 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Timberwolf wrote: |
@Roguevfr, really interesting to hear 'the other side of the coin'..........thank you
DotM, Rob, Snoodles...........easy guys - i know 2 of you well enough to know that you're way more chilled than this in real life......
Anyway, my conciliatory tone is because i'd like the view of both sides on one my 'experiences'.......... I returned a car to MUC airport with a small chip in the windscreen ( way less then the diameter of a 1 cent coin - i took a lot of pictures !! ). The damage occurred on my watch. In fact, the damage occurred on my drive to the airport  . I reported the damage during the return inspection. Upon my return home, I made a note of the cost of a day's hire £30, got a quote from the VW garage for supply and fit of a new windscreen £230. A few days later the bill from the hire car company arrived at €600. To say I wasn't pleased is an understatement. I wrote to them, and offered payment of £250, they wrote back politely saying no, and with an introduction to their lawyers. I wrote back supplying the evidence behind my offer of £250.....a few weeks later, they wrote to say that the matter had been resolved......... Bizarre........maybe the vehicle in question had been moved on, maybe a subsequent hirer had written the vehicle off.......who knows...
I'd like to know how they come up with their estimates of repair costs, because there is no way that a windscreen costs €600  and i wonder why they dropped it all of a sudden when they had a guaranteed £250 in their coffers...... |
Maybe the cost of the windscreen was E200 (they must get bulk discount on repairs) plus another E400 in admin/lawyer fees that they couldn't really justify? Or perhaps a corporate policy based on success rate that says if someone starts fighting them its not worth them persisting because plenty of low hanging suckers pay up straightway (and they retain the inertia advantage there anyway because they'll usually have billed your CC before you get to challenge the invoice). |
No idea when this was, but I think you're severely out of touch with the cost of such items. A modern, windscreen will absolutely be £600 to replace, not only that,but funnily enough not all glass for all vehicles is readily available off the shelf . There is, as in all repair cases, a "loss of use" component to all costs, and the actual cost of the repair is not the only consideration in the equation. The vehicle may be off the road for several days before the repair can be completed.
As you know, many windscreen damages are able to be repaired, which did not happen all that long ago, but it depends on the severity and position of the damage. A company may not wish / be able to offer its cars repaired in such a manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@Roguevfr, Look at the bit where @Timberwolf got a supply and fit quote from a local VW dealer - who cares what you think they cost now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I've used hire car for many a year...sometimes for work and sometimes for holidays.
I've found the people on the desks at GVA to be nothing but polite and helpful whenever we have turned up there. Europcar were very good at pick up and at drop off. Polite and professional. I've also rented from off airport sites in other areas and that included my worst experience (Wiber in Alicante). Rude, threatening staff...they even stated that if I did not take out their own insurance they would slowly check the car on return and I may miss my flight. They also charged for damage which I believe I missed at pick up (10:00pm pick up in a dark compound and a 9:00am drop off in bright sunshine). However, I had hire car insurance who were winderful.
My lesson is...use a big player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
I think the cost of rental of skis being high is fairly in comparison to a car is fairly obvious. At least it is to me. 1st and foremost is that it’s a captive audience, and an audience which tends to have lots of cash. 2nd, the useful life of a pair of rental skis is about 12-15 months at best (3 x 4 or 5 months) after which they are completely valueless. A rental car on the other hand can we worked for up to 36 months, after which it is shifted on back to a dealer for sale and still has considerable value.
The main point of contention with rental companies seems to be the hard sell for extra insurance and exorbitant fees for damage. I have only ever been pushed hard for CDW by the larger companies. My local hire place, which is small, doesn’t do this.
The worst point of all though is the fees for damage. Ok fair enough, if you properly pranged the car that’s fair, but in my experience the larger companies (who have a big scary legal team) take the p i s s by trying to charge £150 excess for each and every tiny thing. Eg. If a bonnet had 4 stone chips (which should be fair wear and tear) they try and hammer you for £600, when they zero intention of actually repairing the damage. And I would argue all but serious/structure damage never gets repaired. I must have rented several dozen different cars in my time and not once have I had one that was immaculate. |
You're wrong on several counts.
Most, (and I fully realise there is a wide spread of values in this statement) rental cars from enterprise etc and other major companies are less than a year old, and in many cases less than 6 months before they are turned over - back into dealers. The value of a 3 year old rental car is so low that a main dealer wouldn't even consider it as forecourt stock. The reason the agree to the sale and repurchase (and this is done at corporate level, not dealer level) is because they are guaranteed good condition , high quality stock that they can turn over at a far lower cost to the customer than "brand new". Dealers have sales quotas to fill, and those cars fill the gaps between the twice yearly new car uptake.
If you don't want to pay an excess for damage pay the insurance ! If you haven't been getting immaculate cars then you're hiring from the wrong company, (if that's what you want). All these dings and dents were not put there by the rental company !
Obviously, as I've stated before, minor repairs will not be done if it means the car is unavailable for a rental or series of rentals , but clearly there are those who pay little and expect little , and those who expect perfect but aren't prepared to pay for it.
