We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Stansted Meet and Greet (Empark UK Limited) - Claim Rejected
I left my car at Stansted for two weeks, using the Meet and Greet / Valet Parking (managed by Empark UK Limited). They took many HD photos of my car on arrival.
On return, I found my car was absolutely covered in thick, sticky tree sap, and a substantial amount of bird droppings - and I mean covered - every panel and window. On closer inspection I also found multiple scratches that I could feel with my fingernail, went into the paint work. A couple were light scratches that will more than likely polish away, but two were moderate to bad (passenger door, rear bumper).
I complained to the Meet & Greet desk, and was met by a manager who took multiple photos of the muck & scratches, and was very apologetic. He said that they usually park their cars in the Mid-Stay car park (where Empark UK Limited are registered), however due to no more room, they had been parking cars in the Long Stay car park, that apparently has a lot of trees and foliage. He said they have had a lot of complaints in regards to the bird droppings.
I completed a complaints form and he advised it would take a few weeks for a response.
First Rejection:
Their first response rejected my claim because ‘the damage highlighted in (my) claim is clearly visible’. They attached the HD photos of my car (of my arrival) which showed a spotless, scratchless car (note that I had it cleaned and polished en route to the airport). They also failed to attach the 'after' photos of my car that the M&G Manager took, and to highlight what ‘clearly visible’ dirt or scratches they were referring to, as the HD arrival photos very clearly showed none.
I requested that they supply the 'after' photos, and to highlight both sets of photos to show the ‘clearly visible’ damage. After much chasing, they final come back with a second, completely different reason for a rejection (still without supplying their ‘after’ photos).
Second Rejection:
'Unfortunately, we are unable to accept that the damage to your vehicle was caused by the negligence of an Empark UK Ltd employee. Scratches to your vehicle cannot be attributed to our driver as it looks like a malicious damage. We have enclosed all photos and Meet & Greet Terms and Conditions with previous e-mail.' *They never did (to date) attach / supply the Meet & Greet T&Cs.
I will paste my response below, of which after multiple chases to their customer services, managers, and CEO (Luis Blanco Santiago) have remained responded to.
As I am now receiving absolute radio silence from them, I want to take legal action (regardless of the costs, time and effort), unless I am advised that I have absolutely no chance of a claim. I would very much welcome any advice of how and where to start legal proceedings / recommendations of a solicitors who would specialise in these cases.
My response:
You note within the below response that you will not accept liability as you believe the damage ‘looks like a malicious damage’[sic].
Malicious damage would imply that someone had a deliberately and intentionally caused all the damage noted and shown within the return photos.
Although it is not to say that just because someone is an employee of Empark UK Ltd that it becomes impossible for them to cause malicious damage (which invalidates your claim rejection reasoning), I have never claimed that neither the scratches caused or poor placement of vehicle (that resulted in a substantial amount of tree-sap and bird droppings) where either deliberate or intentional.
I am however sure that it was an employee of Empark UK Ltd that chose to park my car directly under thick, heavy tree or shrub coverage, which was the underlying factor in the substantial amount of thick, sticky tree sap and complete coverage of every car panel and window of bird droppings. A reasonable build-up of dirt is to be expected after two weeks, but only the negligence of care of such parking can result in the damage described and also shown within the return photos.
As a result of this, I am also not surprised that the same employee of Empark UK Ltd would have treated my vehicle with the same lack of respect with driving and parking the vehicle as was with the choosing of the final parking place. In fact, the scratches in question (which look far from deliberate or intentional), look much more consistent with being caused by driving / parking in close proximity to tree branches, shrubs, and similar, as were the conditions described to me by the MAG Manager, or as you mentioned ‘countryside conditions’ (as opposed to a car parking spot that is suitable for parking a car / running a parking business).
You note that you are ‘unable to control the wild nature at all times’ – which asides from ‘acts of god’ or the occasional good targeting skill of a bird, a good landscaper can do with relative ease – which is a concerning and evidential point to make about the conditions my vehicle was driven and parked in. In any case, what the employee of Empark UK Ltd had duty, but failed, to do, is to not park my vehicle in a specific spot of where you had already failed to control the wild nature. Given the substantial amount of tree-sap and bird droppings, it is evident that the car was parked directly next to and under such conditions that would have been clearly visible.
This is negligence of your duty to park my car in a parking space that would not result in such conditions and damage that would have been visible to the employee
Also, as previously requested, you have still failed to compare the evidence between photos, highlight specifics, and evidence that the multiple scratches and substantial amount of tree sap and bird droppings were previously present – and now as a further development, as to why you believe this was malicious damage. Please also detail this explanation(s) within your response.
However, you have failed to highlight this ‘clearly visible’ ‘damage’ (scratches, marks, bird droppings and tree sap), or even to supply and compare the evidence photos that were taken on the day we collected our car.
Any advice would be very much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Mathew.
On return, I found my car was absolutely covered in thick, sticky tree sap, and a substantial amount of bird droppings - and I mean covered - every panel and window. On closer inspection I also found multiple scratches that I could feel with my fingernail, went into the paint work. A couple were light scratches that will more than likely polish away, but two were moderate to bad (passenger door, rear bumper).
I complained to the Meet & Greet desk, and was met by a manager who took multiple photos of the muck & scratches, and was very apologetic. He said that they usually park their cars in the Mid-Stay car park (where Empark UK Limited are registered), however due to no more room, they had been parking cars in the Long Stay car park, that apparently has a lot of trees and foliage. He said they have had a lot of complaints in regards to the bird droppings.
I completed a complaints form and he advised it would take a few weeks for a response.
First Rejection:
Their first response rejected my claim because ‘the damage highlighted in (my) claim is clearly visible’. They attached the HD photos of my car (of my arrival) which showed a spotless, scratchless car (note that I had it cleaned and polished en route to the airport). They also failed to attach the 'after' photos of my car that the M&G Manager took, and to highlight what ‘clearly visible’ dirt or scratches they were referring to, as the HD arrival photos very clearly showed none.
I requested that they supply the 'after' photos, and to highlight both sets of photos to show the ‘clearly visible’ damage. After much chasing, they final come back with a second, completely different reason for a rejection (still without supplying their ‘after’ photos).
Second Rejection:
'Unfortunately, we are unable to accept that the damage to your vehicle was caused by the negligence of an Empark UK Ltd employee. Scratches to your vehicle cannot be attributed to our driver as it looks like a malicious damage. We have enclosed all photos and Meet & Greet Terms and Conditions with previous e-mail.' *They never did (to date) attach / supply the Meet & Greet T&Cs.
I will paste my response below, of which after multiple chases to their customer services, managers, and CEO (Luis Blanco Santiago) have remained responded to.
As I am now receiving absolute radio silence from them, I want to take legal action (regardless of the costs, time and effort), unless I am advised that I have absolutely no chance of a claim. I would very much welcome any advice of how and where to start legal proceedings / recommendations of a solicitors who would specialise in these cases.
My response:
You note within the below response that you will not accept liability as you believe the damage ‘looks like a malicious damage’[sic].
Malicious damage would imply that someone had a deliberately and intentionally caused all the damage noted and shown within the return photos.
Although it is not to say that just because someone is an employee of Empark UK Ltd that it becomes impossible for them to cause malicious damage (which invalidates your claim rejection reasoning), I have never claimed that neither the scratches caused or poor placement of vehicle (that resulted in a substantial amount of tree-sap and bird droppings) where either deliberate or intentional.
I am however sure that it was an employee of Empark UK Ltd that chose to park my car directly under thick, heavy tree or shrub coverage, which was the underlying factor in the substantial amount of thick, sticky tree sap and complete coverage of every car panel and window of bird droppings. A reasonable build-up of dirt is to be expected after two weeks, but only the negligence of care of such parking can result in the damage described and also shown within the return photos.
As a result of this, I am also not surprised that the same employee of Empark UK Ltd would have treated my vehicle with the same lack of respect with driving and parking the vehicle as was with the choosing of the final parking place. In fact, the scratches in question (which look far from deliberate or intentional), look much more consistent with being caused by driving / parking in close proximity to tree branches, shrubs, and similar, as were the conditions described to me by the MAG Manager, or as you mentioned ‘countryside conditions’ (as opposed to a car parking spot that is suitable for parking a car / running a parking business).
You note that you are ‘unable to control the wild nature at all times’ – which asides from ‘acts of god’ or the occasional good targeting skill of a bird, a good landscaper can do with relative ease – which is a concerning and evidential point to make about the conditions my vehicle was driven and parked in. In any case, what the employee of Empark UK Ltd had duty, but failed, to do, is to not park my vehicle in a specific spot of where you had already failed to control the wild nature. Given the substantial amount of tree-sap and bird droppings, it is evident that the car was parked directly next to and under such conditions that would have been clearly visible.
This is negligence of your duty to park my car in a parking space that would not result in such conditions and damage that would have been visible to the employee
Also, as previously requested, you have still failed to compare the evidence between photos, highlight specifics, and evidence that the multiple scratches and substantial amount of tree sap and bird droppings were previously present – and now as a further development, as to why you believe this was malicious damage. Please also detail this explanation(s) within your response.
However, you have failed to highlight this ‘clearly visible’ ‘damage’ (scratches, marks, bird droppings and tree sap), or even to supply and compare the evidence photos that were taken on the day we collected our car.
Any advice would be very much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Mathew.
0
Comments
-
I have exactly the same problem as you.
Customer service have never answer calls or emails
Duty Manager(when you can get hold of him) promises to get his boss to talk to me. Never happens.
There is between £1500 to £2000 pounds worth of damage to my car
Would like to know how you are getting on
Pete0 -
Dont some of these companies just go and park it in some residential street? Any idea how many miles they did in car? I saw it on Watchdog a couple of years ago. Scratches may have occured from annoyed home owners.0
-
Sorry but their answer is BS. I used to work at Stanstead, my wife still does, and we get free parking in the long stay carpark. I can't remember any time we have had to park under a tree.0
-
I concur it's BS. Do you think it's possible it could have been parked in a residential street?Nodding_Donkey wrote: »Sorry but their answer is BS. I used to work at Stanstead, my wife still does, and we get free parking in the long stay carpark. I can't remember any time we have had to park under a tree.0 -
Possible I suppose but the nearest streets aren't exactly close. A local field is more likely.0
-
Long, carefully-argued responses are very satisfying to write, and can help get things off your chest, but they are rarely effective, especially against people who don't care. Write to them, first class and recorded delivery, saying that you hold them responsible for the damage to your car and the filthy condition it was in, and that you expect them to cover the cost of professional cleaning* and repair of the bodywork. Give them ten days to come up with an acceptable response, or you will be taking the matter to the small claims court. Get a solicitor lined up.
I believe the law is on your side here (I am not a lawyer), but it's worth remembering the advice: don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your lengthy response gives them masses of ways of arguing the toss and dragging it out until you are exhausted. Go to CAB, Trading Standards, whatever, find out the exact legal position, and then hit them with it.
*Professional cleaning might sound over the top, but tree sap on car paintwork is far from trivial. You had a reasonable expectation of two weeks' worth of dust and rain, but tree sap can set and stick like Araldite.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
Just returned from hols in Spain 2 weeks ago . I left my car at the APH car park managed by "I Love Meet and Greet Ltd". When we to picked up our car I discovered a huge scuff on the R mirror which will require repainting the whole mirror . I send them a formal complaint and asked to pay for the damage they caused. They keep cars really compacted on the small area approx 5cm from each other.... After 2 weeks they sent me photographs suggesting that the car was scuffed before we left it in their parking ( they did the photos obviously after they damaged it... ) I use the car every day and open the R door several times daily, I would have noticed the damage if it was done prior we left the car with them . The people from I LOVE MEET AND GREET Ltd are simple crooks. They will damage your car and refuse to pay for it . STAY AWAY !0
-
We've returned yesterday to Stansted Meet and Greet to find our car (VW Caravelle) damaged. It was lucky we discovered the damage in the dark and I only noticed it since the boot lid no longer opened. Seems the car has been backed into something as towbar electrics are bent, boot lid is damaged and so is the bumper.
Duty manager apologised. I filed incident report. Emailed empark. Now holding my breath.
However I see no need to deal with empark at all and other people may be interested that a quick research (at least for my booking) showed that my contract is with Stansted Airport Limited (Company Number: 1990920) "STAL"
Stansted Airport Limited is a subsidiary of The Manchester Airport Group PLC
see stanstedairport.com/terms-and-conditions/car-parking-terms-and-conditions/
Is is therefore STAL which you shouyld and which I will hold liable if empark turn out to be a pain to deal with.
I don't care that empark runs things for them on site and while I will give them chance to investigate (my case seems clear cut at this stage, car entered the car park in impeccable condition with photo evidence from the entry barrier, was damaged on return).
What I am unclear about is if I should bother my household insurance legal cover or the car insurance. I'd prefer to use the household legal cover as (and correct me if I am wrong) it is empark's own insurance that's in force while they drive my car. In other words the empark employee is not insured under my policy.0 -
We've returned yesterday to Stansted Meet and Greet to find our car (VW Caravelle) damaged. It was lucky we discovered the damage in the dark and I only noticed it since the boot lid no longer opened. Seems the car has been backed into something as towbar electrics are bent, boot lid is damaged and so is the bumper.
Duty manager apologised. I filed incident report. Emailed empark. Now holding my breath.
However I see no need to deal with empark at all and other people may be interested that a quick research (at least for my booking) showed that my contract is with Stansted Airport Limited (Company Number: 1990920) "STAL"
Stansted Airport Limited is a subsidiary of The Manchester Airport Group PLC
see stanstedairport.com/terms-and-conditions/car-parking-terms-and-conditions/
Is is therefore STAL which you shouyld and which I will hold liable if empark turn out to be a pain to deal with.
I don't care that empark runs things for them on site and while I will give them chance to investigate (my case seems clear cut at this stage, car entered the car park in impeccable condition with photo evidence from the entry barrier, was damaged on return).
What I am unclear about is if I should bother my household insurance legal cover or the car insurance. I'd prefer to use the household legal cover as (and correct me if I am wrong) it is empark's own insurance that's in force while they drive my car. In other words the empark employee is not insured under my policy.
I would agree. You name yourself and others on your insurance policy, which covers you to drive that car. If someone else drives that car, it is irrelevant to your insurance company (assuming the person isn't named on your policy).0 -
Did this meet and greet once , won't do it again , similar issues. Anyone leaving their car with someone else with the keys like this imho is mad.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards