Another car rental nightmare

eskbanker

moneytroll said:

Is there a point at which TCs themselves can be disputed as ridiculous or unreasonable? If the company states "the rental company can refuse you the car for any reason, including if the sky is cloudy that day"; just because you didn't read it, you should just take the hit?

In the UK there is consumer legislation outlawing unfair contract terms, but obviously equivalent laws may not exist in other jurisdictions....

moneytroll

DullGreyGuy said:

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

Carflexi are just a broker, they don't set the hire terms, who was the Hire company?  Ultimately the hire firm can make any requirements they like. Have heard of this embossed credit card one before.  Another one is companies in Spain saying you must have an IDP.  Not legally required for UK Licence holders in Spain, but the hire company is free to make it a requirement.

It's often not that they are saying you can have the car for 3 or 4 times more - it's that without meeting the requirements they can't let you have it with the basic insurance/deposit - but they'll let you have it if you take the full Zero Excess insurance package and that's what the extra cost is.

moneytroll said:

Again it’s a small amount but it makes my blood boil that these rental companies keep coming up with new loopholes to charge customers! (In fact their website or the voucher itself or the final car rental company doesn’t say anywhere that the CC needs to have numbers that stick out. It’s buried somewhere deep in the intermediary’s T&Cs which I expect nobody would read).

I do.  Car rental is definitely one of the things i read the T&Cs especially for driver requirements.

And unfortunately you will have agreed that you'd read the T&Cs when you booked the hire.  Both the rental T&Cs and the cancellation terms with Carflexi.

Can you not avoid paying excess insurance if you show that you have your own excess insurance?

Also can I claim back the £15 fee I paid from Amex if the car company didn’t let me use the service? (It’s non refundable)

Difference between theirs and your own XS insurance is that with the former they get paid directly by the insurer (if its actually insurance, normally its a waiver not insurance) whereas with your own you have to pay it first and then reclaim it so in principle they are still exposed to your card bouncing the payment request. 

No idea how a card embossing in anyway changes the risk they are taking, but there is at least one firm in Spain and Romania that has also been playing the same trick based on threads on here. 

Ultimately read the terms properly before buying is the safest approach. 

moneytroll said:
I paid them a fee of £15 for the booking online, luckily nothing else (but had to make other, more expensive arrangements at the airport and am now without a car for two weeks). They won’t refund it (because of T&Cs); can I get it back from Amex? (Which is the card I used). 

You have no grounds for a refund based on your not reading the terms properly. That said AmEx has personally refunded me on two occasions for very low transaction values saying it wasnt worth their time/effort doing a chargeback. 

The TCs seem unreasonable because if you google, there are a number of threads with people falling for this and end up paying 4 times for an ad hoc arrangement instead, because they are desperate and there is no incentive for this practice to stop. 

I am not sure I'd be happy if Amex refunded me out of their pocket because the whole point of complaining is that so that it dis-incentivises dodgy practices and praying on the desperate/finding loopholes. I don't care about the £15. I care about time wasted and people ending up having to pay 4 times which is what we were offered as an alternative. (Took taxi instead but now left without a car which is not too big a deal in our particular situation).

Then again the problem might be the consumers who always go for the cheapest options (90% of the time) as this is the way these comparison websites are set up and they have to find tricks to keep the prices low. 

If I knew there are these kinds of issues possible, I would not use comparison websites and just stick with trusted brands. In the past, the only issues I had were scratches that I didn't do and had to pay for (if I forgot to take accurate pictures and do a full car examination). The car company would keep the deposit, not fix the car and do it to the next customer. But I thought that kind of thing could happen with any car company so I just started using comparison websites instead (and buy extra excess insurance separately).

bagand96

It's a case of buyer beware. And read the T&Cs of what you're buying. You are agreeing that you've read and understood them after all.

Comparison sites aren't bad by design. They're very useful and a great place to start a search. With the caveat above that read and understand what you're agreeing to. Especially the Driver Requirements section of car hire agreements. 

The comparison sites/brokers do not set rental terms. That's the hire firms. They may set different terms for hires booked through comparison sites or brokers than direct, but that's up to them. 

saajan_12

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

moneytroll said:

Can you not avoid paying excess insurance if you show that you have your own excess insurance?

Normally it doesn't matter. They'll try and sell you their own but you just need to be firm and decline it as @zagfles says.

However the problem you have in this situation is that they you didn't comply with the terms of the rental, so they're within their rights to say you can't have the car. If they then offer to let you have the car by taking their insurance, that's up to them - they'll say their covering their risk that way.

moneytroll said:

Also can I claim back the £15 fee I paid from Amex if the car company didn’t let me use the service? (It’s non refundable)

It should fail. You didn't comply with the terms of the rental. Unless Amex just take the hit as it's a small amount - and all their other customers are paying it for you.

I understand you feel the T&Cs were unreasonable, but in this situation you agreed to the T&Cs and then didn't comply. Neither Carflexi or the unnamed rental firm are in the wrong. 

