turo.com Car rental dispute. Faulty car - Wheel Nuts came off on modified Wheel whilst driving!! scammed me of £2000 too!!

[Manxman in exile]

Apart from suggesting that you follow the advice already given, I'd also say that moving forward I wouldn't touch this car sharing club with an extra long barge-pole!

 

Looking at their T&Cs they attempt to pass all responsibility for the vehicle's safety and mechanical condition etc on to "the host" (whom I presume is the person who actually owns the car), and I certainly would not be wanting to put my own safety or that of my 7 year old child in the hands of a private individual I have never met.  How is the roadworthiness of the "shared" cars regulated?

 

You liken it to Air B'n'B, but think of all the horror stories you read about unsafe and substandard accommodation.  At least an unsafe house or apartment is unlikely to kill you or your family - unlike an unsafe car.

 

In any case, the T&Cs seem to clearly make it the "host's" responsibility to ensure the car is in good condition, not the person "hiring" the car.  A modified wheel coming off should be the owner's responsibility.

 

What reason have theyactually  given for taking the £2k?

[Manxman in exile]

I'm not suggesting that the OP do anything at the moment other than what has been suggested so far.

 

I would add, however, that if the OP had only hired the car for a period of four days (have I got that right?) and the wheel fell off on the final day of hire, then that in itself strongly suggests that the car could not have been mechanically sound at the start of the hire.  How can a wheel become so loose over four days that it falls off - unless it was already loose or otherwise unfit at the outset?  (It could be argued that the OP had not checked the wheel nuts - but who would check wheel nuts* over a period of four days?  I would suggest it's far more likely that the "host" was at fault for not checking the wheel nuts before hiring the vehicle out to the OP)

 

If the TURO T&Cs specify that the "host" (whom I presume is the owner of the vehicle who is hiring it out) is reponsible for the mechanical fitness of the car being hired out, then they - not the OP - must be liable for any mechanical damage and consequent cosmetic damage.  And the exchange between the OP and Turo posted above seems to confirm that.

 

As I say, I don't want to go against what has already been suggested to the OP, but I'd be inclined to go back to Turo straightaway and challenge them as to the grounds for taking the £2k.  I'd be making it clear that the cost of repairing any damage to the car is the "host's" responsibility, and if Turo don't return my £2k I'll be taking legal action to recover it from them under their own T&Cs.  Whether others would agree with this, I don't know.

 

I'd also be challenging my bank again on this - basing my challenge on Turo's own T&Cs.

 

* I probably ought to be ashamed to admit it, but I've never checked wheel nuts in over 20 years of driving - and a wheel has never yet fallen off!

Edited February 24, 2021 by Manxman in exile
Addition

[Manxman in exile]

Fair point.  I'm just trying to point out issues that might add to the OP's arsenal.

 

BTW, we cross-posted as I was editing my post to say I've never checked wheel nuts in over 20 years of driving - not that I'm advising that!  But it does make it more unreasonable to expect the OP to check wheel nuts.  I've also never checked wheel nuts on any cars that I've hired - I expect the hire company to provide a vehicle that is already mechanically sound and which has already been subject to basic safety tests - like the wheels are soundly attached.

[Manxman in exile]

May be too late for the OP but I think I would include in BankFodder's draft (1) a reference to the legislation so that Turo can see for them selves, and (2) I would also emphasise that it is Turo's legal responsibility to disclose the requested info to the OP and not just tell him how to check his account details himself - and that failure to do so is an offence.

 

(I know they should already know all this but they are clearly incompetent and don't know their **** from their elbow.  If they aren't pointed in the right direction it'll just take longer for the OP to get this sorted out).

 

Also - OP, did you never get a satisfactory explanation from your bank as to why they refused a chargeback?  Did you (as suggested) ask them to reconsider their original decision in the light ot Turo's own T&Cs which clearly make the "host" (car owner) liable for damage caused by mechanical faults, and not you?

[Manxman in exile]

5 hours ago, Ams1996 said:

...

 

If I were to go to the county court, What would be be the next step regarding the money being taken in the first place and the no investigation etc etc 

 

 

As BankFodder has said this is separate from getting your money back.  The purpose of the SAR is to unearth info that might be used as ammo to get your money back - either by persuasion or by another court action.

 

When you tell them as BF suggests in #36 that the clock is ticking from when you made your original SAR, not from the second one (it's not your fault they haven't trained their staff properly - love that phrase!) I think BF may have meant it was a "statutory" requirement, not a "static" one.  (I think BF uses dictation software and "static" is a typo).

 

Incidentally, as I suggested in my last post, did you confront your bank with Turo's T&Cs and ask why the bank would not refund you?  The T&Cs say it's the host's responsibility.