Van hire company sent me huge bill

poppasmurf_bewdley

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

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.

If we were to believe what you say, then when I contract my solicitor to do some work, they would only be allowed to charge me the rate that the solicitor is paid by the practice instead of the rate that is charged to the customer/client, which is plainly a nonsense.

Similarly, a garage would only be allowed to charge a customer the rate they pay their mechanics instead of the rate they do charge, which covers all items such as overheads, equipment, capital costs, wages, AND PROFIT!

What you are saying would mean that most companies would only be working to cover the wages costs they incur which is just plain stupidity and would lead to bankruptcy within weeks.

arcon5

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.



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!

Lets be clear here..
They will employ staff to manage vehicles. Say the staff member costs £70/day - that is a fixed cost. If in that day he takes a car to have damage assessed he doesn't then get paid £80 or £90 for example for that day! He gets his usual £70.

So if op had not caused damage the company would still incur a cost of £70. Op has caused damage and the cost of that member of staff is still £70 - unless of course they are doing overtime which is unlikely.

Ops responsibilities are nothing more than covering their losses. Not covering their everyday overheads!!
Otherwise based on that logic they should also be apportioning the electricity bill, telephone line rental, etc, etc to op as they may have spent 30 minutes at the office arranging a convenient time for the body shop to assess the damage.

poppasmurf_bewdley

arcon5 wrote: »

Ops responsibilities are nothing more than covering their losses. Not covering their everyday overheads!!
Otherwise based on that logic they should also be apportioning the electricity bill, telephone line rental, etc, etc to op as they may have spent 30 minutes at the office arranging a convenient time for the body shop to assess the damage.

Which is precisely what they will do. Why should the OP have a free ride by having costs he has caused being waved just because he didn't take out insurance?

Any company is required to make a profit, otherwise it will go bust.

To reiterate, the hire company is within its rights to include all ancillary costs in its bill to the OP. He cannot expect the hire company to absorb costs incurred in its legitimate business because it would be unfair to the OP. Indeed, any member of staff or director allowing such a decision would come under fire from shareholders for not seeking to maximise profits

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

If we were to believe what you say, then when I contract my solicitor to do some work, they would only be allowed to charge me the rate that the solicitor is paid by the practice instead of the rate that is charged to the customer/client, which is plainly a nonsense.

Similarly, a garage would only be allowed to charge a customer the rate they pay their mechanics instead of the rate they do charge, which covers all items such as overheads, equipment, capital costs, wages, AND PROFIT!

What you are saying would mean that most companies would only be working to cover the wages costs they incur which is just plain stupidity and would lead to bankruptcy within weeks.

You are creating what is commonly known as an Occam's Razor and you are conflating two concepts and making connections where there are none. The two scenarios are not the same. First of all, your solicitor/garage is not claiming a loss from you, created by damages, when they do the work and secondly, they are creating a product for your consumption.

poppasmurf_bewdley

It is very obvious from some of the replies that many people do not have the faintest concept of how private companies charge for their services. Indeed, many of them still seem to have the mindset that used to exist when we had massive nationalised companies with their multiple charging and accounting systems that made no sense to anyone except their own accounts department.

The OP has got his bill, and will either have to pay it or fight it out in court. Maybe when it is all resolved he will let us know the outcome, and then we will see who is correct.

parking_question_chap

Not helpful for OP but.....

I hired a van about 8 years ago and managed to scratch all down the side about 5 minutes after taking it out of the depot. Luckily for me I got hopelessly lost in the countryside 2 days later and ended up stuck in a ploughed field when trying to do a 3point turn on a farm. As it happened, the side of the van ended up covered in mud and hid the damage.

Subsequently when I dropped the van back shortly before the depot was closing I was given confirmation that the van was in the same condition as when I picked it up.

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

It is very obvious from some of the replies that many people do not have the faintest concept of how private companies charge for their services. Indeed, many of them still seem to have the mindset that used to exist when we had massive nationalised companies with their multiple charging and accounting systems that made no sense to anyone except their own accounts department.

The OP has got his bill, and will either have to pay it or fight it out in court. Maybe when it is all resolved he will let us know the outcome, and then we will see who is correct.

It seems to be that you want to hark back to the times when the consumer would just sit there and take whatever is thrown at them. A time when consumers were unaware of their rights and what positions the courts take.

Damage repairs is not a service, it is a loss. The van rental company is entitled only to what it has lost, nothing more.

Let me ask you; if I went to into a china shop and accidentally broke a statuette that was up for sale at one hundred pounds. How much do you think the shop would be entitled to claim from me in damages?

bigjl

A lesson in why it is better to pay the CDW.

I pay it on every car I rent.

Just isn't worth the risk.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

It seems to be that you want to hark back to the times when the consumer would just sit there and take whatever is thrown at them. A time when consumers were unaware of their rights and what positions the courts take.

Damage repairs is not a service, it is a loss. The van rental company is entitled only to what it has lost, nothing more.

Let me ask you; if I went to into a china shop and accidentally broke a statuette that was up for sale at one hundred pounds. How much do you think the shop would be entitled to claim from me in damages?

Well, according to your theory, wholesale price less VAT, as the retailer wouldn't be able to profit from your carelessness. And the government wouldn't either, so no VAT would be chargeable.

But I reckon you would be charged the full retail price of £100.

Nessun_Dorma

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Well, according to your theory, wholesale price less VAT, as the retailer wouldn't be able to profit from your carelessness. And the government wouldn't either, so no VAT would be chargeable.

But I reckon you would be charged the full retail price of £100.

Oh dear.............