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

angrycrow

The agreement you signed has to include amongst other things the daily rate and any other charges being billed. If your agreement does not include this as you claim it is non compliant and cannot be enforced on you. This was why I suggested posting a copy of the agreement with you details redacted. It was actually an offer to help dig you out of a hole.

uk1

EddySub19 wrote: »

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.

In re-reading your initial post, you clearly have created a poor situation for yourself and stacked things in a way that doesn't help you, but I wonder whether your best bet is to basically make an offer based on the following suggested factors.

1. Basically in foggy whether you were driving slowly in order to maintain a safe driving distance between you and the rest of the traffic in the "slow lane" when a lorry who wasn't maintaining a safe distance rear-ended you.

2. Whatever the policeman's theory he wasn't there and what he said was speculative and you were still rear-ended.

3. Concede that when you signed up with the accident company you were clearly wrong not to have read the fine print more carefully but you were swayed by the promise that if you had been truthful you would have nothing to pay and not be pursued. The fine print therefore at the time seemed irrelevant because you know that you had been truthful and therefore expected not to pay.

4. Irrespective of the above whilst you concede that you might have been careless in not studying the rates more closely there is a presumption of "fairness" in consumer contracts and clearly whatever the contract states the promise that you wouldn't be asked to pay if you had been honest in your mind over-rides all other terms, unless that is that they can show you where you had been dishonest. If not then they should honour the promise. In an obtuse and ironic way the fact that you didn't read these rates rather supports your version that you didn't read them because of the reassurance you received that you would never have to pay them but the lorry driver that did would do so.

5. You should also state that even if a court hearing is necessary and even in the unlikely event that you had been found to have been inaccurate in anything of what you say, the consumer contract still has to be fair and one of the major parts of that fairness is the rates needed to be extremely clear when you agreed to the booking. You might choose to argue that they were not clear because you didn't see them when you signed because they were imbedded in the small print and not where you signed.

You might therefore consider having these factors written into a letter stating that you are content for this to go to court and you will take your chances, but as a gesture in order to avoid this you are as an alternative and in order to avoid court, prepared to offer a part payment payable over time. You could remind them that if they issue a claim that the offer will be lodged with the court demonstrating your willingness to avoid court. If it then proceeds to court and the judge is sympathetic to your cooperation it might swing a difficult situation slightly in your favour particularly if a judge feels the claimants position intransigent.

I'd say your chances are overall quite slim, but what I've tried to do is to suggest a strategy that may or may not help you reduce your exposure and increase the odds in your favour a little.

There have been a large number of rather argumentative posts on the thread and I don't wish to add to them and this post is rather badly written and isn't intended to generate arguments or exchanges between me and any other posters other than you, and is simply my offering of some thoughts in the hope they might be the germs of a way of mitigating the situation. I'm simply trying to be helpful.

Good luck.

John_G_Jones

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.

None of us read the small print on everything, but we should, and if we don’t it does open us up to this sort of thing happening.

As well as reading the small print you need to also be sensible in terms of believing what someone says to you verbally, which could all be lies, and to be aware that there are many fly-by-night companies out there whose whose whole raison d’etre Is to have people over up to the limit of what the law lets them get away with.

What people here seem to be mainly telling you is that in cases like this there is a difference between unfair and either illegal,or unenforceable, so you thinking of going to court to seek fairness may be a losing proposition.

The reason that people are being to the point rather than more sympathetic is that you seem to suggest that you were fine with your ensurers having to pay a huge amount, when many people would have decided it was better to mitigate the costs as much as they could.

[Deleted User]

Do you have a copy of the hire agreement? Would be interesting to see how clearly the day rate is indicated.

Might be worth asking for a signed copy of the agreement. If they don't have it they will find it very difficult to actually claim the money. You can just say you never agreed to pay that much and they won't have any proof that you did, and you can just offer them some kind of sensible rate that the insurance company will agree to.

EddySub19

Thank you UK1,

I'll keep you updated but yes you sum up this situation well.
I'm getting a lot of private messages from others caught up in similar scams. Many single mothers, university students, I guess I just need to sit and wait to see what happens. I wonder if anyone other than an insurance company has ever actually been bled dry by these credit hire firms so far?

There is an Irving vs Morgan Sindall case ongoing at present which I'm following with interest. The case laws applied and the judges language in their verdicts sounds double Dutch to me though lol

EddySub19

[DELETED USER],

I do have a copy but am wary of posting at the moment. I suspect someone involved who knows me is reading these posts. I'm waiting for an outcome to this situation before I post all out everything.

Damn it, but if I get suckered into paying this huge fee in the end I will start a campaign group and post on every forum I can think of. I'd love to stop other poor souls get caught up in this mess and help end this extortion racket. Even if I end up free from this mess, the stress up to that point was not worth it.

uk1

EddySub19 wrote: »

Thank you UK1,

I'll keep you updated but yes you sum up this situation well.
I'm getting a lot of private messages from others caught up in similar scams. Many single mothers, university students, I guess I just need to sit and wait to see what happens. I wonder if anyone other than an insurance company has ever actually been bled dry by these credit hire firms so far?

There is an Irving vs Morgan Sindall case ongoing at present which I'm following with interest. The case laws applied and the judges language in their verdicts sounds double Dutch to me though lol

Thanks. I hope things all work out for you.

[Deleted User]

Good luck. I hope it works out.

ender4000

Any update on this please? How did it go?

EddySub19

**** Good news!!!! ****

I'm clear!

Also a good slap for all those super armchair sceptics who were secretly wishing me the worst or the ones telling me I’m stupid for not reading the contract in detail …which to be honest is a little true but still!

Anyway, so where did I leave off from the last reply? Yes I left you lot back in February and promised an update here it is:

Synopsis:

I had an accident 4 years ago when a lorry changed into my lane and rear shunted me on a late night motorway. The conditions were foggy so I had good reason to drive slowly in lane 1 but the impatient lorry driver couldn’t stop flashing to make me go faster and started tailgating. Eventually he hit me and now through fear of losing his job or whatever stubbornly refused to accept guilt. I stupidly took out a Credit Hire car tricked into thinking it’s a free courtesy car after describing my details to a third party accident management firm, not reading the contract or researching on this type of business.

Nothing is for free and 3 years later the docile cop at the scene finally produces a report claiming that both parties could have been at fault stating I probably braked harshly and he probably tailgated. This ‘authentic report’ put a massive dampener on my case and I soon started to get calls and letters from hire company asking for full or half the EXTORTIONATE car hire bill for 2 months at £350pd coming to a grand total of nearly £35k if not more with extras. They even cheekily added interest on top.

The defendant solicitors then claimed I braked harshly on purpose in front of the lorry on the motorway and angled a defence report stating basically that it was some sort of ‘cash for crash’ without specifying that term exactly. Of course that was a load of bulls**t. I had a stable good job and income and didn’t need to resort to such lowly tactics to make a small amount of extra pocket money.

………

Anyway my solicitor booked a court date for me to attend and fight it out which I was determined to do. I had to first prove I wasn’t at fault for this accident so I could get the credit hire company off my back.
Luckily after filing a very good witness statement and making several points showing strong reason to believe I couldn’t have caused the lousy accident, the third party defendants settled on a 50/50. This was about 3 days before court day when I was shadow boxing ready to go in and fight it out determined to win.

I then got worried thinking OK I’ll still have to pay for half costs. Also I had taken some money from third party around time of accident to repair my car. They gave me £5k which all got spent on the car repairing it. So I thought I’ll have to pay half the hire and repair which comes to about £20k.

Luckily the Credit hire company, despite escalating my levels of stress and damage my health for 4 damn years turned out to be decent enough not to claim their half from me. Also third party defendant’s insurers never asked for their half of the repair costs.

Thank GOD!

The court date was cancelled and the whole problem came to a beautiful end. Nothing needed to be paid and everyone was happy. I think the Credit Hire firm accepted about £6k from TP insurers and disappeared from my nightmares forever.

I’m not forced on to street and don’t have to sell my children now!

If anyone else is caught in this horrible situation, don’t worry. Best advice is prepare a very good witness statement and don’t be scared to fight it out and go to court if you have to. Also these Credit Hire firms get bartered down on their ridiculous claims anyway. Also depending on how blatantly irresponsible you were not reading T&C’s of credit hire contract, it’s highly unlikely you’d be forced to pay its bill considering the shady way they make you sign a dotted line and lose your soul to the Credit Hire devil!

Overall there is a huge problem in insurance industry on how it operates and deals post-accident why motorists who know nothing about these shady businesses operating this area are given an opportunity to take out expensive replacement cars for months. Instead your own insurance company or TP, if there is a modicum of hope that you are not at fault, should give you at least 2 months of hire credit to spend and repair your car asap. This is substantially cheaper and in this case for 2 months of a Passat would have only cost around £2k on high street with big firms like Hertz, National Car Hire etc not £35k.

There are few decent firms who will truthfully tell you that you could be liable if liability of accident goes wrong or TP insurers refuse to pay. Also if you are rich enough to hire a car from your own funds for 2 months or through your own credit card, then you could be liable to pay the credit hire bill EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT AT FAULT…because you are not impecunious and not doing enough to limit the costs involved. If you are seen as milking a bad situation to make it worse by hiring expensive cars you’ll end up with issues and a dim view from a judge.
HOWEVER even in this scenario if the Credit Hire company themselves are seen as not doing enough to get their car back and seem to be milking an extortionate day rate whilst you show off a new car to your neighbours, then the question I guess for the judge is WHO is the real milk maiden pumping out the insurance cash cow?

Never ever use as I did in my case an independent claims company. They are all dodgy usually 1 man band operatives. Always use your own insurance company to deal with accident and repair.

So yeah….I’m OK. I will never use Credit Hire ever again even if I came out in the end unscathed. They are not worth it.