Tricked by Credit Hire firm 2 months hire @ £30K!

EddySub19

TheInsideGuy wrote: »

ill poke fun at your misery, and thats for 1 reason only.

DONT SIGN SOMETHING YOU HAVENT READ OR UNDERSTOOD!

OK Mr 'perfect' .....

You probably read every term and condition and understand the small print immediately I bet when ever you sign up for something. You're right I should be extra careful.

somethingcorporate

EddySub19 wrote: »

OK Mr 'perfect' .....

You probably read every term and condition and understand the small print immediately I bet when ever you sign up for something. You're right I should be extra careful.

Let's be clear - you havent been tricked or cheated by a deeply hidden T&C have you? it's the price. Pretty much the most important thing when buying something, no? You had an obligation to minimise your expenses so even more obvious this is the most important thing to consider when signing a contract.

uk1

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Let's be clear - you havent been tricked or cheated by a deeply hidden T&C have you? it's the price. Pretty much the most important thing when buying something, no? You had an obligation to minimise your expenses so even more obvious this is the most important thing to consider when signing a contract.

That isn't true.

The OP said he was told ... "No don't worry, as long as you're truthful you're indemnified and it's a free car, you won't have any problem and we won't come to you for money if they don't pay!!!"

It seems to me that the OP has become open season to some. He was in a stressful situation. We all sometimes take insufficient care and don't read stuff we should and I think it a shame that many posts seem to delight in his misery rather than show a bit of understanding and sympathy.

somethingcorporate

uk1 wrote: »

That isn't true.

The OP said he was told ... "No don't worry, as long as you're truthful you're indemnified and it's a free car, you won't have any problem and we won't come to you for money if they don't pay!!!"

It seems to me that the OP has become open season to some. He was in a stressful situation. We all sometimes take insufficient care and don't read stuff we should and I think it a shame that many posts seem to delight in his misery rather than show a bit of understanding and sympathy.

It still doesn't wash. Who were the company? and on what authority did they have to make such claims regarding OPs/the 3rd party's insurance and liability? They've been extremely naive here.



I appreciate the OP is in a pickle but a large chunk of it is of their own making.

uk1

EddySub19 wrote: »

OK Mr 'perfect' .....

You probably read every term and condition and understand the small print immediately I bet when ever you sign up for something. You're right I should be extra careful.

Hi,

I suggest you give up with responding to unhelpful posts as it is a situation that will only upset you more. Basically you did what most of us do. You didn't presume you were being conned and as a result took a lot onface value and trust. Very few people go through life presuming that everyone is going to cheat them and as a result many of us are sometimes going to be caught out. I guess you think you have learned something from this.

Good luck and best wishes.

uk1

...... I had started a lengthy reply a few days ago but realised the thread was old and deleted it. So ... as a thought.


There is a long-term presumption that when rear-ended the person behind is presumed to be negligent for failing to maintain a safe stopping distance.This is nearly always the presumption.

EddySub19

uk1 wrote: »

Hi,

I suggest you give up with responding to unhelpful posts as it is a situation that will only upset you more. Basically you did what most of us do. You didn't presume you were being conned and as a result took a lot onface value and trust. Very few people go through life presuming that everyone is going to cheat them and as a result many of us are sometimes going to be caught out. I guess you think you have learned something from this.

Good luck and best wishes.

Thank you! Finally a compassionate understanding human being on this thread. Yes that's exactly how I felt. I have never tried to con people myself and sometimes I do put too much trust in others thinking they are like me. Anyway I've decided to ignore the negative comments. Really appreciate your words of encouragement.

uk1

EddySub19 wrote: »

Thank you! Finally a compassionate understanding human being on this thread. Yes that's exactly how I felt. I have never tried to con people myself and sometimes I do put too much trust in others thinking they are like me. Anyway I've decided to ignore the negative comments. Really appreciate your words of encouragement.

Our notes crossed. Sadly like it or not, some people do derive pleasure from other people's misfortunes and if they cannot either offer help or sympathy enjoy causing greater upset. That is the web and it says more about them than it adds value to the thread.

I had started a lengthy reply a few days ago but realised the thread was old and so deleted it. So ... as a thought.

There is a long-term fairly iron-clad presumption that when rear-ended the person behind is presumed to be negligent for failing to maintain a safe stopping distance in accordance with The Highway Code and common sense. This is nearly always the presumption. I'd go back to your original situation and basically remind insurers that you were not responsible for the damage to the rear of your vehicle.

EddySub19

uk1 wrote: »

Our notes crossed. Sadly like it or not, some people do derive pleasure from other people's misfortunes and if they cannot either offer help or sympathy enjoy causing greater upset. That is the web and it says more about them than it adds value to the thread.

I had started a lengthy reply a few days ago but realised the thread was old and so deleted it. So ... as a thought.

There is a long-term fairly iron-clad presumption that when rear-ended the person behind is presumed to be negligent for failing to maintain a safe stopping distance in accordance with The Highway Code and common sense. This is nearly always the presumption. I'd go back to your original situation and basically remind insurers that you were not responsible for the damage to the rear of your vehicle.

Apparently from what I have learnt so far, rear end collisions involving lorries are treated slightly differently. Suspicion is raised as I could have been playing chicken in my small car vs a 20 tonne articulate lorry. However in my defense the crash scene pictures show quite light damage to the back end of my car, which couldn't have possibly occurred with a heavy slamming of brakes. They also show heavy fog on the motorway which caused me to drive slowly.
For me though any suggestion that I could be playing chicken with such a huge dangerous lorry at my tail for whatever reason like road rage or 'cash for crash', is as ludicrous to me as tempting someone to shoot me whose holding a gun to my head. I also had a stable job, was alone in my fairly new car at the time which would be just as absurd as why I'd try and pull such a scam.

angrycrow

Yet people do exactly what you have just described then submit massively inflated credit hire claims through dodgy companies. No wonder the insurers were suspicious.