Car Hire Charged for Repairs - not carried out

Robservationist

Grey_Critic said:

Not unusual for hire companies to defer repairs, often until they de-fleet. As many hire vehicles are themselves on contract hire then they will  be charged for the repairs at that time. The money collected from you and others is used to pay.

That is the reazson you are advised to carry out a thorough inspection before taking the hire car out and the same on return. All those dings and dents you list on collection are those repairs someone has paid for and not been done.

But if they charge several times to repair the SAME damaged item once they are making a profit, no? The inspection is not at issue here as I am not denying liability for REPAIRING the damage.

Robservationist

Herzlos said:

You did damage that'd cost £x to repair, so it's largely irrelevant if they chose to repair it now, repair it later or to take the hit on value when they sell it.

If someone else did subsequent damage, then that'll cost £y to repair. It's possible if they keep the car running unrepaired for long enough the money raised will be more than the cost of a new wheel, but that's not relevant either.

However, if the car hasn't been repaired, then there's no idle time since the idle time is the time the car spent unavailable to be hired which would only apply if it was in a workshop getting repaired.

You can't do much about administration costs though, because they'll need to do some admin work to deal with it. You could argue that's just part of the cost of doing business, and if they aren't doing a repair there's not really anything to administer.

Thanks for your interest.  Yes, I paid for repair of that specific damage - agreed now or in the future - not the "hit" they may take when they sell it.  The decision not to repair surely IS relevant, as is the decision to repair the SAME item only once.  Both are their choice, not mine.  

The wording of the contract makes my liability for repairing damage clear.  If it included wording to the effect "liable for any future loss of resale value if the repair is not fixed" and I signed that, then I could not and would not be able to argue.  

They're potentially making profit out of not repairing and that goes beyond any loss of resale value.

The fee is charged for processing the damage.  In this case the receiving agent simply keyed the information onto his hand-held device as part of the normal return process.  there was no additional processing.

Robservationist

a apologies @stubod - hole not "whole"

NSG666

I Disagree

Stubod

Robservationist said:

Stubod said:

..don't really see the problem. You damaged a car, they advised a cost to repair and you paid. Whether they actually choose to carry out the repair or not is irrelevant.

I have to disagree.  If they choose not to repair it and then suffer loss (of value), how am I responsible for that?  Put another way:  If I put a whole in your window, gave you the money to fix it, but you didn't bother.  Would I be liable if someone later reached through the whole and stole your wallet?

..I would agree with you..but then we would both be wrong....

Herzlos

Robservationist said:

Stubod said:

..don't really see the problem. You damaged a car, they advised a cost to repair and you paid. Whether they actually choose to carry out the repair or not is irrelevant.

I have to disagree.  If they choose not to repair it and then suffer loss (of value), how am I responsible for that?  Put another way:  If I put a whole in your window, gave you the money to fix it, but you didn't bother.  Would I be liable if someone later reached through the whole and stole your wallet?

It's not a good analogy because you're not liable for anything beyond the invoice.

If they choose not to repair it, the damage should be visible and marked for the next hirer to avoid having to pay for a repair.
If another hirer goes on to damage the same part a 2nd time, then it's irrelevant to whether they carried out your repair or not.

The only concern would be that they charged someone else for the damage you caused, which would be fraudulent but would also have nothing to do with you directly.

I think the only thing you can argue with is that there can't be a loss of income claim if the damage isn't being repaired since they aren't going to be reducing the rental price over damage they don't think is worth repairing. But how do you prove that they didn't repair it unless you spot the vehicle in the yard and photograph the evidence?

Aretnap

Robservationist said:

Grey_Critic said:

Not unusual for hire companies to defer repairs, often until they de-fleet. As many hire vehicles are themselves on contract hire then they will  be charged for the repairs at that time. The money collected from you and others is used to pay.

That is the reazson you are advised to carry out a thorough inspection before taking the hire car out and the same on return. All those dings and dents you list on collection are those repairs someone has paid for and not been done.

But if they charge several times to repair the SAME damaged item once they are making a profit, no? The inspection is not at issue here as I am not denying liability for REPAIRING the damage.

Was there actually damage to the wheel already?

If so then you can make a reasonable argument that adding a few scratches to an already scratched wheel doesn't impact it's value much - certainly not as much as scratching a pristine wheel.

But if there was no existing damage then that's an argument for the next person to scratch it to make. The damage that you've caused isn't diminished by the possibility that some hypothetical person in the future might or might not scratch the same wheel again, and the hire car company might or might not be able to be able to save money by getting the whole lot fixed in one go.

Grey_Critic

Might be worth asking the questiion here

https://www.bvrla.co.uk/consumer-advice.html

Stateofart

I rented a car and they tried to charge me for a lost radio aerial.  We noticed the lack of signal since we took possession so disputed it.  Turned out they'd charged the two renters before me as well.