Car Hire and Damage Waiver Crisis!

beautifulgorgeous_2

Sadly,I think if you had been driving your own car then you would probably have had no cover either. I hope things work out favourably for you.

Altarf

Funnily enough I have the rental T&Cs for Enterprise Rent-A-Car as I just returned a car to them yesterday.

Insurance - If you take their insurance, (you do have the option of using your own), then you are only covered for the minimum required under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. third party only).

You have the option of taking their 'protection products'. It states that 'This is not insurance'.

Two protection products are offered, Damage Waiver (DW) and Excess Protection (EP) / Partial Waiver (PW).

Quoting exactly from the contract:

8.a. Damage Waiver (DW): If you accept DW on Page 1, we will not hold you liable for damage to, loss or theft of, the Vehicle, except that you will still have to pay the excess indicated on Page 1 every time the Vehicle is damaged or stolen or loss. If no excess is indicated on Page 1 you will be responsible for the first £500 every time the Vehicle is damaged or stolen or loss. Your responsibility can be reduced with the acceptance of Excess Protection/Partial Waiver (see 8.b below). You agree DW does not exempt you from liability for damage caused by: the use of incorrect fuel; any breach of Paragraph 4; or if the Vehicle is stolen and you cannot produce the original keys.

8.b. Excess Protection (EP) / Partial Waiver (PW): If you accept EP /PW on Page 1, we will waive your responsibility for the first £500 of any loss caused by damage to or theft or loss of the vehicle. If DW has been accepted you will remain responsible for any excess indicated on Page 1 or, if no excess is indicated the first £500 every time the vehicle is damaged or stolen or lost. If DW has not been accepted you remain responsible for all losses above £500 up to the full market value of the vehicle every time the vehicle is damaged or stolen or lost. You agree EP/PW does not exempt you from liability for damage caused by: the use of incorrect fuel; any breach of Paragraph 4; or if the Vehicle is stolen and you cannot produce the original keys.

Paragraph 4 reads:

Use of the Vehicle: The Vehicle must not be used:
a. by anyone other than you or any other driver named on page 1;
b. by anyone without a full valid driving licence for the class or use of vehicle rented, or anyone under the age of 21;
c. for hire or reward;
d. for any illegal purpose;
e. for racing, pacemaking, testing the Vehicles reliability and speed or teaching someone else to drive;
f. while under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
g. outside the United Kingdom unless we have given you written permission;
h. overload or with more passengers than seatbelts;
i. to propel or tow any other vehicle or trailer;
j. other than on a paved public highway, private road or driveway;
k. to transport dangerous or noxious substances.

Under section 5 Charges

d. Additional Obligations - You shall pay us on demand.
...
In the case of Loss or damage to the Vehicle or any part or any accessory howsoever caused to the Vehicle:
- Fair market value of the repair or replacement of the Vehicle, calculated by reference to our standard price list for minor repairs or if you prefer, the cost to us of repair or replacement of the vehicle,
- Reasonable administration fees,
- Loss of revenue at the daily rate shown...
- A reasonable sum for diminishment of value,
- Towing storage and impound fees.
...
Your liability for damage to, loss or theft of, the Vehicle may be reduced by the purchase of Damage Waiver or Excess Protection / Partial Waiver.

Personally I don't think Enterprise have a leg to stand on, but I would still get a solicitor involved ASAP.

MarkyMarkD

"For any illegal purpose" could be construed to include driving out of a controlled zone without paying the necessary charge, IMHO.

Altarf

MarkyMarkD wrote:

"For any illegal purpose" could be construed to include driving out of a controlled zone without paying the necessary charge, IMHO.

Even if you accept that the clause can be interpreted in this way (which I don't) then it would only apply if they could prove that the intention of the driver was to avoid paying the charge, and had not just made a mistake and not realised that they had to pay.

Also if you interpreted this clause in this way then then they would never have to pay out if you crashed the car whilst doing 31 mph in a 30 zone, or somebody bumped into the car whilst it was parked on a yellow line, let alone the driver being convicted of driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving as a result of an accident.

