Car hire problems

MyRealNameToo

paul_c123 said:

Put simply: you appear to have had what amounts to third party only insurance, if you'd damaged the rock (or a fence, or a streetlamp, or another vehicle), they or its guardian would have been able to claim on the insurance.

For simplicities sake, they have comp insurance just with more restrictions than the comp insurance a private customer would buy. 

In practice hire car companies can have very complex insurance arrangements; global players often buy a multi-national programme with an aggregate deductible in the millions as with so many vehicles a large number of losses are inevitable and no point insuring the inevitable but many legal jurisdictions require ground up third party cover. 

paul_c123

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

That being the case, the entire term could be struck out/ignored as "unreasonable", thus you'd be off the hook for the £3740.

Definitely worth pursuing.

MyRealNameToo

paul_c123 said:

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

You are mixing up terms of the actual insurance, which the OP will never have seen and their contract with the hire company. 

This is exactly how the major global hire car companies are insured. They have ground up insurance as required by law but have a second contract which states they will refund their insurers up to £Xm each year. In principle they could have a contract with their hirer stating that the hirer will reimburse them their losses in certain circumstances. This is legal and doesnt invalidate their insurance.

Even regular private car insurance has something similar, most will say drink driving invalidates the insurance but in the case of drink driving the insurer still settles the third party losses but then attempts to recover them from their insured. 

Car_54

paul_c123 said:

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

If the company did indeed not have TP insurance, then the hirer would also be guilty of an offence.

paul_c123

MyRealNameToo said:

paul_c123 said:

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

You are mixing up terms of the actual insurance, which the OP will never have seen and their contract with the hire company. 

This is exactly how the major global hire car companies are insured. They have ground up insurance as required by law but have a second contract which states they will refund their insurers up to £Xm each year. In principle they could have a contract with their hirer stating that the hirer will reimburse them their losses in certain circumstances. This is legal and doesnt invalidate their insurance.

Even regular private car insurance has something similar, most will say drink driving invalidates the insurance but in the case of drink driving the insurer still settles the third party losses but then attempts to recover them from their insured. 

The OP is mixing up the terms too, then. I am asking for clarification on what they have agreed to in the T&Cs

paul_c123

Car_54 said:

paul_c123 said:

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

If the company did indeed not have TP insurance, then the hirer would also be guilty of an offence.

That is true! And also (bad news), they would not be entitled to run the defence of RTA1960 201 (3).

It would be perfectly reasonable, as a driver, to ask for the certificate of insurance under which you are relying on cover - but its interesting if the hire firm do not sufficiently detail the level of cover in the T&Cs. 

MyRealNameToo

paul_c123 said:

Car_54 said:

paul_c123 said:

Manfrommanchester said:

  They point to a well hidden clause in their T&C's which says that if any accident is "my fault", then the insurance and recovery cover are null and void.( They certainly did not tell me of this rather large and pivotal situation before I hired the car.) Quite apart from that I was breaking the law by not having insurance I could have been responsible for an accident causing life changing injuries or death to another, and I would not be covered insurancewise. 

OP, please can you quote exactly the term from the terms and conditions. If indeed it does suggest at-fault accidents aren't covered by insurance, then it would not meet the minimum requirement for road risks in law - and the hire firm would be guilty of an offence, if a non-payout situation occurred and it were followed up.

If the company did indeed not have TP insurance, then the hirer would also be guilty of an offence.

That is true! And also (bad news), they would not be entitled to run the defence of RTA1960 201 (3).

RTA 1960 Section 201 was repealed by the RTA 1972, so think that boat sailed a long time ago!

The modern equivalent is RTA 1988 S143(3) but both are driving in connection with your employment. In this scenario it would be a "special reasons" defence and down to the judge to detemine 

Grey_Critic

paul_c123 said:

It would be perfectly reasonable, as a driver, to ask for the certificate of insurance under which you are relying on cover - but its interesting if the hire firm do not sufficiently detail the level of cover in the T&Cs. 

Our vehicles did have a photocopy of the insurance in the customer pack - Our insurance was based on turnover. We submitted a monthly report detailing Our Insurance sales which I believe at that time was 7% Customer Own Insurance - Only available to registered businesses 2% - 

We did not offer CDW preferring to include it in our charges and advertising *The Price You See is The Price You Pay*

People said it would not work but our two main competitors changed their policy when they saw it worked.

We did screen customers as much as possible - I would often refuse to hire if I was not happy but during my time I only had one claim and I made a lot of money.