Nail in hire car tyre after return

[MikePRT90]

I have a mate who had an BMW ix hire car (enterprise) organised via their car insurance whilst his Tesla was getting repaired. After the repair the hire company collected their ix from my mates house, performed a visual inspection, no damaged mentioned and left. I don’t believe any official inspection paperwork was handed over or signed. Fast forward 2 weeks and my mate has now received 2 letters from enterprise, 1st saying there has been some damage from the car (nail in tyre) and they will collect the excess (£350) via the card details held on file. The 2nd letter states that they were not able to collect funds via the stored card details and are demanding £350 otherwise they will start legal proceedings. I’ve advised my mate to fully dispute it as there is no proof that the nail in the tyre occurred during his rental period, it could have easily have happened post collection by enterprise from his property. Can’t see how enterprise would win if it did end up in court as there is no way of proving it, especially as the collectors did a brief visual inspection.

Anyone any experience of anything similar or able to offer any advice.

Thanks
Mike

[No ideas for a name]

I believe the correct response in these situations is as per the case Arkell v Pressdram.

[InitialDave]

In terms of how good Enterprise are at checking their cars, here's what they tried to send me out with a couple of years back.

[KennyN]

I had a similar experience when my car was recovered to the local BMW dealership to replace a broken spring. A Mini was delivered the same day from Enterprise. I left the Mini at the BMW dealership when my car was ready for collection. My Amex was charged for a damaged tyre a few days later. I asked for evidence of the damage, and all they would send me was the T&Cs for the hire. One phone call to Amex got the charge reversed, and I heard nothing more from Enterprise.

I strongly suspect this is a lucrative revenue stream to make up for the presumably low rates agreed with manufacturers. Whether Amex absorbed the cost or Enterprise knew they were on shaky ground, I will never know, but I do know I will never hire a car from Enterprise given the choice.

[Simpo Two]

MikePRT90 said:

I’ve advised my mate to fully dispute it as there is no proof that the nail in the tyre occurred during his rental period, it could have easily have happened post collection by enterprise from his property.

And it doesn't cost £350 to fix a puncture.

Definitely defend.

[1690cc]

Had this about 3 years ago.

I replied pointing out that their collection agent had inspected the car when they picked it up from me and since the nail was not found then, that it must have occurred after the collection agent left and the car was in his possession.

Never heard back.

[ADJimbo]

Simpo Two said:

MikePRT90 said:

I’ve advised my mate to fully dispute it as there is no proof that the nail in the tyre occurred during his rental period, it could have easily have happened post collection by enterprise from his property.

And it doesn't cost £350 to fix a puncture.

Definitely defend.

I concur. Some rental companies are well known for keeping vehicles ‘on hire’ whilst they eventually get around to these (cough) very minor repairs. Keeps the sales numbers up at the branch if their asset utilisation is down from what I’ve heard…

Edited by ADJimbo on Sunday 31st August 14:21

[Red9zero]

I had a car dropped off by Enterprise with a flat tyre and they even written it on the list of damage. They had dropped the envelope through the letterbox as usual, so I didn't see the car until I read the paperwork and thought they were having a laugh. The car didn't even have a spare, so I had to call them to either fix it or replace the car. They sent a lowloader out with what must have been the oldest, highest mileage on their fleet.

[surveyor]

ADJimbo said:

Simpo Two said:

MikePRT90 said:

I’ve advised my mate to fully dispute it as there is no proof that the nail in the tyre occurred during his rental period, it could have easily have happened post collection by enterprise from his property.

And it doesn't cost £350 to fix a puncture.

Definitely defend.

I concur. Some rental companies are well known for keeping vehicles ‘on hire’ whilst they eventually get around to these (cough) very minor repairs. Keeps the sales numbers up at the branch if their asset utilisation is down from what I’ve heard…

Edited by ADJimbo on Sunday 31st August 14:21

I had tyre damage with Enterprise following a hire earlier this year. I may well have caused the damage - I certainly clipped a corner stone parking.

They took the full XS (which was low as I'd taken the XS cover) and would have then returned the unused cash once they had sorted the tyre.

In practice I'd damaged the side wall so it was a new trye and no pennies ever returned. On the upside a £100 XS was cheaper than a new tyre if I had been in my own car.

