Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
-
Hi everyone, I rented a Zipcar few months ago now and x1 tyre burst on my trip.. I had to pull over called the advisor, everything seemed fine. Basically told me to leave the car and get a taxi, as she couldn’t find any assistance in adequate time to come out and support - I think because it was a Bank Holiday. Cut to months later I’ve been charged £429. Cost for x2 tyres (?), fittings and towing. I’ve been emailing customer support and happy to pay for the x1 tyre that burst, they’ve supplied photos, fair enough. But I’m contesting why I’m being charged x2 and also towing as I was advised to leave by the advisor over the phone. ‘This time we are sorry to inform you that both tires were found ripped after your booking, we believe you are responsible for the expenses made to replace them.’ This x2 has come out of nowhere as I stated that x1 tyre was flat and in previous emails they have only mentioned ‘tyre’. Also, I’ve asked for itemised invoice, as they’ve just sent me a basic Zipcar invoice and god knows how they reached these prices. This was there response to that - ‘Regarding your request for the road service receipt, unfortunately we are unable to provide you a VAT invoice for the recovery and tires replacement as requested. The reason for this is that with a fleet of nearly 3000 vehicles, as I am sure you can understand our vendor recovers multiple vehicles on a daily, weekly and monthly basis for us and therefore bill us on a monthly basis for the service, meaning we do not receive individual invoices for each vehicle.’ Also they stated this - ‘Further more and after reviewing the call made on the day we found out that although you where advised to look in to the spear wheel cavity where the locking wheel nut was located, you replied that there was nothing found there, resulting in the need to recover the vehicle.’ Now I’m no car maintenance professional, so I had no idea what I was looking for. In my emails back and fourth they have made numerous confusing mistakes, they finally provided images of the 2nd tyre and I honestly cannot see any damage just general wear and tear, they are really clutching at straws. They also randomly decided to give me a refund of half the towing cost? ‘Our apologies for any misunderstanding as we see that we wrongly emailed you 2 pictures of the rear tire and for the wrong wording used on the initial email. Please find attached bellow the photo of the front tire where damage is noticed on the tires wall. About the Locking wheel nut, after further reviewing the call on the day and seeing that you attempted to find the tools needed for the repairs, so to avoid the vehicles tow, we now exceptionally made sure you receive a 50% discount on the towing cost. We are sorry to inform you that as we see the tires damage reported during your trip, we are unable to take any other action and would like to note the importance of checking the vehicles tires thoroughly before starting your trip. Regarding your request for the maintenance invoice, unfortunately, we are unable to provide you a VAT receipt. The reason for this is that with a fleet of nearly 3000 vehicles, as I am sure you can understand our vendor recovers multiple vehicles on a daily, weekly and monthly basis for us and therefore bill us on a monthly basis for the service, meaning we do not receive individual invoices for each vehicle.' So I was getting nowhere and they pretty much said the decision is final at managerial level I decided to get in touch with my Natwest bank for a debit chargeback of £362.32 (taking away half the towing cost they have already refunded). I didn't hear anything from my bank for 10 days so got in touch and they said it had been rejected?! I had no email from them so I need to call them tomorrow and find out why. Any advice and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. -
By ConcernedPerson2222 · Posted
Any thoughts on the threat they are making there, and whether its more or less likely to be a scare tactic? -
By honeybee13 · Posted
Emmzzi is right, we don't recommend advice by PM. As she rightly says, it's better that advice is made in public and peer-reviewed. HB -
Personally I would work out what I was owed and go to small claims court; it's faster than an ET and shoud you lose the fees are smaller. Thank you for your DM: I do prefer to comment on a public thread because I am not perfect and extra eyes to catch anything I miss are always helpful.
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Big Motoring World,
Hello,
On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.
Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom. Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm. They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.
The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.
I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.
Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done.
Many thanks-
- 81 replies
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 162 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.
The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.
Frankly I don't think that is any accident.
One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.
Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.
We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
This is good ethical practice.
It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.
OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
-
-
We are now - The National Consumer Service
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now