Car rental company, Disputing claims for damages Options

[palasmy]

Hi

The Green Motion car rental company is trying to charge me 2400 pounds for a burnt clutch on a vehicle that I rented from them in January. Basically I had only driven less than 100 miles in that vehicle when I alerted them of the smell. Without being given a chance for me to get an independent engineer to investigate the issue, GM had sent the vehicle to their preferred garage and got it fixed. Despite my constant efforts I was deprived of any chances to access the vehicle when it was being repaired and only got sent a couple of pictures showing the damaged clutch once they had completed the repair. Below is the explanation for their claim,

[i]Whilst I appreciate charging for items such as a clutch replacement is far from an ideal way to end of hire, we do on occasions need to do this. In order to avoid any non-expert opinion, I have asked a number of vehicle technicians for their view. You can obviously do the same. If a clutch was to fail due to general wear and tear, both sides of the clutch plate would wear away at the same or a similar rate. As you can see from the attachments this is not the case.

Once again, while I do appreciate that this is not an easy thing to accept, it is a reasonably simple thing for us to prove. In the opinion of the repair agents and other people that we have spoken to, the speed at which the failure occurred and the nature of the wear to the clutch parts suggests damage that occurred swiftly (i.e. not over thousands of miles) and as a result of the user at the time. Therefore based on this opinion, we are looking to you for the costs incurred for the damage to the clutch.[/i]

On a separate account they have also already charged me 400 pounds for a windscreen damage on the vehicle that I took as a replacement for the clutch damaged vehicle. Again I'm disputing this claim as well, and my reasons for this are also fairly strong.

I have started a thread in MSE Motoring (link below) where I have fully described the case and also there are some good expert comments on the mechanical/technical aspects of the clutch.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth..._term=27-Feb-18


I'm seeking some legal advice here as I foresee a legal dispute in the making. I haven't paid them for their claim yet and the deadline for the payment is next week. With such a bad reputation and history that this company has, I feel I shouldn't let them rip me off so easily. I would really appreciate some advice and some useful tips on how to argue my case.

Thanks

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 21:41

[Advertisement]

[Churchmouse]

I would have thought that the simple reply to their "as you can see from the attachments" approach would be "show me the images of the clutch plates before I hired the vehicle".

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

I don't think they'd need "conclusive proof", but they would need more than simply, "he was the last person to drive the vehicle".

--Churchmouse

[DancingDad]

I would have thought that the simple reply to their "as you can see from the attachments" approach would be "show me the images of the clutch plates before I hired the vehicle".

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

I don't think they'd need "conclusive proof", but they would need more than simply, "he was the last person to drive the vehicle".

--Churchmouse

Accepted they don't need it, any judgement would come down to balance of probabilities in a civil claims court.

But I would still be asking for conclusive proof, if only to get into their minds that they do need more then he was the last person to drive.
And still cannot see how their assertion that wear would be even and as it isn't that shows abuse could be held as evidence.
Burnt and polished friction surfaces maybe but that could still be cos the clutch was slipping from a previous driver.
Or just about hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

[notmeatloaf]

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

It is a civil matter, they don't need to conclusively prove it, they need to prove it on balance of probabilities. Obviously the burden of proof is for them to show that the damage was caused after you hired the vehicle, not you to prove not. But it does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[DancingDad]

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

It is a civil matter, they don't need to conclusively prove it, they need to prove it on balance of probabilities. Obviously the burden of proof is for them to show that the damage was caused after you hired the vehicle, not you to prove not. But it does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What they have to show if it gets to court is one thing.
What the OP can ask of them is another thing entirely.

Asking for more then a court would require does no harm but may concentrate the company's mind that OP does not intend to be a pushover.
Tis called negotiation.

[Churchmouse]

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

It is a civil matter, they don't need to conclusively prove it, they need to prove it on balance of probabilities. Obviously the burden of proof is for them to show that the damage was caused after you hired the vehicle, not you to prove not. But it does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What they have to show if it gets to court is one thing.
What the OP can ask of them is another thing entirely.

Asking for more then a court would require does no harm but may concentrate the company's mind that OP does not intend to be a pushover.
Tis called negotiation.

I see your point, but on the other paw, showing your opponent that you don't know much about law is not always the best tactic...

--Churchmouse

[palasmy]

Today I received an email from GM, asking about the payment for the Clutch. I responded by requesting for the Windscreen details first, the email trail below, their mail in red and my responses in blue

"Further to our earlier email we are yet to receive a response from you. We now require payment immediately for the clutch replacement.