As in almost everything in life, you get what you pay for. When you price up flights, you can get a price from BA or Etihad, or Air France . For your fare you get a seat of your choice , a luggage allowance ,a carry on bag, maybe you'll get free ski carriage, and perhaps included meals, snacks headphones, tvs in the seats etc etc.
OR you book super cheapo flights, where you not only have to pay more to get a seat BESIDE your family, but you have to pay to have checked bags, carry on allowance as you used to - no meals, no tv, no free ski carriage , no extras whatsoever , and then try to convince yourself that the £69 flight really is better than the £200 flight from BA. What you don't do is expect to get the BA flight and customer service at the cheapo price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Roguevfr, Now that last paragraph, to me, makes a lot of sense. A few quid a day to upgrade to full insurance and problem sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| @Roguevfr, Look at the bit where @Timberwolf got a supply and fit quote from a local VW dealer - who cares what you think they cost now? |
I said I had no idea when that was, and a price for a quote is not a supply and fit price , I've stated repeatedly that the cost of the repair is not the only cost .
I'm not here to defend every set of circumstances, as I've said before, use the major companies.
"Who cares what I think they cost" isn't the issue YOU stated what YOU think the cost should be , I'm suggesting you're incorrect.
Happy to leave it at that ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| ... You may have taken offence... |
Your insults including "mental" and "pathetic" were clearly intended to give offence. Apologise or don't, but you can't gaslight it away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| ... You may have taken offence... |
Your insults including "mental" and "pathetic" were clearly intended to give offence. Apologise or don't, but you can't gaslight it away. |
Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
I think the cost of rental of skis being high is fairly in comparison to a car is fairly obvious. At least it is to me. 1st and foremost is that it’s a captive audience, and an audience which tends to have lots of cash. 2nd, the useful life of a pair of rental skis is about 12-15 months at best (3 x 4 or 5 months) after which they are completely valueless. A rental car on the other hand can we worked for up to 36 months, after which it is shifted on back to a dealer for sale and still has considerable value.
The main point of contention with rental companies seems to be the hard sell for extra insurance and exorbitant fees for damage. I have only ever been pushed hard for CDW by the larger companies. My local hire place, which is small, doesn’t do this.
The worst point of all though is the fees for damage. Ok fair enough, if you properly pranged the car that’s fair, but in my experience the larger companies (who have a big scary legal team) take the p i s s by trying to charge £150 excess for each and every tiny thing. Eg. If a bonnet had 4 stone chips (which should be fair wear and tear) they try and hammer you for £600, when they zero intention of actually repairing the damage. And I would argue all but serious/structure damage never gets repaired. I must have rented several dozen different cars in my time and not once have I had one that was immaculate. |
You're wrong on several counts.
Most, (and I fully realise there is a wide spread of values in this statement) rental cars from enterprise etc and other major companies are less than a year old, and in many cases less than 6 months before they are turned over - back into dealers. The value of a 3 year old rental car is so low that a main dealer wouldn't even consider it as forecourt stock. The reason the agree to the sale and repurchase (and this is done at corporate level, not dealer level) is because they are guaranteed good condition , high quality stock that they can turn over at a far lower cost to the customer than "brand new". Dealers have sales quotas to fill, and those cars fill the gaps between the twice yearly new car uptake.
If you don't want to pay an excess for damage pay the insurance ! If you haven't been getting immaculate cars then you're hiring from the wrong company, (if that's what you want). All these dings and dents were not put there by the rental company !
Obviously, as I've stated before, minor repairs will not be done if it means the car is unavailable for a rental or series of rentals , but clearly there are those who pay little and expect little , and those who expect perfect but aren't prepared to pay for it.
As in almost everything in life, you get what you pay for. When you price up flights, you can get a price from BA or Etihad, or Air France . For your fare you get a seat of your choice , a luggage allowance ,a carry on bag, maybe you'll get free ski carriage, and perhaps included meals, snacks headphones, tvs in the seats etc etc.
OR you book super cheapo flights, where you not only have to pay more to get a seat BESIDE your family, but you have to pay to have checked bags, carry on allowance as you used to - no meals, no tv, no free ski carriage , no extras whatsoever , and then try to convince yourself that the £69 flight really is better than the £200 flight from BA. What you don't do is expect to get the BA flight and customer service at the cheapo price. |
That's why I said "up to 36 months". Different companies will have a different structures. But the main point still stands, the cars have a significant residual value and are worked daily from purchase to sale. Skis aren't. In fact they are worked 4/5 months out of 12, and will be basically sold for scrap/binned after the 3rd season.
I don't have an issue paying an excess if I do damage to a car. What I do have an issue with is paying an excess for each separate item. If I were to wrap my own personal car round a tree, I would pay £200 excess and get a like for like replacement car. However with a rental company, if a stone chip occurs on the motor way, say one on the bonnet and one on the wing, another car opens a door onto my car in a carpark and pothole causes a tiny scratch to an alloy, the rental companies would like to charge me 4 x excess which is utter bollix and completely immoral. There is no way to defend it.