In the OP's position I would be politely suggesting tyre damage should be identified when the car is collected, and the door has firmly closed.

[edthefed]

I dealt with them B2B a few years ago and got sick of regular claims for damage - it took them some time to twig that every vehicle was thoroughly checked and photographed prior to return and every single claim was rebutted.

In the end the we refused to deal with them any further and hired from elsewhere.

Last year we had an insurance supplied hire car ---- from Enterprise.

Nothing has changed they supplied two unroadworthy vehicles.

Complain / Challenge and get everything in writing !

Moderator edit: no potentially defamatory comments please

[reddiesel]

they wouldn't stand a chance in Court so vigorously defend and give them nothing . As you say in your last sentence , they couldn't prove who caused the nail to be imbedded in the tyre

[MikePRT90]

Thanks for the comments, I’ve advised my mate accordingly. He’s due to speak to enterprise tomorrow…so will update then if any further developments.

Personally I had a bad experience with sixt…someone in one of their cars hit me whilst driving in London. Despite the driver denying liability sixt’s insurance agreed that I was not to blame and paid for my car to be repaired. Despite this sixt still sued me for damages to their car, luckily even though their claim was only £1,600 my insurance company were more than happy to fight and appointed me a solicitor. Two weeks before the court date on the date of evidence disclosure sixt withdrew their claim…I was almost a bit gutted as was looking forward to my day in court! Anyways, they are all a bunch of chancers!!

[nute]

I hired a car from them on holiday in Italy. The plastic wheel rims were stolen whilst it was parked in a town, I can't understand why as they were pretty grim.

On return I was told it would be the fat end of £400 to replace them - they were £35 on eBay. Later found out this happens a lot, yet they don't make any effort to either warn you so you can take them off and chuck them in the boot for the duration of the rental, or zip tie them on.

Had a long argument with them, went to the ombudsman and I think it was agreed at £80 or similar.

[Sheepshanks]

MikePRT90 said:

Personally I had a bad experience with sixt…someone in one of their cars hit me whilst driving in London. Despite the driver denying liability sixt’s insurance agreed that I was not to blame and paid for my car to be repaired. Despite this sixt still sued me for damages to their car,

That just sounds like incompetence (on a grand scale though) rather than anything malicious.

[MikePRT90]

Sheepshanks said:

That just sounds like incompetence (on a grand scale though) rather than anything malicious.

I’m not sure, how can they expect to win damages even when their own insurance company thought their driver was at fault.

Sixt were actively pursuing the claim…asking for settlements etc. I was quite willing to go to court and luckily so were my insurance company.

[Sheepshanks]

MikePRT90 said:

I’m not sure, how can they expect to win damages even when their own insurance company thought their driver was at fault.

...because they're incompetent.

[MikePRT90]

Sheepshanks said:

...because they're incompetent.

I get your point, but I honestly think it was a conscious decision to try their luck…putting a claim in and then instantly asking for settlement…don’t ask, don’t get, but a complete PI$$ take given the circumstances of the incident and damage to my/their car.

[Sheepshanks]

MikePRT90 said:

I get your point, but I honestly think it was a conscious decision to try their luck…putting a claim in and then instantly asking for settlement…don’t ask, don’t get, but a complete PI$$ take given the circumstances of the incident and damage to my/their car.

I know people who are annoyingly blase with money and will do things like pay parking penaties because they can't be bothered to appeal, but there can't be many people who would just hand over £1600 without kicking up a fuss.

[MikePRT90]

Sheepshanks said:

I know people who are annoyingly blase with money and will do things like pay parking penaties because they can't be bothered to appeal, but there can't be many people who would just hand over £1600 without kicking up a fuss.

Thing is it wouldn’t have even been my money my insurance company would have covered it, it was more the principal…so would have been happy to stand in court and defend the claim.

[Simpo Two]

Talking of hire companies and tyres, it reminds me that when my Jaguar XF was written off and I needed a hire car, the one I got had an overnight flat tyre whilst in my possession. I called them; a chap came out in a replacement car, pumped up the offending tyre and drove it away. I think it was Enterprise - it seems I was lucky they didn't try to charge me for a new tyre!