Car rental company, Disputing claims for damages |
Car rental company, Disputing claims for damages |
Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 21:20
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
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 |
Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 21:20
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:20
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 137 Joined: 18 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,469 |
I do not believe neither the windscreen nor the clutch damages Double negative! Please can you elaborate, should i not be defending?? He's saying your phrasing is a double negative, change it to "I do not believe either the windscreen or the clutch damages were caused by my negligence" You don't want to say you 'Don't believe they weren't' because the negatives cancel out and it says you 'do believe they were' |
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:29
Post
#62
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Oh ! Thanks to both of you...
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:38
Post
#63
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 604 Joined: 12 Oct 2009 Member No.: 32,760 |
I'm not sure what negligence has to do with at least the windscreen damage.
|
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:49
Post
#64
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Can I rephrase like this please,
I do not believe that the clutch damage was caused by my negligence and also I'm not convinced that the windscreen was damaged whilst the vehicle was in my possession. Your evidence is inconsistent with your statement. As such I am not liable. If you disagree with this decision, please visit moneyclaim.gov.uk |
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:55
Post
#65
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
It's your letter and you can phrase it how you want. However, with anything like this it is best to keep things as simple as possible. Don't potentially give them any rope.
Raxiel's wording is much better. Don't include the MCOL line, it makes it sound like you are not open to an informal resolution. If it does go to court there is an expectation both sides will have made reasonable efforts to find common ground beforehand. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 10:56 |
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 12:33
Post
#66
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Ok, understand the point about MCOL.
Since my argument about the windscreen damage is slightly along the lines of it being there already, was intending to make that clear to them as well. Despite my request with all the genuine evidences I had presented GM simply concluded that they had charged me correctly!! Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 15:35
Post
#67
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
You really need to look at the hire agreement and see what wording they use to describe damage you are liable for. Quite possibly it will just be when in your possession and not accountable to normal wear and tear. They don't need to assert that you were negligent if they have a wider definition, you could have simply been careless.
If in doubt just keep it simple, as soon as you use a word like "negligent" you are giving them rope. ------------------------------------ Dear GM, Thank you for your correspondence. The damage alleged to the clutch did not substantially occur during the hire agreement. The damage alleged to the windscreen did not occur during the hire agreement. I would kindly ask you to confirm you will not be pursuing the matter further. Love and kisses, palasmy ------------------------- That would be my response. |
|
|
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 - 16:59
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
You really need to look at the hire agreement and see what wording they use to describe damage you are liable for. Quite possibly it will just be when in your possession and not accountable to normal wear and tear. They don't need to assert that you were negligent if they have a wider definition, you could have simply been careless. If in doubt just keep it simple, as soon as you use a word like "negligent" you are giving them rope. ------------------------------------ Dear GM, Thank you for your correspondence. The damage alleged to the clutch did not substantially occur during the hire agreement. The damage alleged to the windscreen did not occur during the hire agreement. I would kindly ask you to confirm you will not be pursuing the matter further. Love and kisses, palasmy ------------------------- That would be my response. Thanks notmeatloaf, unfortunately I have already sent the mail with 'negligence' in it more than that missed the love and kisses bit.... |
|
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 08:48
Post
#69
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Hi all
Please find below the reply from GM for my mail yesterday, "Thank you for coming back to me. You have mentioned for both elements of damage caused have not been done so and our evidence is inconsistent. Can I ask you to elaborate on that? Green Motion have provided you with all of the information to support both damages and also all the costs that we have incurred. Kind regards " "I do not believe that the clutch damage was caused by my negligence and also I'm not convinced that the windscreen was damaged whilst the vehicle was in my possession. Your evidence is inconsistent with your statement. As such I am not liable." |
|
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 18:15
Post
#70
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Hi
I was hoping to respond something like below, please can I have your comments, "Green Motion didn't provide anything except two photos of a damaged clutch plate and of course the invoice. And for the windscreen there wasn't any detailed report about GM investigation based on the evidences i provided except that GM royally went ahead with their charging on my card. So for all the above reasons, I felt nothing was fairly dealt with and everything said so far as the emails suggest were inconsistent in my opinion. Hope it is clear now.." |
|
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 18:57
Post
#71
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I think you're being far too passive. If you have legal cover get advice.
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 - 22:09
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
I think you're being far too passive. If you have legal cover get advice. Unfortunately I don't have a legal cover This is what I received from the other forum as a suggestion, "I think communication with them is of little use. I would complain to your credit card company and insist on a refund until the matter is resolved. Simply reply to them that as they are not engaging in a reasonable dialogue you do not wish to communicate with them further, you are applying to the credit card company for a refund of the windscreen charge and that unless their communication is a letter before claim, you will not respond further. Actually, I'd also say that even if a windscreen did chip in your use, I would not see that you should be liable, as these things happen beyond your control - you have not been negligent or careless, much as I would not expect to be liable for the odd stone chip on a bonnet. I would fall back on consumer contract legislation if they tried to say you were contractually liable. It is their fault if they are hiring cars and haven't allowed for the occasional costs of windscreen chips." |
|
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2018 - 06:15
Post
#73
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Hello All
Just to update, since Gm's last request to elaborate, after a bit of thought I decided not to respond. Until now, haven't had any communication.. |
|
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2018 - 09:46
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Have you done a chargeback?
If not of course they are keeping quiet. They have your money and no need to stir up things. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 05:28
Post
#75
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Hi All, I have received the below mail from GM yesterday,
"Further to my colleagues email this morning, this clutch issue is now due to be passed over for legal proceedings in order to recover what we are due. This is of course something that I would much like to avoid. I look forward to hearing from you shortly regarding closing this matter down." Wondered should I restart the communication or just sit tight and watch.. Was also thinking about disputing the windscreen damage, can I say I would like to take legal action against that charge? |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 08:11
Post
#76
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,571 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
My personal opinion - and I'm not a lawyer- is that this is just another threatening letter to get you to settle out of court.
I personally wouldn't respond, and though it might be tempting to reply "see you in court" they may consider that as an invitation to issue proceedings. I would just file the letter away with the other correspondence and not reply at all. |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 10:50
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,265 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Agreed, its vague and certainly isn't a letter before action.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2018 - 20:47
Post
#78
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Thanks Korting and Rookie, I didn't reply but today I have received another mail as below and this one has 'LBA' on top of the email.. Is it not that a LBA should be sent out through a normal registered post?
"** LETTER BEFORE ACTION. ** Good afternoon Further to my colleagues email, I would like to follow that up with just a polite note to say Adam will be beginning legal proceedings in 7 days from today if we do not have an agreement in place regarding payment. I am happy to work with you on this and I look forward to hearing from you shortly." I suspect they have only woken up again after I asked them to refund the remainder of the 400 they had originally charged for windscreen damage. I queried this last week and they had sent me an proforma invoice showing they will repay the balance of 60 as the invoice was for only 340. I suspect this communication probably gave them the message that I have accepted the windscreen damage without disputing and so they want to give another go with the clutch. And now few days since that mail, they are now starting this new chapter for the clutch. I'm wondering if I should respond by saying I'm planning for a legal action for the windscreen damage as I have enough reason to dispute it. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 21:37
Post
#79
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Member No.: 49,068 |
Hi
Can someone advise whether the above format is a valid Letter before action and should this be taken seriously or not.. I always thought that anything legal should have been through a proper registered post.. Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:09
Post
#80
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Can someone advise whether the above format is a valid Letter before action and should this be taken seriously or not.. So long as it makes them aware of what the issue is, it’s fine. QUOTE I always thought that anything legal should have been through a proper registered post.. Nope. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 14:25 |