shopping trolley dented hire car

Lum

coinxoperated wrote: »

Next time, get in your car and walk away! Everyone expects to get some little scratches or bumps - its the MSE board, if it ain't broke, don't break it further! lesson learnt!

I really hate this attitude. It's because of this that I used to keep an old banger as a spare car and use it for the Tesco runs, just to try and keep the damage off my car from people who don't give a toss about other's property. :mad:

Valli

and the loose trolleys are the MAIN reason I HATE shopping at Tesco...
you don't get loose trolleys when folks have to pay £1 to use them

cheekyweegit

neilmcl wrote: »

How do you know how much it'll cost to repair? I think you might find after the dent has been prepped, filled, and the whole panel resprayed and blended you could well be looking at £500+.

Also, don't forget you're potentially liable, not only for the damage but any reasonable out of pocket expenses of the 3rd party, ie, his excess.

I could understand this cost if it was a whole panel getting replaced and having had a quote for something similar ironically happening to my own car I know it didn't cost that much. Paint work is undamaged and dent's might be able to be sucked out or worse case filled with a very small amount of filler, but I do understand what you mean about the blending but again don't think it will be required.

I'll just need to wait and see what comes of it. I held my hand up for a reason and have no regrets in doing so. Just wondering how long it will take to hear from the car hire company on it's return, if at all.

neilmcl

Well hopefully they might get away with a SMART repair for something like £100 but you still looking at potentially being sued fo the £600 excess the 3rd party would likely have to pay out.

s_b

just for the record moneysavers dont hire a car and go supermarket shopping with a £600 excess, thats just hoping for trouble
op as said dont worry you did the right thing ,im sure kouranga will come to your help

Lum

I'm convinced that hire car damage repair is a con. They don't seem to actually do the repairs (hence why if you get a slightly older one, they're covered in scratches you have to tick off) but they charge you for a full repair.

Chances are, when the car is ready to be sold, they just do all the repairs at once for a hell of a lot cheaper, since fixing 4 scratches on the same panel costs the same as fixing one.

I'd be perfectly fine with that if they didn't charge everyone for a full repair.

OP can I just say thank you for owning up to it though. Even though it's not my car it's appreciated.

thegirlintheattic

coinxoperated wrote: »

Next time, get in your car and walk away! Everyone expects to get some little scratches or bumps - its the MSE board, if it ain't broke, don't break it further! lesson learnt!

And this is the problem with this country! So it's perfectly fine to damage someone's car and expect them to fork out for it as long as you don't get caught!

I for one do not expect to get scratches or bumps - I expect people to take care not to damage others property like I do. I take great care of my car and so would notice any damage and would try to find out the culprit to get them to pay.

mikey72

neilmcl wrote: »

Well hopefully they might get away with a SMART repair for something like £100 but you still looking at potentially being sued fo the £600 excess the 3rd party would likely have to pay out.

But as the hirer hasn't mitigated their losses, they may not be able to. Even though they have paid out to the hire company, they still have a duty to show the charge was reasonable. Beats me how the hire company get away with it time after time, as it seems more of a penalty, rather than fair recompense for the damage.

neilmcl

mikey72 wrote: »

But as the hirer hasn't mitigated their losses, they may not be able to. Even though they have paid out to the hire company, they still have a duty to show the charge was reasonable. Beats me how the hire company get away with it time after time, as it seems more of a penalty, rather than fair recompense for the damage.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, do you mean the hirer or hire company? How would the hirer (ie, 3rd party) not have mitigated his losses, he'd have no choice but to pay the excess and recover this from the OP, and the only thing the OP would be liable to the hire company for would be the damage repair.

mikey72

neilmcl wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, do you mean the hirer or hire company? How would the hirer (ie, 3rd party) not have mitigated his losses, he'd have no choice but to pay the excess and recover this from the OP, and the only thing the OP would be liable to the hire company for would be the damage repair.

Because the hirer should only pay the actual cost of the repair, so if it's a £200 repair, or a chips away, that's the cost. Not the deposit + £600 as an arbitary sum.