I would see the clause being there to protect them, so you cannot use the car for something that in itself is illegal, e.g. using the car to transport stolen goods, rather than a 'get out' clause to avoid paying for any incident where the driver is responsible. After all if you have any accident where the driver is responsible, there is a good argument that the driver has been guilty of driving without due care and attention and thus the car has been used for an 'illegal purpose'.

Bossyboots

I think it would help if the OP could actually put exactly what the grounds are on which this claim has been made. It will say so on the particulars of claim although might be entrenched in legalease.

I suspect they are using the illegal purpose clause just as I would expect them to go after someone who received a driving conviction after an accident. Enterprise themselves could not invoke "without due care" as they are not in a position to decide whether an illegal event took place. That is the province of the court. While we might class illegal purpose as something like Altarf has described, I do think this is catch all clause and it will be down to the court to decide whether the driver genuinely did make a mistake, parked with the intention of not paying, or used an opportunist moment to avoid paying. If the driver was negligent in failing to check for parking signage, then Enterprise have a strong case.

Altarf

Bossyboots wrote:

If the driver was negligent in failing to check for parking signage, then Enterprise have a strong case.

I disagree. There is nothing in the contract that allows Enterprise to reimpose their waived liability if the driver has been negligent. After all if you have any accident where it is your fault you have been negligent, and if it is not your fault then the other party pays. So what would be the point of 'insurance' that didn't pay out when it was your fault?

shitefourbrains

Guys I work for a well known Rental Firm!

If you paid for excess protection it will protect you from paying the £500 excess so long as the damage was not done on purpose or through drivers negligence. The examples we often give is "putting the wrong fuel in the tank".

It is going to be up to enterprises solicitors to argue that your husband was neglegent.

Obviously I don't want to get too involved but Rose28454 I can always forward you a copy of the contract to you or your solicitor - I would have thought he'd already obtained a copy though.

**IMPORTANT**
Dispite Rose28454 very unfortunate and unusual experience I would always advise to take out the excess protection. It is an awful experience having to bill someone £500 and there is pressure to bill for the slightest damage.

Bossyboots

shitefourbrains wrote:

**IMPORTANT**
Dispite Rose28454 very unfortunate and unusual experience I would always advise to take out the excess protection. It is an awful experience having to bill someone £500 and there is pressure to bill for the slightest damage.

I agree with this and so would my boss. What happened to him shows the difference between how negligent and accident are defined. He pulled out of a junction into the path of another car. Technically he was negligent although there were circumstances leading up to the incident and it is a notorious junction. We had paid the excess waiver and heard nothing more. They laughed when he took the vehicle back (it had already been pranged on the other side) and just said "these things happen, lucky you paid the extra".

shitefourbrains

Altarf you're saving me a job diggin out all that.

Wording on any contract is mind boggling. When you hire cars from enterprise on a Retail basis here's what insurance you have in a nutshell.

Third Party insurance only.

Enterprise only have third party covered by Chubb. The vehicles themselves are not actually insured. (not fully comp)

On a retail ticket..
By signing the Damage waiver it is an agreement that Enterprise can only chase you up to the value of £500.

By signing the Excess Protectionit is an agreement that Enterprise will not charge you the £500 excess.

Basically if you didn't Sign DW you would be responsible for the entire cost of the vehicle... This is usually only ever the case when insurance customers use enterprises cars as courtesy cars and use their own insurance to cover the vehicle instead of paying for enterprise cover. Or if corporate accounts have companies own insurance.

Thats the nutshell version but obviously any small print in the contract overules what I just said!

shitefourbrains

Bossyboots wrote:

They laughed when he took the vehicle back...and just said "these things happen, lucky you paid the extra".

Absolutely! The only people that won't laugh about it though are Branch Managers and Assistant Managers becuase any damage comes straight out of their commission!
:mad: