ENTERPRISE CAR RENTAL - UNAUTHORISED DEBIT PAYMENT - HELP

Homer_home

ontheroad1970 said:

Homer_home said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Some rental contracts allow for them to settle the fines/charges. Others pass them on to the renter (with an admin fee). 

That's why the op needs to read the t & c very carefully 

You need to read the OP more carefully.  Enterprise has taken a payment without proper authority. 

I know that!

I was referring to the t & c about how enterprise deal with "traffic violations" so he can advise his son on how to deal with this 

It would be better next time if you didn't mis-quote me and had read my reply more carefully 

ontheroad1970

Homer_home said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Homer_home said:

Dr_Crypto said:

Some rental contracts allow for them to settle the fines/charges. Others pass them on to the renter (with an admin fee). 

That's why the op needs to read the t & c very carefully 

You need to read the OP more carefully.  Enterprise has taken a payment without proper authority. 

I know that!

I was referring to the t & c about how enterprise deal with "traffic violations" so he can advise his son on how to deal with this 

It would be better next time if you didn't mis-quote me and had read my reply more carefully 

I didn't change a single word on your post when quoting it.  So no, I didn't misquote you, so it is quite disingenuous of you to suggest that I did.  

The point is that the OP isn't part of the contract.  His son is.  So why should he have to read the Ts and Cs.

AdrianC

ontheroad1970 said:

The point is that the OP isn't part of the contract.  His son is.  So why should he have to read the Ts and Cs.

If he's not part of the contract, he shouldn't have given his payment details - and they shouldn't have taken them or even asked for them.

If somebody is providing updated payment details for some of the renter's debts under the contract, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to be used for all.

ontheroad1970

AdrianC said:

ontheroad1970 said:

The point is that the OP isn't part of the contract.  His son is.  So why should he have to read the Ts and Cs.

If he's not part of the contract, he shouldn't have given his payment details - and they shouldn't have taken them or even asked for them.

If somebody is providing updated payment details for some of the renter's debts under the contract, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to be used for all.

That's not what the OP thought he was doing and Enterprise are wrong in taking  further payments from the card without informing them they were adding his card to the contract.

Highland76

ontheroad1970 said:

AdrianC said:

ontheroad1970 said:

The point is that the OP isn't part of the contract.  His son is.  So why should he have to read the Ts and Cs.

If he's not part of the contract, he shouldn't have given his payment details - and they shouldn't have taken them or even asked for them.

If somebody is providing updated payment details for some of the renter's debts under the contract, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to be used for all.

That's not what the OP thought he was doing and Enterprise are wrong in taking  further payments from the card without informing them they were adding his card to the contract.

Then the OP shouldn’t have given his own card details in the first place. Were Enterprise expected to mind read the OP and take payment for fuel only?  No, it wasn’t unreasonable for them to take payment for the traffic offence as well  in the absence of clear instructions and the fact that the original payment card failed. Simplest way to resolve this is for OP’s son to pay him back because that traffic fine isn’t just going to disappear into thin air - assuming the sons  guilty of course. 

facade

It will be a parking penalty. These are the responsibility of the keeper (Enterprise) and so they just pay them and charge the hirer- it will be in the contract.

It just isn't worth Enterprise wasting time & money disputing them on the hirer's behalf and messing about when the hirer actually agreed that this is what will happen.

I agree with the posters who say that giving Enterprise an alternative credit card number to replace the hirer's  when the hirer's card failed is giving them authority to use it to settle all charges.

If you didn't want any comeback you should have settled the petrol bill in cash.

macman

If it was a parking ticket then the son will have known about it. If he's old enough to hire a car, he's old enough to sort out the consequences.

Jumblebumble

facade said:

It will be a parking penalty. These are the responsibility of the keeper (Enterprise) and so they just pay them and charge the hirer- it will be in the contract.

It just isn't worth Enterprise wasting time & money disputing them on the hirer's behalf and messing about when the hirer actually agreed that this is what will happen.

I agree with the posters who say that giving Enterprise an alternative credit card number to replace the hirer's  when the hirer's card failed is giving them authority to use it to settle all charges.

If you didn't want any comeback you should have settled the petrol bill in cash.

I disagree
Enterprise only have authority to take payment for a single event from "that" card
How has the OP given authority for any future transactions as he has no future contractual relationship with Enterprise and it is not his debt ?
The OP should simply tell his card issuer that the second transaction was unauthorised by him/her.
Your argument suggests that if the OP went to hire in future from the same branch  and handed over £500 in cash enterprise could say ah your son owes £100 so we are just going to take it which is clearly nonsense

facade

Jumblebumble said:

facade said:

It will be a parking penalty. These are the responsibility of the keeper (Enterprise) and so they just pay them and charge the hirer- it will be in the contract.

It just isn't worth Enterprise wasting time & money disputing them on the hirer's behalf and messing about when the hirer actually agreed that this is what will happen.

I agree with the posters who say that giving Enterprise an alternative credit card number to replace the hirer's  when the hirer's card failed is giving them authority to use it to settle all charges.

If you didn't want any comeback you should have settled the petrol bill in cash.

I disagree
Enterprise only have authority to take payment for a single event from "that" card
How has the OP given authority for any future transactions as he has no future contractual relationship with Enterprise and it is not his debt ?
The OP should simply tell his card issuer that the second transaction was unauthorised by him/her.
Your argument suggests that if the OP went to hire in future from the same branch  and handed over £500 in cash enterprise could say ah your son owes £100 so we are just going to take it which is clearly nonsense

It appears to me that what happened is the son's card was declined, and this card was supplied as an alternative, therefore any outstanding payments from this hire are going to come from it.

Any future hire that the son makes could come from it too, same as when you leave your card number on file with Amazon etc.

I would expect that when a future hire was taken out, that there would be an option to use the card number on file, or supply a new one, that is likely a legal requirement, or Amazon etc wouldn't bother to ask

I have family, and the one thing you NEVER EVER EVER do is give your credit card number to pay one of their bills. You either give them the cash, or if they want to buy something off Amazon, you buy it on your own account.

Jumblebumble

facade said:

Jumblebumble said:

facade said:

It will be a parking penalty. These are the responsibility of the keeper (Enterprise) and so they just pay them and charge the hirer- it will be in the contract.

It just isn't worth Enterprise wasting time & money disputing them on the hirer's behalf and messing about when the hirer actually agreed that this is what will happen.

I agree with the posters who say that giving Enterprise an alternative credit card number to replace the hirer's  when the hirer's card failed is giving them authority to use it to settle all charges.

If you didn't want any comeback you should have settled the petrol bill in cash.

I disagree
Enterprise only have authority to take payment for a single event from "that" card
How has the OP given authority for any future transactions as he has no future contractual relationship with Enterprise and it is not his debt ?
The OP should simply tell his card issuer that the second transaction was unauthorised by him/her.
Your argument suggests that if the OP went to hire in future from the same branch  and handed over £500 in cash enterprise could say ah your son owes £100 so we are just going to take it which is clearly nonsense

It appears to me that what happened is the son's card was declined, and this card was supplied as an alternative, therefore any outstanding payments from this hire are going to come from it.

Any future hire that the son makes could come from it too, same as when you leave your card number on file with Amazon etc.

I would expect that when a future hire was taken out, that there would be an option to use the card number on file, or supply a new one, that is likely a legal requirement, or Amazon etc wouldn't bother to ask

I have family, and the one thing you NEVER EVER EVER do is give your credit card number to pay one of their bills. You either give them the cash, or if they want to buy something off Amazon, you buy it on your own account.

We will have to agree to disagree
It appears to me that Enterprise asked the OP  for payment of some petrol and nothing else.
 No where did the OP agree to subsequent transactions and it is not of any concern to the OP if someone else agreed that his card could be charged and the FCA/ombudsman would take a dim view of any bank refusing the charge back
Amazon  risk chargebacks because they  cannot prove any subsequent  transaction was authorised any more than Enterprise can prove this.