Damage charges to rental vehicle

martyn0284

Hey all

I've been renting a van from a rental company for the last 5 years (same van for the last 4 years), and they are renewing their fleet in the next couple of weeks. I also have another van through them but am probably handing that back.

They are now upping the deposit 400% to £2000 as well as upping the rental price by £200 4 weekly, and taking things like worn tyres and brakes out of the price and making us pay for them from now on. Anyway, there's damage to one van to the bottom sill along one side and I am been quoted £1200 for damage costs which is fair enough I guess. But he has also requested pictures of the drivers seat, of which we have supplied to show no damage, but now they are saying depending on the condition of the foam, depends whether we will get charged for that also?

Are they been reasonable over the seat as they don't seem to be taking wear and tear into consideration, even there is no damage atall as it has had a seat cover on for the entire time. Also, would I be unreasonable to say that I will pay the sill damage charges upon receipt of the work been carried out as opposed to upfront? I think they will just be sending them to auction anyway and suspect the damage won't even be fixed.

Bear in mind, that whilst I will probably hand one back, I will be taking on one of the new vans so it's not as if I will just be walking away. I have never missed any payments, made a nuisance of myself with them or anything bad over the last 5 years and they know I'm an honest person (not that any of that matters, but thought I'd add it anyway)

Thanks in advance

Jenni_D

Is the hire company a BVRLA member? They have fair wear and tear guidelines that their members must abide by.

WellKnownSid

martyn0284 said:

Also, would I be unreasonable to say that I will pay the sill damage charges upon receipt of the work been carried out as opposed to upfront? I think they will just be sending them to auction anyway and suspect the damage won't even be fixed.

Why do they need to get it fixed?

Let's say the vehicle is off road for two weeks getting fixed - are you offering to compensate the rental company for the lost revenue during that period?

Goudy

Jenni_D said:

Is the hire company a BVRLA member? They have fair wear and tear guidelines that their members must abide by.

It's not quite as simple as that.

If they do sign up to BVRLA, yes they do have guidelines on fair wear and tear but they may not necessarily abide with them. Either by design or mistake.

If you feel they aren't considering these guidelines then the BVRLA have a resolution process that they have to abide by.

The first step means paying for an independent engineers report on the vehicle and this report is usually final and binding.
If the engineer finds in your favour, the BVRLA member has to cover the (reasonable) costs of the inspection/report.

If not you obviously pay for the report and the damages contested.

The BVRLA also offer a further resolution service for the rare occasions the above fails.
I've never known anyone to go this far, but I hear you'd need to prove they broke BVRLA's code of conduct somehow and without the engineers report not on your side, that could be difficult.

martyn0284

WellKnownSid said:

martyn0284 said:

Also, would I be unreasonable to say that I will pay the sill damage charges upon receipt of the work been carried out as opposed to upfront? I think they will just be sending them to auction anyway and suspect the damage won't even be fixed.

Why do they need to get it fixed?

Let's say the vehicle is off road for two weeks getting fixed - are you offering to compensate the rental company for the lost revenue during that period?

They aren't fixing it, they are sending it straight to auction, they told me this morning.

If I was paying to get it fixed, then I would expect them to fix it otherwise what would I actually be paying for? They just rent anything that's knackered out to the long term renters so it's not as if they would lose revenue on it

WellKnownSid

martyn0284 said:

WellKnownSid said:

martyn0284 said:

Also, would I be unreasonable to say that I will pay the sill damage charges upon receipt of the work been carried out as opposed to upfront? I think they will just be sending them to auction anyway and suspect the damage won't even be fixed.

Why do they need to get it fixed?

Let's say the vehicle is off road for two weeks getting fixed - are you offering to compensate the rental company for the lost revenue during that period?

They aren't fixing it, they are sending it straight to auction, they told me this morning.

If I was paying to get it fixed, then I would expect them to fix it otherwise what would I actually be paying for? They just rent anything that's knackered out to the long term renters so it's not as if they would lose revenue on it

You have caused them a material loss by de-valuing their vehicle when they come to sell.

Repairing the vehicle will increase those losses because it will be off the road not generating revenue.

If you want to avoid paying the charge, avoid damaging the vehicle.

Herzlos

martyn0284 said:

They aren't fixing it, they are sending it straight to auction, they told me this morning.

If I was paying to get it fixed, then I would expect them to fix it otherwise what would I actually be paying for? They just rent anything that's knackered out to the long term renters so it's not as if they would lose revenue on it

You're paying for the loss in value rather than the actual repair. They'll just fire it into the auction as-is but are expecting it'll fetch less money than if it was in good condition. Either way it's in the contract though you can argue that it's acceptable compared to the BVRLA guidelines.

2 random thoughts: Do you really want to take out a new lease with the same company you feel are being unreasonable? Are you able to buy the van from them at book price and thus the damage doesn't matter?

Goudy

martyn0284 said:

 They just rent anything that's knackered out to the long term renters so it's not as if they would lose revenue on it

Chances of them being BVRLA members sound slim.