Damages Deposit

tightauldgit

Sparkle123 said:

I didn't cause the damage but had said previously I have no proof that I didn't cause it, I did tell the company I didn't cause nthe damage but they continued with the payment anyway. Although a previous poster has pointed out that it's not down to me to prove anything, it's down to them. 

I think I'm annoyed about the card details issue as the company were very specific about the process and how and when money could be deducted. If they can't be upfront about how they handle personal information how can I trust any of the other things they say. I appreciate nthat it may seem trivial but it doesn't seem trivial to me when I originally posted. I was concerned that someone could process a debit card payment without my authorisation.

As mentioned I will educate myself better in future but I must admit I think it would still sting a bit if the same thing happened again. 

The 'proof' that you didn't cause it is that you and them carried out an inspection on the vehicle when you returned it and the damage was not recorded at that time. It's entirely possible the damage has occurred after you returned it, it's also possible it was there at the time of the inspection and missed but that's their responsibility. 

I had this on a house rental many years ago - the agent checked me out and reported no damage then days later the landlord says 'X Y and Z are damaged and you need to pay for it'.  I just stood my ground and told him that since there was no damage reported on the check out I wasn't paying for it. If they'd charged my card for the damage I would be asking for a refund and pursuing it through whatever channels were available.

£500 isn't chicken feed.

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

Sparkle123 said:

I didn't cause the damage but had said previously I have no proof that I didn't cause it, I did tell the company I didn't cause nthe damage but they continued with the payment anyway. Although a previous poster has pointed out that it's not down to me to prove anything, it's down to them. 

I think I'm annoyed about the card details issue as the company were very specific about the process and how and when money could be deducted. If they can't be upfront about how they handle personal information how can I trust any of the other things they say. I appreciate nthat it may seem trivial but it doesn't seem trivial to me when I originally posted. I was concerned that someone could process a debit card payment without my authorisation.

As mentioned I will educate myself better in future but I must admit I think it would still sting a bit if the same thing happened again. 

The 'proof' that you didn't cause it is that you and them carried out an inspection on the vehicle when you returned it and the damage was not recorded at that time. It's entirely possible the damage has occurred after you returned it, it's also possible it was there at the time of the inspection and missed but that's their responsibility...

... £500 isn't chicken feed.

Excellently put.  I don't understand why the OP is obsessing about whether the payment was authorised or not (it probably was) rather than challenging the underlying allegation.

pinkshoes

I don't get this.

They inspected the vehicle, all was fine and your deposit was returned.

Any subsequent damage was therefore caused when it was in THEIR care! 

I would just contact your bank they took the payment from and tell them that the deposit had already been returned after it was inspected and no damage found so get the bank to do a charge back.

Sparkle123

sheramber said:

Well they are charging me for replacement of an item and fitting of it so they should have a quote at least. 

 A few days passed and then they emailed to say they had a quote. I didn't respond a

So they told you they did have a quote but you did not respond. 

They emailed the quote late afternoon and I didn't read it until the next day, the payment was taken the next day. Unfortunately l, I'm not always in a position to read and reply to my emails as quickly as I'd like. 

Sparkle123

Manxman_in_exile said:

tightauldgit said:

Sparkle123 said:

I didn't cause the damage but had said previously I have no proof that I didn't cause it, I did tell the company I didn't cause nthe damage but they continued with the payment anyway. Although a previous poster has pointed out that it's not down to me to prove anything, it's down to them. 

I think I'm annoyed about the card details issue as the company were very specific about the process and how and when money could be deducted. If they can't be upfront about how they handle personal information how can I trust any of the other things they say. I appreciate nthat it may seem trivial but it doesn't seem trivial to me when I originally posted. I was concerned that someone could process a debit card payment without my authorisation.

As mentioned I will educate myself better in future but I must admit I think it would still sting a bit if the same thing happened again. 

The 'proof' that you didn't cause it is that you and them carried out an inspection on the vehicle when you returned it and the damage was not recorded at that time. It's entirely possible the damage has occurred after you returned it, it's also possible it was there at the time of the inspection and missed but that's their responsibility...

... £500 isn't chicken feed.

Excellently put.  I don't understand why the OP is obsessing about whether the payment was authorised or not (it probably was) rather than challenging the underlying allegation.

I'm not obsessing, I was just trying to explain why it had annoyed me. I also didn't think I was being passive either. I thought I was doing the right thing in trying to get some further information on where I stand so that I could contact them armed with some information and present it in a clear and concise way.

It's clear that I come across as obsessing on here so I was actually trying to use the great advice I'd been given in order to form a proper response to the company. 

Thanks for all the help 

born_again

Sparkle123 said:

I didn't cause the damage but had said previously I have no proof that I didn't cause it, I did tell the company I didn't cause nthe damage but they continued with the payment anyway. Although a previous poster has pointed out that it's not down to me to prove anything, it's down to them. 

I think I'm annoyed about the card details issue as the company were very specific about the process and how and when money could be deducted. If they can't be upfront about how they handle personal information how can I trust any of the other things they say. I appreciate nthat it may seem trivial but it doesn't seem trivial to me when I originally posted. I was concerned that someone could process a debit card payment without my authorisation.

As mentioned I will educate myself better in future but I must admit I think it would still sting a bit if the same thing happened again. 

I take it that when you picked up the van, they ran you through the van condition & like car hire marked a sheet with any damage, just the same as when you returned the van?

If so & it was not picked up there. Then that is their proof.
Sad to say.

Ergates

Sparkle123 said:

born_again said:

Sparkle123 said:

The agreement was that any damages would be deducted from the deposit. This was also advised in the email received when they notified of the damage they'd "found". But that isn't the process they followed as they inspected the vehicle and then the deposit was back in my account. 

The validity of the damage is another matter entirely but for just now my concern was that is seems they have actually stored my bank details and then used them to process this additional payment.

As far as I'm concerned their process was to hold a deposit and refund when they were satisfied with vehicle return. From my point of view the fact thaty deposit was returned would suggest that they were satisfied.

Any further debit card payment should have been part of a separate transaction agreed between the two parties. I don't think a card payment, whether the damages were due or not, should have been taken without my authorisation. Over the phone I authorised a £950 payment for deposit. At no point did I agree to a separate card transaction of over £500.

It's very frustrating and I don't know whether I have the right be annoyed or not! 

Any hire agreement will have a clause that allows them to take payment for damage. So your card details are kept on file in the background. Same as a hotel has the right to take payments for damage when you have a rock & roll moment in a room after you have left & settled the bill.
Can be as simple as the pre auth they never took, is called on & the amount taken.

Certainly with car hire, you are allowed to request your own quote from another company.

I bet when they said "We do not keep your card details" what they meant is we do not write them down & keep them. Not that they hold them on a secure system as required as per T/C.

Yep, I was totally fine with the deposit being taken. 

What has annoyed me is that their T&C advise deposit will be returned once vehicle inspected in return. When the walk round was done and the deposit money returned to my account I assumed that was the process ended. I didn't not think, no see written down anywhere, that they could return the deposit and then take a debit card payment a week later using bank card details they said they didn't keep. 

They'll do an initial inspection with you to check for any large/obvious damage (e.g. if you reversed into a bollard), but a full inspection of a complicated vehicle with lots of working parts - like a motorhome - would take some time so you'd not want to have to wait around for that.   There are plenty of ways you could damage a motor home that wouldn't be immediately obvious, and you'd still be liable for such damage if you've caused it.

So their process seems to be - we'll release the initial deposit once we've done a cursory initial inspection but then charge later if further examination uncovers something not seen during the initial inspection.

This seems entirely reasonable to me.   You don't have to wait hours for a full inspection.  If there is no damage (at all) you get your deposit back straight away rather than having to wait a week.


That doesn't mean, however, that a) you can't challenge you caused the damage - especially if it *should* have been visible during the initial inspection   or b) challenge the cost of "fixing" the damage  (especially with a new for old replacement)

Ergates

pinkshoes said:

I don't get this.

They inspected the vehicle, all was fine and your deposit was returned.

Any subsequent damage was therefore caused when it was in THEIR care! 

I would just contact your bank they took the payment from and tell them that the deposit had already been returned after it was inspected and no damage found so get the bank to do a charge back.

That may (or may not) be the case here - but in principle you can't say that with something like a motorhome, unless you want to wait several hours whilst they inspect every little thing in there.  A motorhome is a *lot* more complex than a car.

tightauldgit

Ergates said:

pinkshoes said:

I don't get this.

They inspected the vehicle, all was fine and your deposit was returned.

Any subsequent damage was therefore caused when it was in THEIR care! 

I would just contact your bank they took the payment from and tell them that the deposit had already been returned after it was inspected and no damage found so get the bank to do a charge back.

That may (or may not) be the case here - but in principle you can't say that with something like a motorhome, unless you want to wait several hours whilst they inspect every little thing in there.  A motorhome is a *lot* more complex than a car.

Legally I'm pretty sure you are responsible for any damage that you have caused regardless of whether it is picked up before during or after the hand-back process. However, it's up to the rental company to be able to demonstrate that you caused the damage. 

If it was something non-obvious then it's 'reasonable' that they didn't pick it up on the inspection and it came to light later, but in this case it seems to be cosmetic damage to a visible part of the motorhome which SHOULD have been picked up on the inspection. 

It's also something that COULD have happened afterwards and the rental company are trying it on. 

That being the case I think the poster here has a reasonable basis for disputing the charge. Of course it may have to go to court if the rental company insist that they aren't paying the money back that they've already taken. 

Manxman_in_exile

I'd certainly dispute a charge of £500 for damage I don't think I caused.

If the hire company can show that the damage wasn't present when the hire commenced, but was when the OP retruned the vehicle, then fair enough.  But if not...