Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'car hire'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 5 results

  1. 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
  2. I believe that Sixt is trying to rip me off. The facts were as follows: - The rental was for one day for £30 - I did not take the overpriced insurance. - The car was scratched / scuffed / damaged all over. - On return, the car was extremely thoroughly checked (delaying me needing to go to work) - Some non-recorded damage was found. - It was minor scuffing to the wheel arch. - I was asked to sign to check in - I did without being told what I was signing. - Having been informed by email, I complain to the full extent. - Several weeks later I received a bill for £338 for repair. - I have checked their terms and conditions. - The terms say that I am responsible for the "reasonable cost" of repair unto the excess for damage while in my possession. - Sixt say that I signed it in and out and that I am liable. - I have asked for evidence (10 that the repairs are or will be carried out, (2) a discount will be applied because of the the extensive cosmetic work required on the whole car, (3) the cost of the repair they claim is reasonable. - I have received no reply to this but weeks later (after my interim chasing) a further "reminder" to pay the £338 plus a late payment charge came through. My view is that (1) the likelihood is that I did not cause the damage, and (2) the charge is excessive. The whole process defeats the purpose of a convenience hire of a car local to me for the day for a short trip. A car hire cost of £28 with a bill of £338. I am also of the view that their contract and practices may be in breach of unfair consumer contracts legislation. I appreciate that I may be in a weak position re: their checking process and documentation. but my sense is that there is a possibility of sharp practice going on. I am minded to charge Sixt for my admin time - which as a busy professional is likely to significantly exceed the amount they will recover from me if successful in their claim. Has anyone else had similar experiences of Sixt? I had used them previously - mainly outside the UK - and found them to be excellent, with great cars, reasonable rates, smooth processes and polite employees. Sadly, I am unlikely to use them again.
  3. Hi guys, any advice here would be most welcome. Many thanks in advance. I hired a car from Sixt for two days. They are now trying to make me pay £182 for a scratch on the mirror which was there when we hired the car. When we hired the car we were told there was a chip in the windscreen and I walked around half the vehicle, my partner walked around the other side, and when he asked if I had mentioned the damage, I wrongly assumed that he meant the windscreen and so we hired the car under the impression that all damage on the car had been noted down correctly. Only when we returned the car did we determine that this was not the case but we were told by the Sixt staff that the damage was absolutely minimal, in fact only the paint was chipped on the mirror, an area 2cm long and only 3mm wide, and this would cost a maximum of £30. I signed a document to say that the damage was not my fault as this is the case, and I am prepared to defend this vigorously in court if this is necessary as the damage is not my doing and I should not have to pay for this. I wrote asking if they could check the CCTV footage of us hiring the damaged car in order to confirm that this is the true situation. I am also aware that it is normal under these circumstances to provide various quotes for any work, not simply to quote what I am sure you will agree is a ridiculous amount of money for a tiny scratch on a mirror housing. I have checked with trade professionals and for damage to a mirror as outlined, it would not cost any more than the £30 which was quoted by Sixt staff at the time of discussion the damage.I have asked Sixt about this and they have not replied. I emailed and spelt out the entire situation but they ignored my email and have now sent me a final reminder threatening court action. I am a good responsible customer who did my best to take good care of the vehicle I rented and I returned the car in the same state that I hired it. Any advice on what to do now would be good, I have emailed the person who sent the letter again and also emailed the general customer services. Do you think I will be liable to pay all of this huge and ridiculous amount? I am currently on JSA and this is a fortune for me!
  4. Hi, A group of us (4 of us) recently hired a car, there where 3 named drivers on the car, although the contract in this case was in my name. We drove to another part of the country and received a parking fine from a Private Parking company, the photos taking show the car entering the premises and exiting, they do not show the drivers face. In this particular case we did not use any of the parking spaces instead we where by the gates of one of the companies which is in the complex whilst we unloaded and loaded some equipment, and we where instructed to park where we did by the business we where unloading and loading too. Further more the actual loading bay was blocked by another vehicle, i wont say what type of vehicle as it would give away too much information, but suffice to say it was one that would not move for prolonged periods of time (days). So with regard to the "invoice" where do i stand given that this was a hire car, which is in my name rather than a normal vehicle. Do the same rules apply as with a normal vehicle. The Invoice was issued prior to the 1st of October, however i will change all the dates by the same amountn the next part in an attempt to obfuscate the particulars. The contract with the car hire company states that i will pay on demand "A reasonable administration fee for processing any fines or offenses against the Vehicles, you or us during the rental." The phone message for the Violations Department of said company further states that the fee is for "processing the fee in a timely and efficient manner". The fine was issues on say the 8th of September, and the fine issued 5 days later on the 13th. it was then received no later than 5 days later on the 18th of September, i know this as the letter is stamped as such. It was exactly 20 days after they received it that a copy of the original invoice and a cover letter stating i would be charged an admin fee in the region of £35. I then received the letter the evening prior to the 2nd deadline date for payment (i.e. i had missed the window for the reduced amount). I phoned up the car hire company phoneline in the morning to find out what was going on and found at that despite the fact the invoice was received on the 18th it was sat in an in tray for a further 10 days before being processed, it then took 6 days to process the letter and then sat for a further 4 days before being posted. (why they actually told me this i do not know). Now i have been assured of the following things, The invoice will be issued to me directory (i am waiting on that now), and that the 14 day period for the reduced amount will start from the date they re-issue the invoice. I have also been assured that under the following 2 sets of circumstances i will be refunded the admin fee (yes they have already taken it off my card before i could block the payment) 1) When the fine is re-issued it is re-issued without the reduced rate (they would also refund the difference between the reduced rate and the higher amount). 2) The invoice is revoked by the issuing parking company. This strikes me here as i am basically being presumed "guilty" / liable for the Invoice the parking company has issued me by the car hire company before the issuing parking company has proven anything. It also strikes me as an unreasonable charge of £35 to take a total of 20 days to forward me a letter and also cause me the extra stress of thinking "oh crap i have to pay the fine tomorrow, i wont be able to appeal". So my 2nd question is where do i stand with regard to the admin charge with the car hire company and is it worth fighting that battle or focusing on getting the parking company to drop it and waiting until they do (if they do) to get my £35 back from the car hire company. I would rather (if i have any hope) get my £35 now, even if it means i later have to pay it out of pure principle given the time its taken them to process the invoice and the cheek of presuming i am liable for the parking invoice. Thanks for any advice you may be able to give in advance.
  5. Since being 'done' £45 for a stone chip to the windscreen of a commercial van, I have entered into correspondence with a very aggressive well known national car & van hire company. We know that the branch concerned encourages its staff to under estimate the damage at the time of collection then makes charges accordingly to the unsuspecting innocent hirer on return if they havnt taken out the extra insurance demanded at the start. This is confirmed by an ex member of staff. The little market research I have conducted through friends and relatives shows a seedy world of opportunism and low level fraud and I am reluctant to let them get away with this. I am hoping to compile enough information to get a campaign going. Any of your experiences are warmly welcomed herbertchip
×
×
  • Create New...