Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Courtesy car - have to drive it every day!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2231 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A friend's car is being fixed due to an accident that wasn't their fault.

 

They have been told by the garage fixing the car (referred to by the other party's insurer) that they cannot have a courtesy car unless they agree to drive it every day. Further that the car has a tracker that will check this.

 

Their own insurer has confirmed this.

 

I can't find any info about this by internet search. It seems bizarre and unenforceable to me.

 

The friend has been separately advised to simply hire a car from elsewhere that doesn't have this restriction. This sounds like reasonable advice.

 

So specifically I'm curious as to whether people have experienced the weird requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we are all ears. Extraordinary!.

 

Please can you try to find out more. It's just too incredible. Which is the insurer? Is it written somewhere? And why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard off this before!!

 

Totally bizarre indeed....

 

Not everyone with a car, will want to drive every day as a matter of fact. It's entirely their choice....

 

So to be told, they must drive every day & that they will be checking via the tracker is to entirely preposterous!!

 

If that's what he has to do, can he get around it by moving the car up & down his road a few times? As at least that way he has drove the car!!

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every single minute of it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your friend interested in talking to the press?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it is purely to do with the fact it is a courtesy car, of which there are a limited number available. They probably say this, to avoid people taking a car that they don't need. So they say it is an Insurance requirement that the car is used.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I now have a BBC radio enquiry about this. Please do see if your friend would like to make contact. He/She can contact me on our admin email address with "courtesy car" in the subj. line.

Ta

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would lay very good money that it's actually a Credit Hire car that was not "referred by the other Insurer" but is ultimately going to be paid by the other Insurer.

 

The you need to drive it every day is sometimes quoted by Credit Hire companies when a customer tells them they don't really need a replacement car as they don't use it much or will just use their other car etc. The CH companies tell these customers (Who probably don't need a replacement car) that they need to drive the car every day so it comes back with reasonable mileage on it.

 

It can be difficult to explain to the other parties Insurer when they're presented with a bill for £3k+ when the car has only done 15 miles in two weeks and the costs could have been mitigated by using a taxi or even a chauffeur driven rolls royce...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would lay very good money that it's actually a Credit Hire car that was not "referred by the other Insurer" but is ultimately going to be paid by the other Insurer.

 

The you need to drive it every day is sometimes quoted by Credit Hire companies when a customer tells them they don't really need a replacement car as they don't use it much or will just use their other car etc. The CH companies tell these customers (Who probably don't need a replacement car) that they need to drive the car every day so it comes back with reasonable mileage on it.

 

It can be difficult to explain to the other parties Insurer when they're presented with a bill for £3k+ when the car has only done 15 miles in two weeks and the costs could have been mitigated by using a taxi or even a chauffeur driven rolls royce...

 

My money is also on the fact that this is a credit hire car and not a courtesy car. The OP needs to clarify this ASAP otherwise they could be left with a hefty bill to pay if a credit hire vehicle was signed for when there was no real need to have one because they had access to another car etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My money is also on the fact that this is a credit hire car and not a courtesy car. The OP needs to clarify this ASAP otherwise they could be left with a hefty bill to pay if a credit hire vehicle was signed for when there was no real need to have one because they had access to another car etc.

 

I'd be surprised if a Credit Hire company fitted a tracker to their vehicles to check the cars are used every day, this sounds like another piece of B.S they've been told by the CH company or whoever referred them (And received £400 commission) to the credit hire company which I guess is either their own insurer or the garage

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they only told the OP to drive the car every day so that the other side's insurer won't raise the issue of need.

 

I'm also very skeptical that any tracker is fitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend has clarified that it is indeed the company providing the car rather than the garage.

 

The OP needs to clarify this ASAP otherwise they could be left with a hefty bill to pay if a credit hire vehicle was signed for when there was no real need to have one because they had access to another car etc.

 

Interesting point. Leaving aside my friend's situation who defines "real need"?

 

One person has a real need to get to work every day.

Another has a real need to get to work once a week (say, if they are part of a car-sharing agreement where the sharers' hours don't always match up).

 

I also don't see how such a requirement could be enforced since if you breach the agreement the company has not lost anything. But the insurance business seems to be a great area for inventing "legal" scams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a credit hire agreement though? It's a very important distinction as your friend is personally liable for the hire invoice if it is, not the garage or insurance company etc.

 

Need is what's reasonable and there is extensive case law on credit hire agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My friend has clarified that it is indeed the company providing the car rather than the garage.

 

 

 

Interesting point. Leaving aside my friend's situation who defines "real need"?

 

One person has a real need to get to work every day.

Another has a real need to get to work once a week (say, if they are part of a car-sharing agreement where the sharers' hours don't always match up).

 

I also don't see how such a requirement could be enforced since if you breach the agreement the company has not lost anything. But the insurance business seems to be a great area for inventing "legal" scams.

 

Courts require a claimant eg your friend to mitigate their losses, when the credit hire company request the hire car charges from the other side, they will be asking for a daily hire rate well in excess of the normal hire cost for the type of car he has. Your friend (The CH company acting on his behalf) will have to demonstrate that hiring a credit hire car at well over the normal hire rate was reasonable and was needed by him. It may be that if he only uses the car five times in thirty days that a court would deem it inappropriate that he was in a hire car for all of those days. It may decide he could have just hired it for the five days he used it or even used taxis. It's not an exact science and a court will look at each case individually should the matter go to court.

 

If he is in a credit hire car, your friend will have signed to say that he will assist the CH company should the matter go to court, this could include appearing as a witness and / or providing copies of his bank statements to show he could not have financed the cost of a normally priced hire car himself. He will also have signed to say that he needs a credit hire car eg it's essential for him.

 

It's highly unlikely but if it went to court and the judge asked your friend about the car and he lied about using the car more than he had or he invented reasons to use the car that he lied to the court about and the judge discovered it, then this could possibly be deemed as perjury. As I said this is highly unlikely.

 

Incidently the company who passed him over to the credit hire company (Probably his Insurers or the garage) will have received about £400 commission for it.

 

What sort of car is he in as we can look the likely costs up, you will be very shocked when you see how expensive it is per day, repairs when there is a credit hire car strangely seem to always take a lot longer to be repaired so the credit hire costs mount up. The cost for say a 5 series BMW for thirty days on credit hire would be over £9000, the same car from a normal car hire company paid for by your friend would be under £3000.

 

As you can see from the money involved there's an incentive for the credit hire company to pull a fast one by telling him he has to drive the car every day, there's also an incentive from the Insurer of the person who hit you to dispute the costs and tell them see you in court (They tend to be settled before court).

 

P.S The [problem] is not really by the Insurance industry, the cost of inflated credit hire vehicles is ultimately shared out amongst all policyholders, the cost is circa £40 each, so your own premium is loaded by about £40 to pay towards credit hire vehicles

Link to post
Share on other sites

All interesting stuff.

 

In this case, just to be clear, the car is being repaired in a garage referred to by the fault-driver's insurer and not my friend's insurer.

 

It would seem odd if the garage is inflating its customer's costs by referring to an expensive credit hire company. So the initial assumption I had was that the requirement was designed to put my friend off taking the car.

 

I wonder if the same requirement would be put if the cost were to be paid by my friend's insurer?

 

Seems clear to me though that demonstrating that a car is driven every day does not demonstrate the need to drive a car. If one lives on the bus route to work one does not *need* a car but might use a car. If one lives in a town without public transport then a car might be needed even if in the end it is hardly used.

 

The friend is aware of this thread and appreciates the comments, but is a bit busy dealing with all the issues caused alongside work and family life!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...