Van hire company sent me huge bill

Nessun_Dorma

Can we then assume that you've either worked out that you are wrong, or are too engrossed in your arrogance to find out?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Can we then assume that you've either worked out that you are wrong, or are too engrossed in your arrogance to find out?

I not going to repeat myself, so I suggest you re-read what I have already written on this thread, but there again maybe you are just unable to comprehend plain English. Maybe re-reading it will enable it to sink in.

You can keep on with your bleating, but you'll keep getting the same answer from me.

Nessun_Dorma

Let me guess, it was the latter of my two choices.

bigjl

Since when is being compensated a profit?

If the Hire Company has lost business due to the OPs carelessness and lack of foresight when they didn't pay the CDW then why should the OP not pay?

That is why the CDW is there.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Let me guess, it was the latter of my two choices.

I not going to repeat myself, so I suggest you re-read what I have already written on this thread, but there again maybe you are just unable to comprehend plain English. Maybe re-reading it will enable it to sink in.

You can keep on with your bleating, but you'll keep getting the same answer from me.

somethingcorporate

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.

Sorry pops, whatever they "charge" is irrelevant. If it went to court they would only be entitled to their actual losses which would be the wholesale price.

I can see what you are getting at with your apportioned costs from having someone dealing with returns etc and it may (or may not) be correct but it would be for a court to decide. Personally, I cannot see how getting a couple of scratches fixed would amount to a grand but it would be down to the company to prove that the costs were reasonable and that it made best endeavours to mitigates its loss.

llan

Refuse it.

poppasmurf_bewdley

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Sorry pops, whatever they "charge" is irrelevant. If it went to court they would only be entitled to their actual losses which would be the wholesale price.

I can see what you are getting at with your apportioned costs from having someone dealing with returns etc and it may (or may not) be correct but it would be for a court to decide. Personally, I cannot see how getting a couple of scratches fixed would amount to a grand but it would be down to the company to prove that the costs were reasonable and that it made best endeavours to mitigates its loss.

Which is more or less what I said in a previous post:

"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."

bigjl

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Sorry pops, whatever they "charge" is irrelevant. If it went to court they would only be entitled to their actual losses which would be the wholesale price.

I can see what you are getting at with your apportioned costs from having someone dealing with returns etc and it may (or may not) be correct but it would be for a court to decide. Personally, I cannot see how getting a couple of scratches fixed would amount to a grand but it would be down to the company to prove that the costs were reasonable and that it made best endeavours to mitigates its loss.

We only have the OPs opinion on the damage.

It could easily be two six foot long scrapes down the side which need skilled panel beaters to ensure the whole side didn't need replaced.

The Hire Co gave the OP a van without these scratches.

A good case for always paying for the CDW!

rich13348

I love this forum