Enterprise Van Hire Damages - advice please!

Manxman_in_exile

Are you sure that the "sign stating the clearance" that your partner was able to get under was not a sign warning him in advance of the clearance required for the metal beam ahead that he actually did hit?  (I'm having difficulty envisaging what happened and understanding why there would be notification of a clearance requirement of - say - 3m if there was a requirement ahead of 2.9m.  Do you see what I mean?)

And was there a sticker in the cab notifying the driver of the van's height clearance?  If there wasn't and you hadn't been told when you picked the van up, how would you know?

Does the damage exclusion specifically refer to "reckless" as opposed to "careless"?  In law "reckless" usually means deliberately running a risk that you were subjectively aware of.  Your partner might be able to try arguing that he had been careless rather than reckless.  (Or, on the other hand, if he urgently needed to use the facilities he may have recklessly decided to take a chance and that the van would get under the beam - or whatever the height restriction actually referred to)

chrisw

Don't forget, it's not just the cost of the actual damage which has to be taken into account, but also the loss of hire income whilst it's off the road being repaired.

Sandtree

Maklr3 said:

Having sought impartial legal advice this evening, we believe we have a clearer picture of the situation and have been advised to exhaust all lines of dispute over the full cost and contact the ombudsman  

Interested to know which ombudsman your legal advisor suggested

Herzlos

Maklr3 said:

I’m not disputing there wasn’t however Enterprise are taking the position their insurance won’t cover us because he was driving ‘recklessly’ that being said the car park sign was 1. Badly lit, and 2. The van did fit under the clearance - my issue is that when we were sold additional cover we were told that this covered us against any and all damages and this has turned out not to be true,

You may be able to pass some of the costs onto the car park if you can prove they were negligent with the signage.

Most barriers have some text on them indicating that they aren't a guide; fitting under it doesn't mean you won't hit anything else if you are above the height limit. It's a bit cheeky, but you need to factor in clearance at angles, etc, which is a lot harder to do (a tall van with a long rear overhang will have less clearance reversing up a slope than one with a shorter overhang) so the onus is very much on the driver to proceed with caution.

Even the excess free policy will have exclusions about recklessness. They'll cover any accidental damage with no cost to you, but won't cover anything deliberate or negligent.

pinkshoes

I've only ever rented a couple of vans but the van height is always written somewhere inside the cab. ALWAYS. It would be negligent of the hire company not to make the user aware of the vehicle height.

Is there a photo of the area you could post? I think this could potentially be the supermarket at fault too, or at least to prove you were not careless, as if they have a maximum height barrier for vehicles then have installed signage or posts below this height that you need to drive under that this seems ridiculous and you could argue here that you were NOT negligent/careless as you used the "maximum height" barrier to make sure the van could fit.

sheramber

The OP says they weren't told the height clearance of the van so  they would not have known whether the van went inder the sign or not.

Presumably, her husband just drove up to try it.

Herzlos

pinkshoes said:

I've only ever rented a couple of vans but the van height is always written somewhere inside the cab. ALWAYS. It would be negligent of the hire company not to make the user aware of the vehicle height.

I rented a van a few weeks ago and I don't recall there being any stickers inside the cab, so it doesn't seem to be universal.

Grey_Critic

Never mind it is a hire vehicle - all he is doing is looking to blame someone else for his (expensive) mistake. I have known several similar cases - one for following the sat nav and the driver has always claimed not his/her fault.

Look at it this way if the Police had been involved the fact there was not a notice in the van would not be accepted as an excuse. Driving without due care or attention would be uppermost in their minds I think.

ontheroad1970

Grey_Critic said:

Never mind it is a hire vehicle - all he is doing is looking to blame someone else for his (expensive) mistake. I have known several similar cases - one for following the sat nav and the driver has always claimed not his/her fault.

Look at it this way if the Police had been involved the fact there was not a notice in the van would not be accepted as an excuse. Driving without due care or attention would be uppermost in their minds I think.

Why would the police be involved?  no one is saying anything about criminal damage which would have a much higher burden of proof than a civil case.  I wouldn't see it as a case of careless driving.  

Money_Grabber13579

ontheroad1970 said:

Grey_Critic said:

Never mind it is a hire vehicle - all he is doing is looking to blame someone else for his (expensive) mistake. I have known several similar cases - one for following the sat nav and the driver has always claimed not his/her fault.

Look at it this way if the Police had been involved the fact there was not a notice in the van would not be accepted as an excuse. Driving without due care or attention would be uppermost in their minds I think.

Why would the police be involved?  no one is saying anything about criminal damage which would have a much higher burden of proof than a civil case.  I wouldn't see it as a case of careless driving.  

Lorry drivers who hit bridges have been prosecuted for careless driving, is this that much different, apart from being on private land?

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/lorry-driver-who-hit-city-bridge-admits-careless-driving-214965/

After all, Grey_Critic did say IF the police were involved and in slightly different circumstances, it would seem that they could have been.