[Zipcar] Incorrect advice was call handler's "opinion"

ashton_day

Hi all, long time user but the first time I've needed to ask for help...

I recently rented a van for 24 hours through ZipCar. Whilst the van was parked overnight, somebody slashed the tires.

Zipcar helped me get to Kwikfit where they were supposed to have an account to get a new tire fitted. Neither zipcar or KF could identify the account so after an hour and a half of waiting, I finally gave in an paid for the tire myself £110.

Before I agreed to replace the tire, I spoke to a member of the team about whether or not I was liable. I was told that would need to be reviewed by the fleet team but if it wasn't my fault then I shouldn't have to pay for the tire. I asked for examples of what might be my fault and was told that driving over a nail or damage such as that would be my fault.

After two weeks of being ignored by them and trying to get somebody to speak to me about the tire, i eventually got through to somebody who reviewed the original call and said that I would have to pay for the tire myself.

They have said that the call handler was only expressing a personal opinion about the fact that I shouldn't have to pay for the tire (despite speaking on behalf of the company on their official telephone number). The fact is that I am completely liable and her "opinion" was wrong counts for nothing.

The person dealing with my case, prior to reviewing the call, said that if i'd been told that I'd get my money back that he would refund me as I would have been lead to buy the tire on bad information. However because the person gave an "opinion" but also said it would need to be reviewed, I effectively have no recourse here as the review has decided I'm liable.

As a side note, I've been a customer for 6 years and they would have earned far more than £110 from me in profit were it not for this, I have of course ceased my relationship with them with immediate effect.

I've submitted a SAR to get a copy of the call recordings and notes, but in the meantime...where do i stand on official employees giving misleading opinions from the official company phone number? I feel I've been very poorly treated here but they've made it clear that they'd rather lose my custom than take a broader view on the issue so I don't know where to go from here other than small claims court and I have no idea if this is even realistic...

Any guidance gratefully received!

Svein_Forkbeard

Either pay for the tyre or claim on the insurance.

Car in your care therefore your problem.

ashton_day

Tires aren't covered in the insurance.

Regarding fault - it was neither mine nor zipcar's...i don't blame them for this incident.

However, my question is about being told that i wouldn't be liable on their phone line and then being told that this was just a member of the car giving their "opinion" (albeit through official channels) later down the line.

Fosterdog

But you said yourself they never said that you wouldn't be liable just that you might not be. The car was in your care and it got damaged so it would be down to you to cover the cost

[Deleted User]

ashton_day wrote: »

I've been a customer for 6 years and they would have earned far more than £110 from me in profit were it not for this, I have of course ceased my relationship with them with immediate effect.

Why have you done this?

Do you think any other such company would take the hit on this?

ashton_day wrote: »

where do i stand on official employees giving misleading opinions from the official company phone number?

You don't stand anywhere that I can see

ashton_day wrote: »

they've made it clear that they'd rather lose my custom than take a broader view on the issue so I don't know where to go from here other than small claims court and I have no idea if this is even realistic...

It's not realistic.

Have you really spent an additional £10 on a SAR? :eek:

Fosterdog wrote: »

The car was in your care and it got damaged so it would be down to you to cover the cost

Exactly.

MobileSaver

ashton_day wrote: »

I was told that would need to be reviewed by the fleet team but if it wasn't my fault then I shouldn't have to pay for the tire.

Sorry, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Should means should (i.e. probably) which is completely different to "definitely won't." You were even told that the issue would need to be reviewed by the fleet team; this they've done and now confirmed you are liable. To be honest I wouldn't have even considered that the hire company would pay for tyres slashed while I was hiring a van.

However, look on the bright side, you've probably saved a few quid by paying yourself as they'd be quite within their rights to charge an admin fee on top if they'd had to replace the tyres themselves after you'd returned the vehicle.

ashton_day

These comments are all reasonably fair and I'm getting the external perspective i wanted (albeit a bit more dismissively then i'd hoped) but maybe i can explain my position a bit better.

My expectations were based on the fact that I once had a tire blow out on the M6 in a different companies rental car, the rental company sent out roadside assistance who replaced it for free by the motorway and sent me on my way without questioning "fault" or making us pay for the tire after the fact - despite the fact that I was driving and by ZCs definition "at fault" rather than it being outside of my control. Obviously that company had a much more generous policy which skewed my expectations...

Perhaps it was also this article (clearly out of date) about zipcars (clearly historic) policy of giving customers the benefit of the doubt in favour of sustained repeat business and good PR (which they certainly would have got from me...) (edit - cant post links...Zipcar Gives Customers the Benefit of the Doubt Blog - Zendesk)
I read that after the event but it was in-line with my understanding of their policy that I'd taken from the call at the time...

Zipcar's service includes having all expenses covered on account, with them billing for charges that I'm liable for. Had they actually managed to replace the tire on their account and clearly explained to me at the time I was liable rather than telling me I should be reimbursed if I buy the tire, perhaps I might have had a different perception of things.
I still don't agree that staff giving out their "opinion" through official channels is appropriate and I still feel like I was mislead at the time...i mean seriously how much syntax checking is expected of me while i'm on the phone, sitting next to a broken down van whilst I'm moving house (already up there with divorce and bereavement in the stress ratings).
In my line of work, dealing with a "should" issue such as this, I'd have swallowed the £110 if it mean saving a relationship that was likely to recoup more than the loss in profits. Again, maybe I have a skewed view because I'm just a much nicer person in my line of work... :A

The reason I left zipcar is because my account is up for renewal in a month and I'm not happy with service any more, as I am free to do.

The reason I submitted a SAR is because a tenner's quite a cheap throw of the dice to check what I was told (and why not use the DPA while I still can, eh..).

Taken together, your comments all suggest that I've somehow lost the plot (I also forgot about never expecting strangers on the internet to be particularly nice) but I will take some time to consider my position and perhaps even move on with my life...I do hope some of the above comments help to explain my position a bit better though...

[Deleted User]

ashton_day wrote: »

.I do hope some of the above comments help to explain my position a bit better though...

Bluntly put, your position seems to be that you simply want the company to pay for something that you alone are liable for.

This isn't going to happen.

I also doubt your SAR will reveal anything you haven't been told already.

The small claims court would cost you even more money....time to move on.

shaun_from_Africa

Personally, I think that the OP might well have a valid claim to get some of the payment for the tyre refunded by ZipCar depending on how much Kwikfit charged.

If the OP only went there because they were told that they wouldn't have to pay and they ended up paying a premium compared to another tyre fitting place they may have found if they knew they were going to have to pay so decided to shop around, I don't see why ZC shouldn't be expected to refund this difference.

[Deleted User]

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If the OP only went there because they were told that they wouldn't have to pay and they ended up paying a premium compared to another tyre fitting place they may have found if they knew they were going to have to pay so decided to shop around, I don't see why ZC shouldn't be expected to refund this difference.

Kwikfit aren't THAT expensive compared to others...

steampowered

Regardless of what the call centre told you, zipcar has a 'damage fee'. Unless you pay extra for a waiver, that is the excess you must pay if you have an accident.

I would have thought that you should pay the excess and anything else should be covered by the insurance?

I think all of the above posters are wrong to say 'car in your care therefore your problem'. This is not what Zipcar's T&Cs say. Nor is it what happens with hire cars generally - you wouldn't expect to pay for a complete replacement of the car if you have an accident or the car is stolen, you'd expect to pay the insurance excess only. I can't really see why having the tyres slashed is any different.