Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Maursh

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks for your input Conniff and king12345. Sixt already have the repair note from Autoglass: it is since they have received it that they declared the a repair was not good enough. Prior to this they were offering me 50% off on the grounds that I must have lost the receipt after all this time (it was an email receipt, so no I hadn't)
  2. I think there is danger here of getting into a technical discussion that has no bearing on the matter (and I know nothing about). At the time both Sixt (who I called about 6 times because I didn't know whether I could drive the vehicle) and Autoglass said they would need to see the chip to see whether it could be repaired, but this was to do with driver view (position) and type of chip. They were both aware that it was about 2cm and neither party said that it had to be smaller. Autoglass use £2 as a reference in their slideshow here: https://www.autoglass.co.uk/glass-repair-and-replacement/windscreen-repair/ In any event, the chip was successfully repaired, almost invisible and was guaranteed. So much so that had I not pointed it out to the guy doing the inspection (to produce the receipt for the repair), I doubt that it would have been spotted. I feel the main issue is that Sixt have twice now promised that I would not bear any additional cost (owing to their negligence in the first instance) and I am now being asked to cough up for a replacement that I don't believe was required after I returned the vehicle. I believe that the windscreen did require replacing in February, but this was down to other motorists and this particular model being very prone to chips and nothing to do with my time of hire. I also feel that my level of honesty and integrity handling this matter (ie reporting the chip, pointing out the repair on return and so on) has been my downfall. It is being used against me. This is evidenced by Sixt sending me a pending bill one day BEFORE I had returned the vehicle. I naturally assumed that this would be zero once all the details had worked their way though.
  3. I am not sure what you source is and you might care to provide it, but this is a red herring. Autoglass undertook and guaranteed the repair. They did not have to do this, they were fully aware of the situation and could have said that a new windscreen was needed if it actually was. The first time Sixt suggested that the repair was inadequate was 5 months after the incident.
  4. There is a whole thread here which discusses the mens era v strict referencing a landmark case. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59393 The bottom line is that the OP is being asked to pay a penalty fare. The railway company cannot seek prosecution if they do not pay. It is important to understand exactly what the letter says because if this is what they are trying to do then a well worded letter back should close the issue.
  5. A quick question for anyone who know about these things. Obviously my ideal outcome would be for this to just go away. But failing this, if there any way that I can "counter claim" against Autoglass? I have no gripe with them, I think that they turned up promptly and did a terrific job, but I am in no position to prove that a repair was appropriate whereas they are.
  6. What paper did you fill in? In order to secure a criminal prosecution for an dishonesty crime (ie theft), prosecution MUST show mens rea. Because you offered to pay on a voluntary basis immediately on arrival, I think they would struggle to show that you intended to evade the fare. In addition as a season ticket holder, assuming that you have a history of back to back season tickets, this would also support your claim that you had no intention of avoiding paying. Also note that the contents of their letter is important. If they have asked you to pay £80 then they cannot seek a criminal prosecution. Threat of criminal prosecution if you do not pay their £80 fine is making a demand with menaces and a criminal act under 1968 Theft Act Threat of civil action (ie county court for a civil debt) if you do not cough up, is not. The fine is purely a revenue generating exercise for the railway company. I don't know how you would avoid paying it if this is their policy under terms and conditions of travel.
  7. I wanted to update you all on this and also see if there is any advice going. Five months on, this is still ongoing. Since I last wrote I had communication from Sixt requesting the receipt for the repair, which I didn't see until they sent a follow up (owing to the amount of junk mail I have going to that particular email address). The follow up was interesting: I was offered 50% reduction on the basis that I probably no longer had the receipt. I wrote back asking for confirmation that the issue would be closed on production of receipt and received the following email: "I can confirm if you can provide a receipt to evidence that this glass was repaired the matter will be settled" I sent the receipt by reply. Six weeks roll by and last week I receive an email as follows: "We received your invoice for the chip repair carried out by Autoglass. Having reviewed the invoice along with the images of the windscreen from when the vehicle returned it is clear that a chip repair should not have been carried out in this instance. Unfortunately the chip repair was insufficient and the glass has still had to be replaced. " If you recall, the car was returned with "no new damage" on the slip. In addition, there is no way that Autoglass would have made a repair if this had been inappropriate: knowing nothing about windscreens I was directed by them and would consider Autoglass "expert" at windscreens over some bod at Sixt. Because the Autoglass work was guaranteed, they also took photos of their work although they are not in my possession. Any advice would be appreciated. I feel quite harassed by Sixt who have now reneged on a "no pay" agreement for the second time. Incidentally, contrary to the information I provided in my initial post, I was actually insured for the excess, but the amount of time which had elapsed between the incidence and the initial bill invalidated any claim (30 days)
  8. Still ongoing. Emailed them back to state that they had no claim. Need to send it through the post as well, recorded I think.
  9. Funny you should ask: Jeep Renegade. I had ordered a different class and they talked me into the upgrade. Turns out these type of cars with upright windscreens are notorious for getting chips (stones don't roll off like they would on a sedan).
  10. I apologise if this is going to be a bit lengthy: thank you so much for reading this and I appreciate any advice I can have on my situation. I hired a car for a week before Christmas from LHR. I live in the middle east. Within one hour of collection, a flying stone on the motorway had caused a middle to driver side windscreen chip, about the size of a two pound coin. Upon arriving at my destination, I called teh accident hotline they supplied to ask for the chip to be examined and repaired because i was not sure that the car was roadworthy. They took details and promised to send someone out. Three phone calls and 24 hours later I was still waiting and asked for a new vehicle. At this point I was told to speak to Sixt!!?! (I thought that I was but it turns out I was speaking to Auto Fleet Solutions!). One call to customer services and they agreed that I could organise the repair myself since I had been waiting so long and I confirmed that I would not have to pay again. Within a couple of hours the chip was repaired by Autoglass, with guarantee. When I returned the vehicle I explained all that had occurred, produced a receipt for the repair and it was returned as "no new damage" Roll on two months and I have an invoice for £750++ for a replacement windscreen. I should state that this is not an insured amount for reasons that are not interesting (I thought that it was, but I was mistaken). It seems to me that the invoice and some other correspondence received at the time of hire is all generated from the Auto Fleet Solutions bunch, who despite being by telephone call that I was given permission to make the repair directly don't seem to have registered this in any of their correspondence. Anyhow, I want to know what I should do. - just pay - no chance of fighting this. - I live overseas, can i just ignore it? The rental was a debit card transaction not credit card. - agree a settlement whereby I deduct lost retail time and money already paid for repair. - refuse to pay on the basis that I already paid for the repair, which was all that was required according to Autoglass. If I take this last route, which I am most inclined to, what should I say or not say. Are there any relevant consumer protections which I should be aware of? Many thanks in anticipation
  11. If Civil Enforcement are not relying on schedule 4 PoFA then they cannot pursue the registered keeper for the alleged debt - only the driver. Do not advise on the identity of the driver and submit a response as the register keeper under PoFA.
  12. The editor keeps on removing my paragraphs - sorry. Hope the above makes sense.
  • Create New...