Easirent car hire unlawful behaviour - please!

Mackers12

Hi good MSM people,

I recently booked a car rental with Easirent (MASSIVE MISTAKE). I'll outline a quick summary of what happened. Would love any advice you might be able to offer?

- Booked car rental online and received an online confirmation number to access my online booking.
- Read through contract (they call it a 'voucher') in detail and ensured I had all relevant documentation / DVLA code / sufficient amount of credit card etc with me upon arrival.
- Contract states, I must bring "* TWO PROOFS OF ADDRESS (IF A UK RESIDENT) or PASSPORT (IF AN INTERNATIONAL HIRER)". It makes no mention that this proof must be within 3 months.
- Arrive at counter and staff member refuses to accept my printed proof of address which is just outside the 3 month window. Anxiously, I try to find some 'official document' pdf's on my phone that are within 3 months, and manage to do so, but he refuses to accept an insurance policy for excess insurance as an official document" .
- Staff tells me the 3 month clause is set out in their general terms and conditions that can be found on some obscure part of their website (but there is absolutely NO mention of this on any of the documents sent to me, I've triple checked...).
- I was forced out, without a car, despite not breaching any of the t&c's put to me. I lost a fair bit of money, including losing the accomodation I had booked, and incurred extra costs from ubers and public transport etc. Worst of all, my weekend holiday plans were ruined which was genuinely upsetting.
I'm now trying to get Easirent to admit they are at fault and refund (and hopefully compensate).

The thing is, I am entirely confident the reason I was shrugged off was because I told him I had my own excess insurance and didn't want any add on's. The tone immediately changed from polite to irate, which I now know is due to Easirent's business model of pushing excess and counter add on's, hard..). He just wanted rid of me, couldn't care less. He had also offered a overtly rude and derogatory response to my nationality which might have been a factor, but I'd like to hope this wasn't the case!

Do I have a case here, having a look at some relevant case law seems that I do - but I'm not familiar with this area. Any advice would be helpful. I will progress this through all of their complaints procedures (which i expect to get nowhere, in which case I am willing, on principle, to go to trading standards and the trade association etc.

shaun_from_Africa

Mackers12 wrote: »

.- Staff tells me the 3 month clause is set out in their general terms and conditions that can be found on some obscure part of their website (but there is absolutely NO mention of this on any of the documents sent to me, I've triple checked...)

Hardly an obscure part of their website. It took all of about 15 seconds to find in their terms and conditions under "driver's requirements".


https://www.easirent.com/rental-terms/

UK and Republic of Ireland hirers must also bring 2 proof of address dated within three months (we accept electronic copies of these proofs via a handheld device or emailed to the branch) and the DVLA check code (click here for info obtaining the DVLA check code).

Mackers12

Why would I google the terms if the terms were put to me in the contract? This makes no sense... ???

shaun_from_Africa

Mackers12 wrote: »

Why would I google the terms if the terms were put to me in the contract? This makes no sense... ???

You wouldn't but you should have read them. After all, when making the online booking you ticked a box stating that "I accept Easyrent's Terms and conditions" and the words "terms and conditions" were a link to those terms and conditions.

Why would you say that you accept them if you haven't read them or know what they are?

Mackers12

Thanks,

I fully take your point that there is a burden on me read through every single term and condition - I'll fully admit that I didn't read through every single T&C before booking, but I did read the contract - carefully. But is this really the point??? That scam companies can use this unrealistic bar of active engagement to intentionally mislead and rip customers off? A quick google of "Easirent reviews" suggests they frequently tend to rip off customers in lots of ways, eg by intentionally not marking small scratches in the pre-inspection, and charging obscenely inflated costs (that the consumer probably didn't cause). The company's argument (to which I understand you may sympathize with) is that the consumer should have been more engaged - and carefully photographed / videod every inch of the car and fully understood the implications of not doing so. Yes, in reality they should - but to expect those who don't to be unfairly penalised (to me) seems wrong... Perhaps we simply share differing opinions - but I do thank you for your input!!

In my case I would say I am more engaged than the average consumer, but personally I do think Easirent's practices are designed to be intentionally misleading. It benefits them financially to do so. It seems deceitful that on my contract - it says I need proof of address but is not explicit that proof should be more than 3 months old. It seems deceitful that I should have to click through to a URL on a different page to find this out. This isn't (in my opinion) isn't remotely clear enough.

There was ruling in Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning where a consumer who signed a car
rental agreement in a hurry was not bound by an onerous standard term excluding insurance coverage. There, because the term was not explicitly brought to the attention of the consumer, it did not apply.. and this was with the T&Cs actually being in the document that WAS put to the customer.

Other examples (eg small T&Cs on car park signs that weren't clear or legible) seem (?) to suggest I shouldn't be bound by these T&Cs and may have a case to bring forward.

Going back to my original question - from a legal viewpoint, might I have a case here?

Thanks!

shaun_from_Africa

Mackers12 wrote: »

There was ruling in Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning where a consumer who signed a car

Going back to my original question - from a legal viewpoint, might I have a case here?

Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning was a case held in a Canadian court of law and has no relevance whatsoever to something in the UK.

My opinion.
You have no case either from a legal viewpoint nor from a moral one.
The T&C's were clear, easily available and you stated that you accepted them.
The terms and conditions have to be available for you to read and agree to before you are bound by the contract and they were so I honestly think that you will lose any legal action should you try it.

Fosterdog

Proof of address dated in the last three months is hardly an unrealistic bar though. Pretty much every company that requires proof of address stipulate that if a utility bill or bank statement is used it has to be a re ent one, dated in the last three months.

It's been a requirement for every finance company I've ever had to process agreements for in work, when I bought my house and my solicitor carried out ID checks, same for my mortgage advisor, when I bought a car (not on finance just as proof of ID, along with drivers license), when I changed bank accounts. It is a completely normal thing to ask for as proof of address.

It's also not an unreasonable bar to expect customers to check for damage prior to accepting a vehicle, no different to an inventory check when renting a property, if you fail to notice something at check in that is not listed on the inventory then your landlord will have a signed document as proof and you would be liable to put it right.

I disagree that you are more engaged than the average person, if you were you wouldn't be grasping at straws to get out of something.

lincroft1710

They had terms and conditions.

You did not comply with them.

It would appear they were within their rights to refuse to hire you a car.

Sorry, understand your frustration and annoyance, but cannot see you have any comeback.

Mackers12

I knew it wasn't UK law, but thought it was worth highlighting as an example. Thanks again for your advice.

A UK example that I did find was 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

Different in that it isn't digital, but could be still relevant?

(Also, respectfully to Shaun from Africa, you have made it quite clear you disagree that the T&Cs were accessible. I continue to maintain they weren't - so please don't feel obliged to reply - but thanks for your input! )

Mackers12

Fosterdog wrote: »

Proof of address dated in the last three months is hardly an unrealistic bar though. Pretty much every company that requires proof of address stipulate that if a utility bill or bank statement is used it has to be a re ent one, dated in the last three months.
.

Thanks Fosterdog! I don't dispute this point at all - but I do still maintain it should have been made clear in the contract. I don't wish to be argumentative, but I think having the words, "within the last 3 months" on their contract would have avoided all this mess.

It does sound like legally though - might not have a chance - thanks for weighing in!

waamo

Mackers12 wrote: »

I knew it wasn't UK law, but thought it was worth highlighting as an example. Thanks again for your advice.

A UK example that I did find was 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

Different in that it isn't digital, but could be still relevant?

(Also, respectfully to Shaun from Africa, you have made it quite clear you disagree that the T&Cs were accessible. I continue to maintain they weren't - so please don't feel obliged to reply - but thanks for your input! )

You ticked a box saying you had read them though. Poor Mrs Vine had a dicky tummy and was prevented from reading the sign due to leaving her car like Usain Bolt.

I see no mileage in that argument sorry.