Easirent Car Loan

[Deleted User]

Fergie76 wrote: »

I don't know I am no expert, I was just giving the OP another avenue to investigate.

There is no such avenue.

Fergie76 wrote: »

I don't believe in the clamping cases of charge back that there was police involvement so why would there need to be in this case?

It's a completely different scenario!!!
In the case of clamping, the car was being held to ransom. There was no personal property at stake in this case.

Fergie76 wrote: »

I was just relaying a previous example of where people had had charge back even after inputting their PIN.

I know you were trying to help....

Tammboy

Hi,

Firstly thanks for all the responses! There's some good stuff there particularly the part about section 75 with the credit card company as I too think that is probably my best avenue.

So just to clarify a few things:

1. I believe a spot-check form was carried out but it was rushed due to onset of rain. She did sign it but they did not give her the carbon copy.

2. Yes, i agree - she was a touch lackadaisical in her attitude, but that is because she is a bit over-trusting and not particular good at standing up for herself.

3. I will have to check but the car-hire total cost was above £100 i believe ~£140 for the week.

Finally, I am going back up to Edinburgh tonight so was considering going to the car-hire place and asking them to re-print all the documentation, is this a wise move?

naedanger

Tammboy wrote: »

Finally, I am going back up to Edinburgh tonight so was considering going to the car-hire place and asking them to re-print all the documentation, is this a wise move?

I certainly think you should ask for a copy of the spot check form, assuming this was carried out before your wife took possession of the car. If that does not list the alleged damage amongst pre-existing problems then I think that weakens your wife's position significantly. (There may still be scope for disputing the monetary value placed on the damage but it would seem much more difficult disputing the damage was caused by your wife, unless it is really trivial to the extent it might be missed in an inspection, and in that case it might still be easier disputing the value placed on the damage.)

Does your wife have photos of the damage?

PS It is possible the company may not give you any information, and only deal with your wife.

DoaM

naedanger wrote: »

PS It is possible the company may not give you any information, and only deal with your wife.

Agreed - and you'd have no cause to argue about it. You are a 3rd party and have no contractual rights here.

Tammboy

Well the order was processed by me in my wife's name. The credit card used was mine. And even the £250 was paid on my credit card by my wife as she knew the pin.

Tammboy

In fact, I raised this point with the CC company, that my credit card was used to process the payment without my authorisation. However, RBS CC claimed that because I'd given the pin to my wife she had been authorised to use it.

Tammboy

Ps I've just checked - the actual rental cost was £85 but the damages charged was £250. Is the CC company still jointly liable under section 75?

naedanger

Tammboy wrote: »

Ps I've just checked - the actual rental cost was £85 but the damages charged was £250. Is the CC company still jointly liable under section 75?

I am not sure (of what either FOS's view or a court's view would be).

The most relevant text from the Act is:

75 (3) Subsection (1) [which makes the cc company jointly liable] does not apply to a claim—
. . .
(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75

You can of course take your case via the cc's complaint process (and ultimately FOS) using the argument that the cash price the supplier placed on the service, as charged to your credit card, was £335.

However if the cc were to argue that the cash price was only for £85 and so below the £100 threshold I don't know if FOS would agree or not. (Probably best waiting to see if the cc company do try such an argument before trying to counter it.)

DoaM

Tammboy wrote: »

Well the order was processed by me in my wife's name. The credit card used was mine. And even the £250 was paid on my credit card by my wife as she knew the pin.

Tammboy wrote: »

In fact, I raised this point with the CC company, that my credit card was used to process the payment without my authorisation. However, RBS CC claimed that because I'd given the pin to my wife she had been authorised to use it.

You may have gotten off lightly there ... giving out your PIN to another person is almost certainly a breach of the card issuer's T&Cs.

fleshandbone

Tammboy wrote: »

Hi,

Firstly thanks for all the responses! There's some good stuff there particularly the part about section 75 with the credit card company as I too think that is probably my best avenue.

So just to clarify a few things:

1. I believe a spot-check form was carried out but it was rushed due to onset of rain. She did sign it but they did not give her the carbon copy.

2. Yes, i agree - she was a touch lackadaisical in her attitude, but that is because she is a bit over-trusting and not particular good at standing up for herself.

3. I will have to check but the car-hire total cost was above £100 i believe ~£140 for the week.

Finally, I am going back up to Edinburgh tonight so was considering going to the car-hire place and asking them to re-print all the documentation, is this a wise move?

Oh now this changes the whole situation, why did you not tell the whole story from the get go?

I now believe this payment has to be made by you as the car hire company did everything by the book.

Next time, do the spot check yourself instead of relying on someone who is not fully understanding of the procedure.