Hire Car Damage....Advice
Discussion
Erm, don't post an admission that you damaged the vehicle on a public forum frequented by the insurance industry and the police?
They can indeed sue you, I'm afraid, FOR UP TO SIX YEARS after the event under teh Limitation Act 1980. Go and see a solicitor but DO NOT FOR ONE MINUTE LIE ABOUT ANYTHING.
They are entitled to charge you for the repair, and also probably for loss of use. When you hired the car you signed a Hire Agreement. I suggest you read it and find out. If there is a clause in there for which you "indemnify" them against all losses then there is no duty on them to minimise their losses (i.e. they had to wait ages to get the car fixed and couldn't hire it out with a scuff on so you have to pay)
Did you sign a damage waiver at all? Do you even know if you did or didn't?
I'm afraid you're going to end up getting a good gubbing here, not least because you tried to wriggle out of the scuff in the first place. If you'd just confessed and played it with a straight bat in the first place they would be lubing you up so enthusiatically now. Sorry mate.
Read the documentation and take it to the solicitor when you go. The claim they've issued is to frighten you, but you're in trouble here.
They can indeed sue you, I'm afraid, FOR UP TO SIX YEARS after the event under teh Limitation Act 1980. Go and see a solicitor but DO NOT FOR ONE MINUTE LIE ABOUT ANYTHING.
They are entitled to charge you for the repair, and also probably for loss of use. When you hired the car you signed a Hire Agreement. I suggest you read it and find out. If there is a clause in there for which you "indemnify" them against all losses then there is no duty on them to minimise their losses (i.e. they had to wait ages to get the car fixed and couldn't hire it out with a scuff on so you have to pay)
Did you sign a damage waiver at all? Do you even know if you did or didn't?
I'm afraid you're going to end up getting a good gubbing here, not least because you tried to wriggle out of the scuff in the first place. If you'd just confessed and played it with a straight bat in the first place they would be lubing you up so enthusiatically now. Sorry mate.
Read the documentation and take it to the solicitor when you go. The claim they've issued is to frighten you, but you're in trouble here.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Wednesday 30th January 13:00
The fact is that the OP didn't play this with a straight bat, and so they're going to shaft him.
They're trying to provoke a reaction, which presumably they have.
The insurance (if he bought it) would cover this if he'd owned up. As it is, he didn't, so it doesn't. So they're going after him.
v6_gug said:
Morning all,
Last March (2007) someone went into the back of my lotus and while it was in for re-pair i hired a Audi A4 and managed to put a little scuff on the bumper. Anyway 3 weeks later my lotus was ready so i told the hire company to pick up the audi before 9am from my home address. Waited untill 9 they didnt show so i called their office and was told that someone would be picking it up in the evening. Later that day i got a phone call to say that they had collected the car (realised there was a scuff on it) and asked me to post them back my set keys to the car. The next day i got a phone call from them regarding the scuff which to be honest i wasnt prepared to admit because i didnt sign any papers what so ever they just turned up and took the car. I explained this all to the hire company and my old insurance company and i didnt hear from them again. That is untill this morning i got a letter from their solicitors saying not only am i liable for the cost of re-pair (£1200) but i am also liable for ''loss of use'' their saying that they charge £170 per day for the car and it took them 90 days to re-pair the scuff to the car so im liable for £15,300 ''loss of use'' costs!! I will be speaking to my solicitors later tis week but surely they havnt got a leg to stand on have they?? I didnt sign any damage papers when they took the car, i wasnt even present plus its been a bloody year since this happened!
Advice please guys.....
You're asking advice on how to get out of something for which you know full well you are to blame??? Last March (2007) someone went into the back of my lotus and while it was in for re-pair i hired a Audi A4 and managed to put a little scuff on the bumper. Anyway 3 weeks later my lotus was ready so i told the hire company to pick up the audi before 9am from my home address. Waited untill 9 they didnt show so i called their office and was told that someone would be picking it up in the evening. Later that day i got a phone call to say that they had collected the car (realised there was a scuff on it) and asked me to post them back my set keys to the car. The next day i got a phone call from them regarding the scuff which to be honest i wasnt prepared to admit because i didnt sign any papers what so ever they just turned up and took the car. I explained this all to the hire company and my old insurance company and i didnt hear from them again. That is untill this morning i got a letter from their solicitors saying not only am i liable for the cost of re-pair (£1200) but i am also liable for ''loss of use'' their saying that they charge £170 per day for the car and it took them 90 days to re-pair the scuff to the car so im liable for £15,300 ''loss of use'' costs!! I will be speaking to my solicitors later tis week but surely they havnt got a leg to stand on have they?? I didnt sign any damage papers when they took the car, i wasnt even present plus its been a bloody year since this happened!
