Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Sixt Car Rental - arrogance beyond belief


grmc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2374 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

 

I'm posting this as a form of warning or advice, but in turn hope to glean some extra information based on CAGers' own experiences of either this abysmal company, or other car hire company 'bashing head against the wall' experiences. Apologies in advance for the essay.

 

Sixt, it seems, will live and die by their "Terms and Conditions" contract, which, not unlike many other global and arrogant companies, seek to impose very harsh terms on their consumer; terms which would, in a court of Law, fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), or the EU Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR).

 

Having looked around extensively online for a car rental deal for a holiday in Holland and Germany this summer, I finally decided on a deal from Sixt Rental. They offered the car class I wanted, and the best cashback rate through Quidco. So, doing what I always do after researching on my MacBook, I used a Windows session on the same machine and browsed to their site via Quidco, in order to guarantee that the tracking worked and my cashback registered. So far it has tracked but not been paid, but that is not the reason for my issue.

 

The car was booked in mid-June, for a rental starting in early-September, this giving Sixt nearly three months to 'prepare' my rental car for my arrival.

 

Now, when booking the car online at sixt.com, Sixt has a section on the form that specifically asks where you intend to drive it. So, I answered "Netherlands and Germany", because I was staying with friends near Utrecht, then moving on to Bremen, then Berlin, then Cologne, and back near Utrecht before coming home.

 

I arrived at the desk in Schiphol and (fully expecting to be shafted) I actually got the car I booked, plus some extra loading included (sat nav and bluetooth) so I was very pleased. The assistant did try the obligatory up-sell of a higher class of vehicle, but at £10 a day for 17 days hire, and having already spent around £650 hiring the car it was too much for my budget, so I politely declined. The only issue to arise was the fact I didn't have the card with me that I had used to pay for the car some three months prior, which the assistant was most annoyed with. The truth is, I had lost/misplaced it (not reported at that point in time), but she said she could apply the 'damage deposit' to it still, as an unattended sale.

 

Here's the important bit. Looking at Sixt.com's own web site detailing "driving in Germany" it states that many major cities in Germany now require an emissions sticker to be displayed, but they reassure their customer by providing the warranty: "... when you rent a car with Sixt this is no concern as our vehicles are kept up-to-date and carry the necessary sticker."

 

Off I went to collect the car, and walking through the parking lot I could see all kinds of cars in the Sixt area, with registrations from all over Europe. My car was there, bearing a Dutch registration, immaculate and nearly brand new. I was still pleased.

 

In all honesty, although I now recall reading about the emissions sticker whilst doing my car rental research, like all of the other information I'd absorbed from Sixt and other sites, the issue of the "Grüne Plakette" was completely forgotten as three months had passed, but in my mind the reassurance that everything would be ok with the car, because somewhere on their site, Sixt had assured the world in general that was the case.

 

I got to Berlin about five days into my holiday (13th September) and parked on the roadside in the hotel's allotted on-street parking bay, and within an hour I noticed the car had a piece of paper jammed under the wiper blade. The last thing I expected was any kind of fine, as I'd displayed the permit the hotel had given me.

 

My German friends who were with us in Berlin read the notice and were convinced there was some sort of error. The car had been fined €80 for not displaying the required emissions sticker. There was no option to pay it there and then, but reference to the fact the authorities would write to the registered keeper to demand payment.

 

My friends have the green sticker on their car, as every German gets one (they cost €6, are valid for the life of the car, and are issued on production of the car's registration documents, or can be obtained online for €15 - 14 day wait - again by submitting the car's registration documents). My friends couldn't believe that if the car wasn't somehow exempt, that Sixt would not have included the sticker at the time they bought it, considering the minimal cost, and that their cars would inevitably be used all over Europe. I was of course in agreement, and then the memory of the reassurance on their web site came back to me.

 

Immediately I wrote to Sixt's customer services telling them what had happened, and that there must have been some sort of administrative error as the car wasn't showing the sticker their web site stated it would, nor was it included in the car (after making a thorough search of the car, all it had been supplied with in terms of 'legal' stuff was a parking timer disk and a European Traffic Accident Report Form).

 

Sixt didn't respond for 4 days, by which time the car had been given a second fine, but in the ensuing conversation, the person replying appeared to be apologising that I should have been reminded of the need for the sticker by the person who gave me the keys, and then stated that because it was a Dutch car, it didn't need one. I reminded them that they asked me specifically where I was taking the car, and as I'd said Germany, I'd expect the car to be adequately licenced for the purpose. Their response was to send me the link to the TÜV site to apply for the sticker (fat lot of use that was as I didn't have the registration documents anyway) and said it's the 'driver's responsibility'. I felt particularly miffed that I'd been badly let down, given the claims on their web site. In a later exchange of emails, Sixt 'customer services' even tried to claim that the car's registration documents are supplied 'for this purpose' - an incredible lie!

 

Knowing how car hire firms love to whack fines and extra charges onto the card you used for the 'security deposit', plus their opportunistic additional fee for the pleasure, I formally reported my card lost. This worked, because Sixt were unable to whallop my card for their fees as I predicted they would try.

 

I received two emailed invoices from Sixt 16 days after the fines were issued to the car, one for each fine notification, which appear to have been processed on the same day. They have 'grassed me up' to the German authorities (who incidentally still haven't contacted me almost three weeks later) in which they say that they are charging me €24 for each of my "parking violations".

 

Naturally, I have disputed that I am at fault at all, on the basis that:

 

- I hired the car from their web site, where it claimed "... when you rent a car with Sixt this is no concern as our vehicles are kept up-to-date and carry the necessary sticker."

 

- I could not have obtained a sticker without the registration document, which to my knowledge is never supplied with a rental car. In any case, it was disproportional to expect me to lose half a day of my holiday to obtain a sticker valid for the life of the car, when I was only hiring it for 17 days.

 

- I informed them on their web site where they specifically asked me where I intended to drive the car and were told "Germany", and the assumption is that they would supply a car fit for that purpose (or tell me otherwise).

 

Of course, they are now throwing in the extra 'hidden text' that 'of course' the reference to the stickers is ONLY for cars hired for pickup in Berlin (what?!) and that I hired my car in Holland, so got a Dutch car (this is despite there clearly being German cars available for re-hire at the airport as there were dozens there, at or above the class I'd hired).

 

However, their golden 'get out' is that they are saying my claim against them is irrelevant because I've agreed to their Terms and Conditions, they think it's cast-iron that I have agreed to pay ALL fines, HOWEVER they are incurred. This presumably extends to the case that they may have not insured or taxed a vehicle correctly, or failed on some other construction and use matter. They think (or are arrogating) their T&Cs transcend common law.

 

I've pointed out to them that under contract law they are liable for any of my losses arising from a breach of theirs, irrespective of what their T&Cs say, and that I am firmly of the opinion that they are in breach, given the circumstances, but they arrogantly and swiftly always revert the onus to pay back on me, as "it's in the Terms and Conditions".

 

So, the matter is still 'pending', and I will update this thread with developments and any outcome. If I am sent demands by the German authorities, I will have little choice but to pay, although I WILL make a claim against Sixt to recover them, and similarly as I've told Sixt that the only way they will ever get a penny off me is if I am ordered to by a court, then I will be mounting a defence against any such claim.

 

If anyone has any experience of making a claim under the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) then I'd love to hear from you.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read my novel!

 

GRMC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little choice but to pay? have a read up. If theyre unfair, you should be able to contest them. just like you can over here. Do you have all this in writing or recorded calls? because if you head to court, you will need it

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend in Germany looking into the process, but it appears the legislation for these emissions is strict liability and it is the driver and not the registered keeper who is liable for the charge. My claim against Sixt would be one of a tort as my contract with them was to supply me a car fit for purpose to drive in Germany, which they didn’t.

 

It may transpire that the two fines can be consolidated into one, as the sightings relate to a single incident of parking on-street without the sticker visible, unless the fines are issued one per 24 hour period. However, it would still be my responsibility to pay them, then claim the cost back from Sixt.

 

I seriously doubt there will be any avenue to contest the fines - the car was sighted in a low emissions zone without the prescribed sticker visible - it doesn’t get much simpler than that.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by having all this in writing or recorded calls? Everything in connection with the hire is by email (including the countries needed to drive in) and the subsequent conversations are all by email. I have also taken copies of the web site where Sixt make warranties as to their cars coming with the stickers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...