I800 brought but never told it was from a hire complany

neilmcl

James2k wrote: »

Lets be real here, MOST people will treat hire cars less gently than their own. you may not, but id say the majority would.

When faced with the amount of money most hirers try to charge for the slightest mark these days I'd say the opposite is true.

James2k

motorguy wrote: »

I'd say most people will drive a hire car as they would their own car. You would get some who will rag them on (and some who say they rag them on on an internet forum) but the reality is most people hire them for a reason and as such drive them to go about their daily business - often for fear of damaging it and paying a big excess too.

And with a van in particular :-

• Whos to say a non hire van is driven by the owner driver anyway?
• Whos to say if it was hired it wasnt hired out long term to one company (often they are)

then most people treat their cars like crap. They all seem to be scratched inside and out and with various weird issues.

Then again, im a bit ocd with my cars

System

Best of luck finding a nearly new used van which hasn't been a fleet or hire van. And of those that haven't been they tend to have been poorly maintained when in ownership by a small business or self employed person as driving them into the ground seems to be the defacto way of treating a van in a business.

motorguy

James2k wrote: »

then most people treat their cars like crap. They all seem to be scratched inside and out and with various weird issues.

Then again, im a bit ocd with my cars

They do yes. So not necessarily any advantage in buying a previously privately owned vehicle over a previous ex-hire vehicle, particularly in this case a van.

motorguy

James2k wrote: »

if it was a cheap car yeah, but ive seen so many hire cars with duff transmissions etc, with very few miles on them.

id just be paranoid about whats going to go wrong, and id rather my car come from someone who at least i can convince myself, has looked after it.

Really? So you immediately took them back and got another vehicle i take it? And this has happened you repeatedly? What hire company is that so we know to avoid them?

No hire car i've ever had (bearing in mind they tend to be new and driven for 6-12 months tops) have had duff transmissions or otherwise, as they'd simply be resolved by the manufacturer under warranty.

James2k

motorguy wrote: »

Really? So you immediately took them back and got another vehicle i take it? And this has happened you repeatedly? What hire company is that so we know to avoid them?

No hire car i've ever had (bearing in mind they tend to be new and driven for 6-12 months tops) have had duff transmissions or otherwise, as they'd simply be resolved by the manufacturer under warranty.

Yes,

A&^s have supplied me with many hire cars which have clunking and slipping automatic transmissions, or crunchy manual gearboxes. And no i didn't take them back, who has time for that when you are taking it one way somewhere for work. They work, but i wouldn't buy one.

Herzlos

neilmcl wrote: »

Surely the V5 would have alluded to the fact that the previous owner was a hire company

It's usually an obscure holding company so that it's less obvious. ERAC being Enterprise Rent-A-Car, but you'd probably not make the connection from just the V5.

motorguy

James2k wrote: »

Yes,

A&^s have supplied me with many hire cars which have clunking and slipping automatic transmissions, or crunchy manual gearboxes. And no i didn't take them back, who has time for that when you are taking it one way somewhere for work. They work, but i wouldn't buy one.

That surprises me greatly on brand new cars given they are under manufacturers warranty and in theory they could try to hold you liable for damage..... but i'm sure you're telling us the truth....

Presumably not relevant here anyway as the O/P has had his van for 2 years with no transmission issues.

Secondly, that would put me off buying that type of car irrespective. If it cant cope with being driven then it wouldnt be a car i'd want to own. Buying a privately owned car wont protect you from that.

Also i'm not sure of your point anyway - if a car had a bad transmission fault when i was test driving it i wouldnt buy it anyway even if it was was privately owned.

"Some hire cars get driven badly, some privately owned cars get driven badly" - all the more reason, surely to buy on condition rather than who the previous owner was?

iolanthe07

so you would be happy to find your car was a hire car? I certainly wouldn't.


It wouldn't bother me at all. They're often much better looked after than privately owned ones because they are cleaned between hirers and have to be properly serviced to avoid problems with disgruntled customers. My son's first car was ex-rental and it gave him years of reliable service. Most cars/vans a year or so old will be ex-rental.

motorguy

Herzlos wrote: »

It's usually an obscure holding company so that it's less obvious. ERAC being Enterprise Rent-A-Car, but you'd probably not make the connection from just the V5.

Though googling usually tells you.

Having said that, if i was that determined NOT to buy an ex hire car, i'd be asking direct questions of the dealer, getting confirmation in writing and either buying new OR a dealer owned ex-demo at worst.

But then you pay more for that - you pays your money and makes your choice, as they say.

Cant really do no due diligence, ask no questions then complain two years later....