Thanks hman, so are you in a similar situation to me?

Thanks again for the replies. That judgement was fascinating reading, in essence the court ruled they weren't entitled to the money in the first place, but once paid, it couldn't be claimed back under duress. It seems as though I would need to show that the company had no grounds to believe they were due the money from me. They did tell me that I wouldn't be given a bill, even if 100% liable, so why did they then believe it was owed to them from me? I must say this seems extremely complex, could a lay person get anywhere near arguing this, and is it so complicated that it might not even be assigned to the small claims. I appreciate your understanding of the situation I found my self in.

Thanks again for the replies. That judgement was fascinating reading, in essence the court ruled they weren't entitled to the money in the first place, but once paid, it couldn't be claimed back under duress. It seems as though I would need to show that the company had no grounds to believe they were due the money from me. They did tell me that I wouldn't be given a bill, even if 100% liable, so why did they then believe it was owed to them from me? I must say this seems extremely complex, could a lay person get anywhere near arguing this, and is it so complicated that it might not even be assigned to the small claims. I appreciate your understanding of the situation I found my self in.

Thanks again for the replies. Yes misrepresentation of the policy, if you read it it is in fact barely worth the paper it's written on and most certainly does not mean "under no circumstance will you be personally liable for any of the hire costs" it's a complete lie. As was being told that I need not worry, sign the second lot of paperwork, we won't come to you with a bill as we've taken you on at our own risk. I guess all that has changed is before hand whilst I was sure what I was told, I now know I can prove it (the recorded calls) and I also know that they never said anything different, or threw in any caveats. I couldn't take what would effectively have been a £15000 gamble before hand. I did rectify my first post to say that I didn't pay in full and final,I just asked for confirmation they wouldn't come to me for any more money. I don't want this to come out the wrong way, but you do both seem to know your stuff, are you legally trained? I only ask because both a barrister and solicitor told me that by paying under duress (and financial duress does exist, £20000+ would bankrupt me) then I could sue this company for the money back. I know the law and what seems fair to the common man aren't always the same thing, but to be backed into a corner by a multi million pound company who can afford to take chances in court doesn't really seem fair. Thanks again

Firstly, if you still have the hire car I would give it back ASAP. These companies can and will come to you for the charges if they can't get them back from elsewhere. You may be able to defend yourself against them but if you don't want the shock of a potentially huge bill, my girlfriend got one for over £15000, just get the car off your hands. What you must show is that you needed the car, that you have kept your losses down as much as is reasonable. Insurance companies don't want to pay these bills, they will do whatever they can to get out of them

I should say it is my intention to sue for misrepresentation, the duress was only on the payment I made and so I don't believe I affirmed the contract as I said I didn't believe I owed the money

Thanks for the replies. Essentially it stems from a car credit hire following an accident where liability was disputed but it ended up being my fault. I really didn't know it was my fault, and I told them I wasn't sure what had happened. Anyway, initially I was told I had a protection policy which meant at no time throughout the process would I be personally liable for hire charges. I signed paper work. I had to sign more documents again about 2 months later, I rang them up, and was told (on a recorded conversation which I now have) that they were taking me on at their own risk and they wouldn't be coming to me for any money. I have a further 2 recorded conversations where they tell me the same thing. At the time of the bill, they told me it didn't matter what they had said, since it was my fault they had to present me with the bill. This is despite being told that even if it turned out to be 100% my fault, they knew the risk they were taking and they wouldn't come to me for money, they would just take the hire car off me once it was established it was my fault. As I said I managed to get them down from over £15000 but once they set a deadline to pay the reduced amount I couldn't get any evidence from them. I spoke to a barrister at the time, with the very limited info I had,please bare in mind I had loads of calls with this company and couldn't remember everything that was said, he said I had a good claim to defend it. He also said that if I paid them, stating I did not believe I owed the money and was only doing so out of duress, I could then seek to claim the money back in court. I was slightly wrong in my first post, I didn't in fact pay it in full and final, but they did dispense all liabilities of the debt from me. Thanks

I want to take a big company to the smells claims court to sue them for money I ended up paying under duress. To cut a long story short, I got a bill for over £15000 and threatened with court if I didn't pay it. I got this down to just over £4000 which they said they would accept in full and final settlement. Not being in possession of the evidence I needed I decided the only course of action was to pay,under duress which I notified them of, and then to get the evidence I needed from them, recorded phone conversations, and sue them for the money back. My question is whether they can put in a counter claim against me for the other £11000 or so they originally tried to get off me, or can they not do that since they accepted the £4250 in full and final? I cannot pay that amount, hence why I couldn't risk fighting them in court originally, £15000 would have put it in fast track where if I'd lost I would also have to pay costs, and they said they'd charge interest so I would have been looking at way over £20000. I feel robbed but I can't fight back if that £11000 could be claimed by them again. Any advice would be welcomed. Thanks

No I didn't put one of those in

Out of interest, has anybody had to sign more than one copy of the rental agreement, ie one at the start and another a month or so in?

I would never ever recommend it either. The statement that if you're honest then you won't be liable is a complete lie, at least in the average persons perception. I asked them if they thought I lied, they said no they don't think I lied, so therefore I was honest right?! I might have been wrong but I didn't lie, this is why they should be upfront and say if your version of events turns out to be slightly different to what actually happened,despite you giving an honest account of what you can remember then you will be liable. But no, twice I am told I won't be liable for charges without any warning that actually in the end I could be (or at least they say I am)

Having spoken to them, they told me that there are always exemptions or issues which can invalidate insurance, however they didn't tell me this at the time of telling me they took a policy out. I've been told that its my responsibility to read all the small print, I didn't get the policy, it's going to be sent to me now. Even still, surely when they use a phrase like "at no point" that implies there won't be any exemptions etc, and they must surely have to tell you that you must read the exemptions , I.e tell you that there are actually some??

Hi, Can anyone tell me exactly what information must be given to someone on the phone with regards to things that can invalidate the insurance. Basically I have a dispute with a claims management company who provided me with a hire car following a crash. I am told on the phone that a protection policy will be taken out which means that at no point will I be personally liable for any hire charges. That's it, no mention of paperwork being sent out to read, no list of things that would invalidate the insurance. They now want me to pay the hire charges because CCTV footage doesn't exactly match the info I gave them, although I gave them the information to the best of my knowledge. They now say that whenever you take out insurance there are things that could prevent you being covered, but there is zero, absolutely zero mention of this on the phone call. Do they not have to tell you that there are?

On the phone call the guy tells me I will be provided with a protection policy which means at no point will I be personally liable for any hire charges, he doesn't say that this is subject to anything. Surely they can't tell you that and then give you a bill, they must have to make you aware if there is a chance you will be presented with a bill??

You need to speak to them, again I'd give them credit for quick responses. I'd seen that the chief exec had suggested people contact him rather than post on sites like this. Give him his dues he does respond, and pretty quickly and they do seem to be willing to negotiate, it's just hard to know if you are liable for costs because of the insurance they take out on your behalf, and they tell you if you are truthful you'll be ok. It is a very stressful experience though, the whole thing!