Car rental nightmare

moneytroll

I booked car rental via one of those money comparison websites (maybe it was Kayak?) and I paid the amount in full to Wisecars which then issued a voucher with the Dollar car rental company.

When I got to the destination, the agent at Dollar  informed me that they had been having issues with Wisecars and most of the bookings through them had been cancelled but after checking, she said that my booking was fine. So I got the car, left my card details with them and went on my trip.

4 months later, I noticed there was an unauthorised charge on my credit card for the same amount again. After calling the credit card company, I was told it was from Dollar and I reported this charge as unauthorised and it was refunded to me via cc company.

I then started receiving invoices from Dollar for that trip and after contacting them (which was super difficult), it turned out that Wisecars never paid them the monies (that I paid to Wisecars to rent the car) so they decided to charge me directly instead. I said that they should take that up with Wisecars and not with me because my booking was through them. However Dollar are insisting that because I rented the car from them, they have to charge me.

I am very confused about all this. Does it mean anyone can pretend to be a 3rd party, take my money and then !!!!!! off with it without paying the car rental company? This seems ridiculous. Now they are sending a Canadian debt collection agency after me. (Shellco?)

I need to clarify what I can do and what my rights are as I am reading conflicting info on this. Has anyone been in this situation before? Getting hold of Wisecar is even more difficult but effectively I am being charged twice for the same thing and I find it wrong that I don’t seem to have any protection as a consumer.

Additional info: I live in Uk and rented the car in US and the debt collection agency (shellco) seems to be Canadian, in case that makes a difference. Can this be enforced internationally?

What steps can I take to resolve this? Dollar don’t seem to budge and are telling me to cooperate with the debt agency. Surely my contract was with Wisecars, not Dollar and Dollar should be going after Wisecars, not me? The fact that they retain my CC details and charge me 4 months later seems also odd. They should have told me when I picked up the car that I need to pay again and redo the contract, but as far as I remember, the person seemed adamant that my booking was ok at the time and I don’t think I signed anything new again.

HELP!!

PS: I can’t make a claim for the Wisecars payment because the 3 months had passed within which I can make a claim. I can’t get my head around why Dollar charged me 4 months after the fact.

Westin

Do you still have the Dollar Rent a Car agreement that you signed when collecting the car?

I suspect a clause within that agreement stating that they can charge your credit card against non-payment of any prepaid amount. 

What have Wisecars said about this?

bagand96

It is likely that the Dollar Rental Agreement enables them to charge you after the rental for any monies owed.  Dollar obviously think it's a valid debt if they have continued chasing and now instructed debt collectors.

You could settle the debt with Dollar (or the collection agency) and then pursue Wisecars.  You say you can't dispute the transaction with Wisecars via your card due to 3 months passing?  Was it a debit card payment and that refers to chargeback?  If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

Or failing that Wisecars have a UK address so you could start action via Small Claims Court..

The only issue with doing it this way round is you are accepting Dollar's position that Wisecars never paid them, have Dollar put this in writing?  That's why I agree with the above you really need at least a response from Wisecars to help decide.

A Letter Before Action may motivate them.

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75....

Edit: ignore, see below

bagand96

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

eskbanker

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

Oh yes, I see what you mean!

moneytroll

What happens if I ignore it? I mean can debt collectors enforce this internationally? (It's a Canadian company collecting on behalf of a US car company (Dollar/Hertz) and I live in UK.

I am puzzled why they don't go after Wisecars if they are the ones who didn't pay them. I guess it's easier to rattle the little guy?

moneytroll

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

But why should any of this concern me? I pay the agent, I get the car. The car company finds out months later that they forgot to get the payment from the agent and decide to make me liable. This makes no sense. They should surely instead either deal with the agent or the credit card company then? I have done my bit. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure everyone else does their bit also and always be on the hook from all sides? 

How do courts view this?
it’s a pretty trivial amount, only $90 or so (one day rental only). But I feel if I let it go and settle, they’ll just keep doing it.

Voyager2002

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

But why should any of this concern me? I pay the agent, I get the car. The car company finds out months later that they forgot to get the payment from the agent and decide to make me liable. This makes no sense. They should surely instead either deal with the agent or the credit card company then? I have done my bit. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure everyone else does their bit also and always be on the hook from all sides? 

How do courts view this?
it’s a pretty trivial amount, only $90 or so (one day rental only). But I feel if I let it go and settle, they’ll just keep doing it.

Because they have a contract with your name on it, along with evidence that they fulfilled their part of the contract. Going after you is, in legal terms, the simplest option available to them. 

bagand96

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

But why should any of this concern me? I pay the agent, I get the car. The car company finds out months later that they forgot to get the payment from the agent and decide to make me liable. This makes no sense. They should surely instead either deal with the agent or the credit card company then? I have done my bit. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure everyone else does their bit also and always be on the hook from all sides? 

How do courts view this?
it’s a pretty trivial amount, only $90 or so (one day rental only). But I feel if I let it go and settle, they’ll just keep doing it.

The Hire T&C's you signed at pickup likely have a clause that they reserve the right to charge for any debt accrued during the rental - which might include unpaid hire fees. You took the car, you agreed to the conditions.

You say the amount is one day only?  Was it just a one day hire? 

moneytroll

bagand96 said:

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

eskbanker said:

bagand96 said:

If it was a credit card you could Section 75 it, there's no 3 month limit on that.

In this case it's likely that the debtor-creditor-supplier chain would be deemed to be broken by virtue of booking via an agent, thus disqualifying any attempt to claim via s75.... 

I agree that the contract with Wisecars is as the agent, however in this situation you'd be raising the claim against them because they have failed in their capacity as agent?  It's not a claim against Wisecars because of an issue with the hire, it's a claim against Wisecars because they've failed to do what they should have done as the agent.

But why should any of this concern me? I pay the agent, I get the car. The car company finds out months later that they forgot to get the payment from the agent and decide to make me liable. This makes no sense. They should surely instead either deal with the agent or the credit card company then? I have done my bit. Why should it be my responsibility to make sure everyone else does their bit also and always be on the hook from all sides? 

How do courts view this?
it’s a pretty trivial amount, only $90 or so (one day rental only). But I feel if I let it go and settle, they’ll just keep doing it.

The Hire T&C's you signed at pickup likely have a clause that they reserve the right to charge for any debt accrued during the rental - which might include unpaid hire fees. You took the car, you agreed to the conditions.

You say the amount is one day only?  Was it just a one day hire? 

Two days actually. I returned it the next day. They must have accepted the voucher otherwise they wouldn’t have given me the car. The hen charged me 4 months later for some reason. I thought my agreement was with the third party, not the rental car company. And rental company’s agreement was with the third party. I guess it’s not like that.