Advice please guys.....
And they wonder why this country's gone compensation-culture crazy
JJ
The hire company are prolly just trying to scare you with the £15000+ bill but tbh you lied to them so they are going to try and nail you for it. if they have photographic evisdence of the damage before they picked it up and a copy of your admission of guild and attempt to defraud they might get a fair chunk of that money
The repair cost seems a bit much for a 'repair' are you fibbing about it being a scuff too? they could have tried harder before but I guess they have had enough of people trying to wriggle out of paying for damage and take a no nonscence approach to it. Ask you about it if you lie they gather evidence and pass to solicitor.
not alot of sympathy realy
The repair cost seems a bit much for a 'repair' are you fibbing about it being a scuff too? they could have tried harder before but I guess they have had enough of people trying to wriggle out of paying for damage and take a no nonscence approach to it. Ask you about it if you lie they gather evidence and pass to solicitor.
not alot of sympathy realy
If it was simply a scuff, then they have absolutely no way in hell of charging you for loss of use for 90 days. Simple.
Request a full breakdonw of the repair bill.
Regards the loss of use, it is their own fault if it took 3 months. Did you not take out any indemnity insurance when you hired the car? Eitherway, you should only be liable for the excess and not the reapir bill.
Regards the scuff and whether you did or didn't do it. Normally you have to sign paperwork to confirm the condition that the car was returned in.
Request a full breakdonw of the repair bill.
Regards the loss of use, it is their own fault if it took 3 months. Did you not take out any indemnity insurance when you hired the car? Eitherway, you should only be liable for the excess and not the reapir bill.
Regards the scuff and whether you did or didn't do it. Normally you have to sign paperwork to confirm the condition that the car was returned in.
4pot said:
If it was simply a scuff, then they have absolutely no way in hell of charging you for loss of use for 90 days. Simple.
Request a full breakdonw of the repair bill.
Regards the loss of use, it is their own fault if it took 3 months. Did you not take out any indemnity insurance when you hired the car? Eitherway, you should only be liable for the excess and not the reapir bill.
Regards the scuff and whether you did or didn't do it. Normally you have to sign paperwork to confirm the condition that the car was returned in.
I am sorry, I disagree.Request a full breakdonw of the repair bill.
Regards the loss of use, it is their own fault if it took 3 months. Did you not take out any indemnity insurance when you hired the car? Eitherway, you should only be liable for the excess and not the reapir bill.
Regards the scuff and whether you did or didn't do it. Normally you have to sign paperwork to confirm the condition that the car was returned in.
If the OP signed a contract which allows them an indemnity there is NO DUTY ON THEM TO MITIGATE THE LOSS.
That's what an indemnity is.
Normally when you hire a car, there is an excess to pay for damage etc as a result of the hire car companies insurance. If this was not the case, and the guy used his own insurance, then he will need to pay his excess (to his insurer) and they will deal with the rest.
There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
4pot said:
Normally when you hire a car, there is an excess to pay for damage etc as a result of the hire car companies insurance. If this was not the case, and the guy used his own insurance, then he will need to pay his excess (to his insurer) and they will deal with the rest.
There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
You're missing the point. Totally.There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
If the OP signed a contract for the hire of the vehcile in which he AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THEM FOR LOSSES then they can charge him for loss of use!! An indemnity means there is NO OBLOGATION ON THE HIRER TO MITIGATE ITS LOSS.
End of.
V996 (15 years qualifierd barrister)
Vesuvius 996 said:
4pot said:
Normally when you hire a car, there is an excess to pay for damage etc as a result of the hire car companies insurance. If this was not the case, and the guy used his own insurance, then he will need to pay his excess (to his insurer) and they will deal with the rest.
There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
You're missing the point. Totally.There is a third option (this is called collision damage waiver), were you are covered on the hire companies insurance but pay an extra daily fee to waiver payment of any excess whatsoever.
Regards the loss of use, totally unacceptable, and indeed an insurer would immediately reject any such claim from a hire company for a non-fault accident on those grounds...especially for a scuff.....if that really is all it is.
Even if they were awaiting parts, and if it was a scuff, it could be proven that the car was still fit for purpose.
If the OP signed a contract for the hire of the vehcile in which he AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THEM FOR LOSSES then they can charge him for loss of use!! An indemnity means there is NO OBLOGATION ON THE HIRER TO MITIGATE ITS LOSS.
End of.
V996 (15 years qualifierd barrister)
longest word in the english language, if........
Ive admitted nowt & they did try and claim with the insurance company i was with last year and they told them were to stick it, im seeing my solicitor on friday, repair costs is one thing but 15k ''loss of use'' is outrageous! ill take this to the press if i have to, anyway i dont want to cause a stir so i think its best i remove the post
thank you very much for the input guys
thank you very much for the input guys
Edited by v6_gug on Wednesday 30th January 19:27
V996
Leaving aside the morality etc of this I'm interested in your statement; "If the OP signed a contract for the hire of the vehcile in which he AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THEM FOR LOSSES then they can charge him for loss of use!! An indemnity means there is NO OBLOGATION ON THE HIRER TO MITIGATE ITS LOSS."
I'm pretty stunned that such an open ended situation can exist. Let us take a hypertetical instance:
Chap hires car, signs standard set of papers (in which there is such a clause) and returns car. Knowingly or unknowingly there is some damage which is missed when signing the car back in.
N months / years later the hire co notifies the original hirer that the car has been out of service for N month / years and he owes them for the period as if the car had been in his use. During this time the hiring company has made little or no effort to hire or repair the car. Also no warning during the N months / years has been issued that this situation is in play.
Thus if this method is used enough times you can have a section of your fleet safely off the road, not needing to me marketted, services or any admin carried out... Sounds like a dream come true - you've got 100% utalisation on that section of the fleet with no costs!
Given that we don't hear about this sort of "scam" surely there is something stopping it in law - some "duty of care" not to artificially hike the charges being incurred etc however your statement would seem to counteract this....
Hence my interest in a seeming contradition between law based largly on case and common sense and common sense!
Miles
Leaving aside the morality etc of this I'm interested in your statement; "If the OP signed a contract for the hire of the vehcile in which he AGREES TO INDEMNIFY THEM FOR LOSSES then they can charge him for loss of use!! An indemnity means there is NO OBLOGATION ON THE HIRER TO MITIGATE ITS LOSS."
I'm pretty stunned that such an open ended situation can exist. Let us take a hypertetical instance:
Chap hires car, signs standard set of papers (in which there is such a clause) and returns car. Knowingly or unknowingly there is some damage which is missed when signing the car back in.
N months / years later the hire co notifies the original hirer that the car has been out of service for N month / years and he owes them for the period as if the car had been in his use. During this time the hiring company has made little or no effort to hire or repair the car. Also no warning during the N months / years has been issued that this situation is in play.
Thus if this method is used enough times you can have a section of your fleet safely off the road, not needing to me marketted, services or any admin carried out... Sounds like a dream come true - you've got 100% utalisation on that section of the fleet with no costs!
Given that we don't hear about this sort of "scam" surely there is something stopping it in law - some "duty of care" not to artificially hike the charges being incurred etc however your statement would seem to counteract this....
Hence my interest in a seeming contradition between law based largly on case and common sense and common sense!
Miles
v6_gug said:
Ive admitted nowt & they did try and claim with the insurance company i was with last year and they told them were to stick it, im seeing my solicitor on friday, repair costs is one thing but 15k ''loss of use'' is outrageous! ill take this to the press if i have to, anyway i dont want to cause a stir so i think its best i remove the post
thank you very much for the input guys
Ha ha ha!!! Thats funny, cos we all read the post and all know that you actually did admit to causing the 'scuff'. But hey, good luck I suppose although I'm not sure you deserve it seeing as you are trying to get out of something you have responsibility for! Guess just different values...thank you very much for the input guys
Edited by v6_gug on Wednesday 30th January 19:27
Gassing Station | Elise/Exige/Europa/340R | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff