Van hire company sent me huge bill

arcon5

Wages for staff to take it?
That isn't a consequential loss! Not unless they are bringing a member of staff in extra for it, which is unlikely.

Their losses will be nothing more than the repair plus maybe a couple of days hire - in which case this would exclude the profit on the hire, loss of profit isn't a 'loss' in the same way an actual loss from say repairing the vehicle is.

Popp, you've posted 5 points, care to elaborate as to how all this creates a £1k repair? To summarise what you've said.....

member of staff takes vehicle to repair center who assess it and book it in on a certain day. Hardly rocket science costing them serious ££

Nessun_Dorma

motorguy wrote: »

I did say that they'll have used on at it, until such times as it was taken off the road for repair. But you wouldnt see 3 or 4 days in repairing a couple of panels.

And dont you think this is likely to have happened before and the van hire company be able to dot its 'i's and cross its 'T's on such paperwork?

If the damage on the van is not so significant that can't be hired out, pending a decision on its repair, they are not going to stop it from being hired out.

Any costs attributed to the damage must be accounted for and Northgate would be under an obligation to mitigate any losses it might suffer.

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

You won't just have the cost of the actual repair to take into consideration.

The hire company will also have had to:

1. Take the van in for an assessment - which could mean leaving it all day at the repair shop for an estimate, losing a full day's hire. Plus wages for someone to take the vehicle there, get back to the office, return to collect the vehicle and bring it back to the depot.

2. Contact you, the customer, with all the details, incurring staff time, phone calls, computer time, etc, etc, all costing money.

3. Take the van for the repair, which can as has been stated result in the vehicle being off the road for several days.

4. Again, staff will be needed to take it in, return to the depot, return again to collect the vehicle and bring it back to the depot.

5. The vehicle will also need examining to ensure the repair has been done correctly and satisfactorily.

Once these have all been taken in to consideration, you won't get much change out of a grand.

A lot of those expenses you have listed are normal ongoing business operating costs. For example, staff wages. Those staff would have been paid anyway, regardless of the damage done to van. The paperwork costs are minimal, a few pounds, rather than hundreds.

Nessun_Dorma

motorguy wrote: »

Precisely.

Totally agree.

What is it you actually agree with?

Herzlos

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

You won't just have the cost of the actual repair to take into consideration.

The hire company will also have had to:

1. Take the van in for an assessment - which could mean leaving it all day at the repair shop for an estimate, losing a full day's hire. Plus wages for someone to take the vehicle there, get back to the office, return to collect the vehicle and bring it back to the depot.

I, as a non-business user, can get a repair estimate on a vehicle without having to leave it with them all day. I really doubt a hire company (who likely have a business relationship with a repair centre) would have to leave the van with them. Someone might have to run it over to them, but I'm assuming they'd just send a photo or have a repair guy pop over (if they are big enough they'd have their own repair guy?). So I don't buy that the van is out of action for a day for the estimate. I might buy that it's out of action for a day or 2 depending on the severity of the damage, but this company has a terrible rep for hiring out battered vans and charing people a fortune, so they'll just be leaving them unrepaired, or getting the repairs done when the van is unused.

Lets face it, 2 scratches, even if they were to bare metal and the full length of the van still wouldn't prevent the van from being hired.

The rest of the points just sound like normal costs of business for a van hire company.

poppasmurf_bewdley

arcon5 wrote: »

Wages for staff to take it?
That isn't a consequential loss! Not unless they are bringing a member of staff in extra for it, which is unlikely.

Their losses will be nothing more than the repair plus maybe a couple of days hire - in which case this would exclude the profit on the hire, loss of profit isn't a 'loss' in the same way an actual loss from say repairing the vehicle is.

Popp, you've posted 5 points, care to elaborate as to how all this creates a £1k repair? To summarise what you've said.....

member of staff takes vehicle to repair center who assess it and book it in on a certain day. Hardly rocket science costing them serious ££

All staff time in any company will be allocated to what the staff member concerned is actually doing. All work in a company is charged out according to what is required for a particular customer. Companies don't just hire staff on the off chance some work will come their way. They have staff to do particular jobs. They wouldn't send a secretary out to deliver a car, just as they wouldn't expect a delivery driver to type a letter. They have to employ staff for particular jobs, and charge out to customers accordingly. If you don't understand that, then you have never run a successful company.

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

A lot of those expenses you have listed are normal ongoing business operating costs. For example, staff wages. Those staff would have been paid anyway, regardless of the damage done to van. The paperwork costs are minimal, a few pounds, rather than hundreds.

Of course they are, and they have to be charged for accordingly. From what you are saying, it could be argued that the hire company has vans anyway so why would they charge to rent them!

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

All staff time in any company will be allocated to what the staff member concerned is actually doing. All work in a company is charged out according to what is required for a particular customer. Companies don't just hire staff on the off chance some work will come their way. They have staff to do particular jobs. They wouldn't send a secretary out to deliver a car, just as they wouldn't expect a delivery driver to type a letter. They have to employ staff for particular jobs, and charge out to customers accordingly. If you don't understand that, then you have never run a successful company.

Actually, yes they do. That is how a customer dependent business is run.

Of course they are, and they have to be charged for accordingly. From what you are saying, it could be argued that the hire company has vans anyway so why would they charge to rent them!

They are, in the rental fees charged to customers. If this went to court, the plaintiff would have to show that they have spent money above their normal operating costs.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Actually, yes they do. That is how a customer dependent business is run.



They are, in the rental fees charged to customers. If this went to court, the plaintiff would have to show that they have spent money above their normal operating costs.

Which they would, in giving a breakdown of staff time incurred in doing the various jobs which were necessitated in getting the vehicle repaired.

Any staff time incurred in getting the van repaired is over and above the staff time incurred in renting out the van in the first place. Hence the opportunity given to the hirer by offering the chance to take out further insurance to protect themselves against these further costs.

The fact the hirer decided against taking out this extra protection doesn't prevent the hire company from incurring these extra costs.

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Which they would, in giving a breakdown of staff time incurred in doing the various jobs which were necessitated in getting the vehicle repaired.

Any staff time incurred in getting the van repaired is over and above the staff time incurred in renting out the van in the first place. Hence the opportunity given to the hirer by offering the chance to take out further insurance to protect themselves against these further costs.

The fact the hirer decided against taking out this extra protection doesn't prevent the hire company from incurring these extra costs.

It may have taken time, but the cost of providing that time did not change, if it did, Northgate would have to prove that. All they would be entitled to is the cost of the losses. So, if it took five hours more than that member of staff is normally paid for, it would cost the OP (assuming minimum wage) £32.50.

If Northgate try to inflate that wage cost; for example, they say that a senior manager did all the work. They would have to prove that senior managers always carry out this work. Then, they would also have to prove that the majority of large van rental firms get senior managers to drive vans to bodyshops and sort out the paperwork, to establish an industry standard.

usefulmale

If these car / van rental cowboys actually DID any of the repairs they charged people for, nobody should EVER take out a damaged van, should they?