"Please can I have the details of the windscreen damage before we talk about Clutch issue.

I would like a copy of the following

1. The internal investigation report that I was promised by GM
2. The repair details of the windscreen
3. The Invoice that was sent to GM by the Garage for the windscreen replacement

Once the above is clarified we will discuss the Clutch issue."

"Thank you for your email. I have just spoken to my colleague Sian and she has confirmed that all the below documents have been sent to you by her. To confirm these are 2 separate issues and the matter regarding the clutch is long outstanding.

We require payment for this matter before it is passed for legal proceedings."

"I have not received any of the requested documents listed below from anyone in GM. In fact if you looked at the email trail below, it should be fairly self explanatory.

I really don't have the need to lie, plus if the said documents are already there, what is the difficulty in resending them to me now. Perhaps it was sent to the wrong address by accident. Kindly send it again.

Thanks for your understanding..."

And then after all the above exchange, the concerned person sends me an invoice (will upload once I have the file host link) for the windscreen attached to her email shown below.

"Attached is a copy for a copy of the windscreen invoice. I can confirm that the windscreen damage, has been looked into and we believe that these charges have been processed correctly."

All they could say about investigation is that they have processed the charges correctly !!!


The invoice in my opinion looks so fake and probably was only made today...

[palasmy]

Here is the filepost link for the windscreen invoice that was sent to me today...

http://www.filehosting.org/file/details/728777/WR17XKX.jpg

[palasmy]

That and "show me the expert opinion that conclusively proves that the damage was caused by myself and not a previous driver or mechanical failure"

It is a civil matter, they don't need to conclusively prove it, they need to prove it on balance of probabilities. Obviously the burden of proof is for them to show that the damage was caused after you hired the vehicle, not you to prove not. But it does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

What they have to show if it gets to court is one thing.
What the OP can ask of them is another thing entirely.

Asking for more then a court would require does no harm but may concentrate the company's mind that OP does not intend to be a pushover.
Tis called negotiation.

I see your point, but on the other paw, showing your opponent that you don't know much about law is not always the best tactic...

--Churchmouse

It looks like I have to maintain a balance between what I ask off GM and at the same time show GM that they can't simply take me for a ride.

However, if at all this goes to court, would I be left to argue on my own or can I seek a professional support from somewhere. And from the comments I have received here it looks like a lot would depend on how I put forward my case... I'm going to need some serious help with my points and presentations if I have to do it on my own.. Will GM be represented by a professional solicitor

And about the two issues, the windscreen damage although it is clear that they have framed it on me, I have no proof other than the conversations and their 'give away' style of inspection of the vehicle when it was returned. Would this be enough to dispute, I don't want to start off on an issue that I end up losing and then set an environment where I'm being seen as someone who can be easily won over and then the clutch issue ends up as another one that can brushed off and awarded to them..

[The Rookie]

Can you use a sensible photo host?

[typefish]

https://ss.westie.sh/pPF0

(it's the receipt without having a stupid e-mail check)

This post has been edited by typefish: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 15:37

[stamfordman]

Are they saying you took a hammer to the windscreen? Surely windscreen coverage is insurance 101.

I think you need legal help with this - you could sign up for the Which? legal service.

[palasmy]

Are they saying you took a hammer to the windscreen? Surely windscreen coverage is insurance 101.

I think you need legal help with this - you could sign up for the Which? legal service.

This is why I'm here for some help... I do have an insurance and I presume I should be able claim the money back although now not quiet sure whether with such a kind of invoice whether the insurance company will believe it or not.

Now that GM is on the case now, I would have to start preparing my self for a legal encounter!! Does anyone have any idea of how the whole process works, how long before the case actually begins and whether would it be done in a day or may last few days... And can I request for all the relevant GM staff to be present in the case to argue my case and ask them questions.

https://ss.westie.sh/pPF0

(it's the receipt without having a stupid e-mail check)

Thanks for doing this, it is a VAT registered company apparently without an office or website!! as some one in the other forum had found out

[big_mac]

I do have an insurance and I presume I should be able claim the money back

Then what's the problem? All you have to do is show that GreenMotion charged you and you claim it back, the justification for the claim isn't your problem.

I did notice that one of the excess insurance companies specifically exclude a couple of GreenMotion branches (Leicester and Luton).

[JP1978]

There seems to be another dedicated web site for them HERE

Who knows how accurate anecdotal reports are, bit it's the sort of thing that has put me off hiring cars over the years.

Hmmm, out of the first four 'reviews' on that site (at the time of looking) -

1. Is a complaint that they are been charged for putting diesel in a petrol car. How can they think that wouldnt be charged for and secondly, did they not think something was wrong when the filler wouldnt fit in the filling neck? Not really GM's fault that one!

2. Is a complaint about been charged insurance when using a debit card. Standard practice on a few hire car companies. Its also in their T&C's

3. Is about unlimited miles been limited to 90. If you hire through GM direct, it is unlimited. If you hire through an agent (rentalcars.com etc) then its limited to 90 mile. One would imagine that the flier was from the agent too that mentioned debit cards.

I have rented from GM for 6 months now from 4 different UK airport locations. I read the T&C's before booking and take a video of all my hires. At the branch I mainly use, I have only ever witnessed 2 customers with issues - 1, had been accused of a cigarette burn - he denied it to GM but when he saw me at the airport 30 minutes later, he admitted it to me. 2, A UK customer had only got £100 left on her credit card, not enough for the £400 holding deposit. She was forced into taking the additional insurance.

If one were to look hard enough, you would see similar reviews about most the other hire car companies, GM are not alone in getting negative reviews.

As I say, I am a regular customer with them - I dont always book the cheapest cars but the least I have paid was £7.87 for two days hire. The most I have paid was £45 for three days hire and that was for a Mercedes A-Class Auto AMG Line. They know I have my own excess insurance. If they were purley wanting to scam people, they would have already scammed me, just to get rid of of me as a customer - if the modus operandi is to scam people, me been a normal customer who takes no extras will be a low profit customer.

Thanks for the different perspective, really appreciate it as it helps me build my arguments for the case.

Just a word of caution though, even the regular customers aren't spared, it is all just a matter of time. They look at the history and time their act appropriate as it has happened in my case, this is the first time I had hired a 10 seater from them. To be fair, the entire staff that I used to hire for years were changed in the last year!!

I took back a car a few weeks ago that had two 30mm scratches on the bonnet - looked like either a branch had fallen, or a cats claws. Did Not show on the video I had took but the guy checking in said as I was a regular he wouldn't charge for it.

The first time I am forced to use the excess insurance, regardless of whether it pays out or not, will be the last time I use them - I have made them aware of that. However, I do leave them good reviews - after all, my experience of them (in all 4 branches) has been good.

[mickR]

Quite simply, an honest reputable company would not have so many bad reviews all stating the same issue.

Which? Magazine would be a good place for this as they may help legally and run an article on green motion.

[palasmy]

As it stands, I will see how GM responds to my reply on the issue. If they pursue the legal route for the clutch then I will prepare too but combine the windscreen issue as well. Irrespective of the end result of the legal route (should it go ahead), I would certainly work on bringing some form of shame to this company within my means.

For the amount of stress this incident has caused me, it will only satisfy me if I can do something about this in the public domain.

yes which? could be a good place to start and also I'm considering something like 'watchdog'..

[notmeatloaf]

Quite simply, an honest reputable company would not have so many bad reviews all stating the same issue.

Which? Magazine would be a good place for this as they may help legally and run an article on green motion.

You will find almost all car hire companies get terrible reviews, partly because they rightly or wrongly bill customers for alleged damages, not returning with enough fuel, receiving a speeding ticket etc. And also because hiring a car and a van is usually a fairly joyless experience.

Not saying this is the case for the OP but people tend to underestimate the amount it costs to repair a car especially when you are having to pay someone to do all the donkey work. I have probably mentioned before I got knocked off my bike once, driver offered to pay for the cracked shifter. When I got the quote (£183 inc labour for two Claris shifters, you can't buy them singly) he went mad and said he could buy a whole new bike for that.

Probably cost him more eventually going through insurance but there you are.

[palasmy]

This is how I intend to reply today to GM as suggested by people in the other forum, please can someone help to check if it is legally ok.


"Thanks for your mail.

I do not believe neither the windscreen nor the clutch damages were caused by my negligence and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Your evidence is inconsistent with your statement. As such I am not liable. If you disagree with this decision, please visit moneyclaim.gov.uk"

Thanks

[stamfordman]

I do not believe neither the windscreen nor the clutch damages

Double negative!

[palasmy]

I do not believe neither the windscreen nor the clutch damages

Double negative!

Please can you elaborate, should i not be defending??