Is there a point at which TCs themselves can be disputed as ridiculous or unreasonable? If the company states "the rental company can refuse you the car for any reason, including if the sky is cloudy that day"; just because you couldnt imagine they could put in something that stupid, you should just take the hit?

Thats different as the terms are then vague and not specific, ie you can't objectively determine what the allowed reasons are. Embossed card is at least specific, so can form part of a binding contract (even though it feels super arbitrary these days). 
Vague terms can be arguably excluded from a contract, but that's the case with OP. IMO there should be regulation on terms buried in T&Cs not allowed to substantially change the outcome of a contract compared to the advertised terms. Eg if it was advertised as £10 and the T&Cs said actually on any day ending in "y" its 2x the price except on leap years. 

moneytroll

eskbanker said:

moneytroll said:

Is there a point at which TCs themselves can be disputed as ridiculous or unreasonable? If the company states "the rental company can refuse you the car for any reason, including if the sky is cloudy that day"; just because you didn't read it, you should just take the hit?

In the UK there is consumer legislation outlawing unfair contract terms, but obviously equivalent laws may not exist in other jurisdictions....

Who determines if a contract term is unfair? And what is it called?

moneytroll

saajan_12 said:

moneytroll said:

bagand96 said:

moneytroll said:

Can you not avoid paying excess insurance if you show that you have your own excess insurance?

Normally it doesn't matter. They'll try and sell you their own but you just need to be firm and decline it as @zagfles says.

However the problem you have in this situation is that they you didn't comply with the terms of the rental, so they're within their rights to say you can't have the car. If they then offer to let you have the car by taking their insurance, that's up to them - they'll say their covering their risk that way.

moneytroll said:

Also can I claim back the £15 fee I paid from Amex if the car company didn’t let me use the service? (It’s non refundable)

It should fail. You didn't comply with the terms of the rental. Unless Amex just take the hit as it's a small amount - and all their other customers are paying it for you.

I understand you feel the T&Cs were unreasonable, but in this situation you agreed to the T&Cs and then didn't comply. Neither Carflexi or the unnamed rental firm are in the wrong. 

Is there a point at which TCs themselves can be disputed as ridiculous or unreasonable? If the company states "the rental company can refuse you the car for any reason, including if the sky is cloudy that day"; just because you couldnt imagine they could put in something that stupid, you should just take the hit?

Thats different as the terms are then vague and not specific, ie you can't objectively determine what the allowed reasons are. Embossed card is at least specific, so can form part of a binding contract (even though it feels super arbitrary these days). 
Vague terms can be arguably excluded from a contract, but that's the case with OP. IMO there should be regulation on terms buried in T&Cs not allowed to substantially change the outcome of a contract compared to the advertised terms. Eg if it was advertised as £10 and the T&Cs said actually on any day ending in "y" its 2x the price except on leap years. 

The embossed card stipulation should be on the voucher itself in my opinion as it’s a pretty specific and abnormal requirement.
Also things like extra charges (I used to get charged extra if it was an airport pick up charge which was also buried in TCs and stupid, because it was always going to be an airport and it should have been reflected in the total price instead, not a hidden charge)

eskbanker

moneytroll said:

eskbanker said:

moneytroll said:

Is there a point at which TCs themselves can be disputed as ridiculous or unreasonable? If the company states "the rental company can refuse you the car for any reason, including if the sky is cloudy that day"; just because you didn't read it, you should just take the hit?

In the UK there is consumer legislation outlawing unfair contract terms, but obviously equivalent laws may not exist in other jurisdictions....

Who determines if a contract term is unfair?

Ultimately a court makes the decision.

moneytroll said:
And what is it called?

It used to be a standalone act but is now covered within part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2

For some exciting bedtime reading, you could have a look through the government's guidance on interpretation:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f8b58ed915d74e33f716e/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

HedgehogRulez

I’m currently suffering from this with my family holiday in Italy (Naples airport). Used a price comparison site as a broker to secure a car to a local car rental company. Separate excess hire insurance procured in advance of course for a reasonable £25 or so….

Arrived with family with my voucher and three credit card options:
 - Amex - knew before hand that this wouldn’t be an option, fine.
 - Chase Mastercard, no numbers on physical card at all, somewhat surprised as didn’t know about the “embossed” card thing
 - Aqua Mastercard (NewDay), fully embossed physical card BUT the stinger here is that they wouldn’t accept as it wasn’t a “proper” credit card linked to a physical bank?!?

so apparently unable to leave the excess deposit on any card!

What is one supposed to do when they have you trapped with no option but to buy their £500 odd insurance, which of course they are happy to put on either of the two Mastercards….which are apparently now fine to use?! Outrageous…

HedgehogRulez

And yes, the voucher does say a visa/mastercard is required for the excess deposit, which is fine and understood, but no reference to an embossed card linked to a physical bank….whatever that is? Internet banks aren’t allowed! What year is this?

zagfles

They are lying. They are just looking for excuses to force you to buy their rip-off excess insurance. Again, this is the problem with using comparison sites/brokers to get the "cheapest" deal....