrade' protection at the counter, but it's not mandatory.
http://booking.easycar.com/DriverExtrasTermsPopup....
Can't grasp simple concepts. http://booking.easycar.com/DriverExtrasTermsPopup....
oilydan said:
Mine was a different set of Ts&Cs, it seems.
It turns out that there was a mention of it being mandatory in the 'click here to see our Ts&Cs', but not in the wording of the agreement (just that it was not included).
Trading Standards has regulations against mandatory fees that are not clear and transparent. I would argue that indication that an insurance cover above the legal requirement is not included yet mandatory might well infer that this will need to be paid for, but Trading Standards specifies that the fees should be specifically outlined (ie how much it is) and specifically agreed to (not by a pre-filled check box or 'by clicking to book you agree to our terms')
The CAB also uses and example to show this and uses the airline excess baggage case. Simply saying that there will be an excess charge is not good enough, the fees must have a specific value and be agreed to.
My guess is that the modus operandi of this rental company, along with their terms were put together before the OTS brought in the regulations and they have not been challenged on them yet? Plenty of people on Trustpilot have been had by them though...
I'm going to check with the CAB...
Trading Standards has regulations against mandatory fees that are not clear and transparent. I would argue that indication that an insurance cover above the legal requirement is not included yet mandatory might well infer that this will need to be paid for, but Trading Standards specifies that the fees should be specifically outlined (ie how much it is) and specifically agreed to (not by a pre-filled check box or 'by clicking to book you agree to our terms')
The CAB also uses and example to show this and uses the airline excess baggage case. Simply saying that there will be an excess charge is not good enough, the fees must have a specific value and be agreed to.
My guess is that the modus operandi of this rental company, along with their terms were put together before the OTS brought in the regulations and they have not been challenged on them yet? Plenty of people on Trustpilot have been had by them though...
I'm going to check with the CAB...
berlintaxi said:
Monkeylegend said:
I was with you up to the point when you said you should have got your lawyer to check the rental terms and conditions 
,only people I know who have lawyers on speed dial are gangsters or billionaires, wonder which camp the OP falls into.It seems that I was not upsold at the desk, as I did kick up a bit of a fuss and was informed that this cover was indeed mandatory before I would be allowed to take a car. So not an add-on, good to have, nice to sell, bonus for the desk girl. Mandatory. No buy, no drive.
Will be interesting to see where this goes, item not included, mandatory, not specified as a cost; was it the broker or rental company that should specify? Was it actually required? CAB and Trading Standards are quite clear - costs must be transparent.
OK they told me it was not included, they even mentioned (tucked away) that it is mandatory - but they never properly asked me to acknowledge that I understood this or agreed to it and never actually told me what the cost would be. Had I known the cost I would not have booked through them.
I think OTS will see it from my point of view as these things are part of their guidelines and many people have been sucked in buy this. They should then put it to a court to see if it is fair or not.
Imagine if everyone did it. Imagine buying a phone on a website that says that the charger is not included but having a charger is mandatory as the charger charges the battery. Then collecting the phone and finding that the only charger that works is their charger and it will cost you twice the cost of the phone, on top of what you already paid for the phone. Cancellation will result in you losing the initial cost of the phone.
Does that sound fair? No, they should tell you the cost of the charger up front if it is both mandatory and not included.
Hugo a Gogo said:
ferrariF50lover said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
oh I think they do
You think incorrectly. These are CDW - cover for the rental car damage in case of accident (with an excess reduced by an optional excess waiver, if you need/want it) and Theft Protection (again, with reduced excess with the optional excess waiver).
Essentially, it included Third Party cover but the 2 extras take it through Third Party Fire and Theft, up to fully Comprehensive. (With excess)
It is at that point that you usually get asked if you want the excess waiver, reducing your excess to zero, which I never take because my credit card will cover this bit for me.
So I was forced to go from legal minimum requirement to include theft and own damage.
I then opted out of Excess reduction that would have been a further cost.
ETA: you've actually made the same mistake as I did, assuming that the CDW and TP that were 'not included' were the waivers and thought that I could drive off without them..... Oh, no Sir, they are Mandatory.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff