We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Rental van damage, prep for legal action?
Comments
-
They were negligent, just as every fault accident is the result of negligence. Some hire companies have a carve out for reckless behaviour, which goes further than basic negligence, like driving a high top Luton 3.3m into a tunnel clearly marked as 2.2m max height.HHarry said:I think the ‘may’ just covers scenarios where you’ve been negligent. Smash into a well signed 3m bridge when you’re in a well labelled 4m van is probably not covered.0 -
Ok, so, pedantry aside, there was nothing wrong with the example I gave.DullGreyGuy said:
They were negligent, just as every fault accident is the result of negligence. Some hire companies have a carve out for reckless behaviour, which goes further than basic negligence, like driving a high top Luton 3.3m into a tunnel clearly marked as 2.2m max height.HHarry said:I think the ‘may’ just covers scenarios where you’ve been negligent. Smash into a well signed 3m bridge when you’re in a well labelled 4m van is probably not covered.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards