Car Hire and Damage Waiver Crisis!

MarkyMarkD

rose28454 wrote:

More News!! Firstly Enterprise Are Trying To Get Tesco To Reverse The Refund Of The £500 Excess They Took From My Credit Card Account. I Am Contesting This At Present. Secondly The Court Date Is 27.2.7. I Am Going With All Guns Blazing As There Is Nothing Written In The Rental Agreement About Negligence Or Damage To The Underside Or Top Of The Vehicle.
I Have Not Appointed A Solicitor But Am Going To Get More Advice From The Bvrla And Citizens Advice Before I Go. My Husband Is Not Well Enough To Attend.
I Beleive Enterprise Are In Breach Of Their Contract By Taking The £500 Excess And By Pursuing Us For This Money.
I Have Looked At The Manchester News Story And Will Also Look Into This A Bit Further.
I Am Not Letting It Get Me Down As I Am A Strong Person And Even If They Win I Will Appeal.
Thanks For Everyone's Concern
Happy New Year!!!

What are all those capital letters there for? They make your post very tiring to read. Please don't do it!

MarkyMarkD

mattymoo wrote:

Like Astoroth, I have worked in insurance for around 20 years, dealing with motor claims in the early 90's.

Comprehensive insurance will always cover negligent acts such as hitting another car, falling asleep at the wheel and crashing, hitting a bollard (rising or fixed) and any form of motoring accident.

One exclusion we did have but rarely enforced was "deliberate act" by the policyholder. One chap was threatened in his car at gun point (by someone outside the car) and to make his getaway he drove the vehicle through a substantial steel fence, damaging the car in the process. It was a deliberate act but in the circumstances we paid up.

I cannot see how deliberate act can apply here. Your husband was not aware of the presence of the rising bollard (strange town etc) and this is simply like not being aware of another vehicle when pulling out from a junction etc - it is still an accident.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that the hire car company are self insured for damage to their vehicles and have some peculiar clauses relating to underside damage and roof damage. Could these be argued to be unfair contract terms?

Underside damage is getting more and more common with damage to suspension caused by poorly maintained roads, objects in the road and speed humps.

I simply don't understand your point here with regard to unfair contract terms. There's no reason at all why a hire car company should provide you with insurance against specific aspects of your use of their vehicle, other than third party insurance which is obviously a legal requirement.

If they want to exclude tyre damage, under-body damage, windscreen damage, or any other sort of damage from the cover they choose to offer you, there is no logical unfair contract terms angle to preventing them from doing so.

Almost all holiday car hire agreements exclude tyre and under-body damage, primarily because people seem to like taking their hire cars off road causing the aforementioned types of damage.

Now, as far as the OP has told us, there are no terms in the contract regarding under-body damage in any case, so there's no reason to challenge such terms as being unfair.

If the hire car company are trying to claim that there is an implied term in their contract that excludes under-body damage, I think they have no chance of success.

If, however, they are claiming that it was a deliberate act and that there is an implied duty of care on the driver with respect to the car, I think they have a far better case to argue.

Astaroth

pbradley936 wrote:

Just make sure you do not abandon us!

May have to actually do some work (at least until I establish my reputation in the new departments) so probably will be on less but will want to keep my hand in the old insurance world.... will probably be back eventually any how but need to get more than one industry on my CV now that I am no longer call centre/ claims

Sooler

MarkyMarkD wrote:

If, however, they are claiming that it was a deliberate act and that there is an implied duty of care on the driver with respect to the car, I think they have a far better case to argue.

Is the fact that the hire company took the £500 excess fee of significance, in that by doing so they have accepted the incident conforms to the requirements that permit them to take this fee - ie. an 'accident'.


Even though the waiver fee of £28 was paid which meant they shouldn't charge the £500 anyway - their error.

The Avis site for example states...

"In the event of an accident to or theft of this vehicle, you will be liable to an excess of £600 (Tax Inclusive) per incident. This amount can be reduced at the rental location by purchasing additional coverages when you pick up your car. Please ask the rental agent for more details"


So - if the £600 fee is taken then that deems the incident to be accepted as an 'accident'.


So has the hire company in this case taking the £500 fee by doing so accepted it as an 'accident', thereby the £500 excess is the maximum they can charge.
As the £28 waiver fee was paid, this covers that excess ... so nothing to pay at all?

rose28454

Hi again
Firstly I will not write in capitals as it upsets some people. Oh how I wish I only had small things like that to deal with each day. Anyhow I received another letter from the court this morning and said that they have set a date of 14.8.7 for the hearing. I am a little confused as I had preciously received a letter to say it would be 26.2.7. I will ring and check. I suppose this matter will now drag on but at least I can use the time to gather together all the information and relevant similar stories in the press. Thanks for everybody for their help and I will keep you posted

Astaroth

It is more worth while looking for court cases than press articals. All civil cases are published, whilst there are expensive online indexes which insurers/ solicitors subscribe to you may be able to find something helpful in your local library... will be a fair amount of leg work as they are unlikely to be indexed in a useful manner for you but you have plenty of time

Mrs_pbradley936

Hi rose28454,

Do you have an update yet?

rose28454

Hi
About 3 weeks ago received papers to say the case wont be heard till August which is good as I can spend the next few months gathering as much information as possible. Then last week reveiced a note from the court dated 26.2.7 that the plaintiff had not paid the court fees of £250.0 and if they did not pay by 1.3.7 then the case would be closed. I am just crossing my fingers!!!

mrcow

Let us know what happens!

Mrs_pbradley936

Hello again rose28454,

What's happened? Do you know if they have paid the £250 yet?