Hire Van Damage Help!!

Megan94

Hi,

I hired a van from Arnold Clarke last week to move house and I very stupidly go it stuck under a low bridge (in my very weak defense, there was zero signage on said bridge about height or anything at all) It fully accepted it was my fault, but I managed to get the van out myself. The damage consists of a 'tear' in the roof (around 6/7 inches). I returned the van and was very honest about what happened and gave a statement along with photos of the incident.
Today they contacted me to say the roof cannot be repaired so I need to pay for a new one, which is £10000!!!
I did pay for an excess waiver but that doesn't cover this type of damage, which I guess is fair. But my question is wont they have insurance on this van, and shouldn't I be asked to pay whatever the excess is? I feel this is an huge amount to pay.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

caprikid1

I think given the sum of money involved you need to get all the paperwork together and see a solicitor, or at least get everything in writing and post it up for advice. Even with good solid advice on the internet I don't think Arnold shark are going to back down because flower38 on an internet forum says they don't have a case !.


Do you have legal assistance on your contents cover ? Anything on your own insurance that could cover it or legal advice ?

LeafGreen

The way their website reads (https://www.arnoldclarkrental.com/insurance)
it gives the impression that it is just the excess waiver that does not cover damage caused by hitting a low bridge. This is repeated on the "additional services" page.

On that basis I'd expect you to be liable for the total excess amount - which I guess would be at least £1,000 (not sure if it's more for vans) but I'd be astonished if it was £10,000.

Personally I would speak to someone at AC to verify this. Maybe an extra zero has been added by mistake. Hopefully it will just be something like that. How did they contact you with this info? Is it in writing?

custardy

grahamgoo wrote: »

The way their website reads (https://www.arnoldclarkrental.com/insurance)
it gives the impression that it is just the excess waiver that does not cover damage caused by hitting a low bridge. This is repeated on the "additional services" page.

On that basis I'd expect you to be liable for the total excess amount - which I guess would be at least £1,000 (not sure if it's more for vans) but I'd be astonished if it was £10,000.

Personally I would speak to someone at AC to verify this. Maybe an extra zero has been added by mistake. Hopefully it will just be something like that. How did they contact you with this info? Is it in writing?

States below that hirer is liable for the full repair costs.


image upload

couriervanman

Megan94 wrote: »

Hi,

I hired a van from Arnold Clarke last week to move house and I very stupidly go it stuck under a low bridge (in my very weak defense, there was zero signage on said bridge about height or anything at all) It fully accepted it was my fault, but I managed to get the van out myself. The damage consists of a 'tear' in the roof (around 6/7 inches). I returned the van and was very honest about what happened and gave a statement along with photos of the incident.
Today they contacted me to say the roof cannot be repaired so I need to pay for a new one, which is £10000!!!
I did pay for an excess waiver but that doesn't cover this type of damage, which I guess is fair. But my question is wont they have insurance on this van, and shouldn't I be asked to pay whatever the excess is? I feel this is an huge amount to pay.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!

I find it hard to believe the bridge had no warning signs on or before the bridge especially as the bridge must have been low as to cause damage to a van,photo or location of bridge needed

photome

Where was the bridge that has no warning signs.

Have you reported the bridge strike to the relevant authority.

It does seem you may be liable for the full cost but I would make sure all the paperwork and quotes are in order and get some professional advice

Aylesbury_Duck

photome wrote: »

Where was the bridge that has no warning signs.

Have you reported the bridge strike to the relevant authority.

It does seem you may be liable for the full cost but I would make sure all the paperwork and quotes are in order and get some professional advice

I agree with this. OP, you need to report this to the relevant authority if you haven't already. There's a chance you've damaged their property and in the worst case, made it unsafe. Better for you to report it before a witness does.

I'm afraid I agree that you're liable for the full amount but since the sum is so large, it would be worth investing in some professional advice.

Megan94

Thanks all.

I was aware that the excess waiver does not cover the damage, what I find unbelievable is that I have to pay the full amount.

As for the 'bridge' it is actually an open to a car park with flats above.. I hope that makes sense. It is actually the building I live in and I called out my landlord immediately. Although hard to believe there is absolutely no signage anywhere ... even more surprising they told me this has happened before. There is only a small amount of damage to the cladding of the building and it is not unsafe. There is also a 'relatively' small amount of damage to the van. There is a tear around 6/7 inches on the roof and no damage to doors/windows etc. Arnold clarke themselves have confirmed there isn't any 'structural' damage to van, apparently they just cant repair it.

Thanks for all the responses, I have yet to receive anything in writing, this was all over the phone today, but I will seek professional advice once I have everything in writing.

Aylesbury_Duck

It's your own building?! In those circumstances I'm not sure that signage is mandatory and if there was signage, you probably have to be honest with yourself and agree that it wouldn't have prevented the accident. If you live there you are well aware of the restricted height, it doesn't need signage.

The professional advice will probably include the fact that AC have to mitigate their losses, so the £10k might be an unreasonable guess at this stage.

Megan94

I am definitely not denying it was my fault, I have just moved so it wasn't the impression I wanted to send to my new landlord!! My shock is more at what Arnold Clarke are going to charge me, although as you say they might try to include money lost while the van cannot be hired out.

EdGasketTheSecond

They should have had insurance for everything except whatever excess you agreed to; I can't believe they can leave the hirer on the hook for so much. Tell them you'll pay the excess and not a penny more and see what they do.