As for the condition of cars, I'm talking about renting from Europcar, Avis, Hertz. I have NEVER had a completely immaculate care from those three. Presumably they qualify as the big boys and not some back alley dodgy business?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Aw that's a wee shame guys, I'm so sorry for your hurt feelings. Maybe if you didn't come the " Billy big baws" I'm litigious and" I'll set my lawyers on anyone who tries to con me" cowdoo then it wouldn't have been an issue. I've seen and dealt with more than my fair share of chancers in my time , and if you object to me pointing that these people do exist then you might just think I'm referring to you .
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
I think the cost of rental of skis being high is fairly in comparison to a car is fairly obvious. At least it is to me. 1st and foremost is that it’s a captive audience, and an audience which tends to have lots of cash. 2nd, the useful life of a pair of rental skis is about 12-15 months at best (3 x 4 or 5 months) after which they are completely valueless. A rental car on the other hand can we worked for up to 36 months, after which it is shifted on back to a dealer for sale and still has considerable value.
The main point of contention with rental companies seems to be the hard sell for extra insurance and exorbitant fees for damage. I have only ever been pushed hard for CDW by the larger companies. My local hire place, which is small, doesn’t do this.
The worst point of all though is the fees for damage. Ok fair enough, if you properly pranged the car that’s fair, but in my experience the larger companies (who have a big scary legal team) take the p i s s by trying to charge £150 excess for each and every tiny thing. Eg. If a bonnet had 4 stone chips (which should be fair wear and tear) they try and hammer you for £600, when they zero intention of actually repairing the damage. And I would argue all but serious/structure damage never gets repaired. I must have rented several dozen different cars in my time and not once have I had one that was immaculate. |
You're wrong on several counts.
Most, (and I fully realise there is a wide spread of values in this statement) rental cars from enterprise etc and other major companies are less than a year old, and in many cases less than 6 months before they are turned over - back into dealers. The value of a 3 year old rental car is so low that a main dealer wouldn't even consider it as forecourt stock. The reason the agree to the sale and repurchase (and this is done at corporate level, not dealer level) is because they are guaranteed good condition , high quality stock that they can turn over at a far lower cost to the customer than "brand new". Dealers have sales quotas to fill, and those cars fill the gaps between the twice yearly new car uptake.
If you don't want to pay an excess for damage pay the insurance ! If you haven't been getting immaculate cars then you're hiring from the wrong company, (if that's what you want). All these dings and dents were not put there by the rental company !
Obviously, as I've stated before, minor repairs will not be done if it means the car is unavailable for a rental or series of rentals , but clearly there are those who pay little and expect little , and those who expect perfect but aren't prepared to pay for it.
As in almost everything in life, you get what you pay for. When you price up flights, you can get a price from BA or Etihad, or Air France . For your fare you get a seat of your choice , a luggage allowance ,a carry on bag, maybe you'll get free ski carriage, and perhaps included meals, snacks headphones, tvs in the seats etc etc.
OR you book super cheapo flights, where you not only have to pay more to get a seat BESIDE your family, but you have to pay to have checked bags, carry on allowance as you used to - no meals, no tv, no free ski carriage , no extras whatsoever , and then try to convince yourself that the £69 flight really is better than the £200 flight from BA. What you don't do is expect to get the BA flight and customer service at the cheapo price. |
That's why I said "up to 36 months". Different companies will have a different structures. But the main point still stands, the cars have a significant residual value and are worked daily from purchase to sale. Skis aren't. In fact they are worked 4/5 months out of 12, and will be basically sold for scrap/binned after the 3rd season.
I don't have an issue paying an excess if I do damage to a car. What I do have an issue with is paying an excess for each separate item. If I were to wrap my own personal car round a tree, I would pay £200 excess and get a like for like replacement car. However with a rental company, if a stone chip occurs on the motor way, say one on the bonnet and one on the wing, another car opens a door onto my car in a carpark and pothole causes a tiny scratch to an alloy, the rental companies would like to charge me 4 x excess which is utter bollix and completely immoral. There is no way to defend it.
As for the condition of cars, I'm talking about renting from Europcar, Avis, Hertz. I have NEVER had a completely immaculate care from those three. Presumably they qualify as the big boys and not some back alley dodgy business? |
Pay for the cdw . Problem averted. Presumably you're hiring most often at peak busy periods. Previous caveats regarding supply were explained, as were the turnover requirements particularly at an airport location.
I can't comment on your multiple excess statement as I have no relative experience. Once again, pay the cdw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Pay for the cdw . Problem averted. Presumably you're hiring most often at peak busy periods. Previous caveats regarding supply were explained, as were the turnover requirements particularly at an airport location.
I can't comment on your multiple excess statement as I have no relative experience. Once again, pay the cdw. |
No. And this goes directly to the heart of the problem. Things like CDW should be made clear and offered at the point of sale, not at the point of collection where they will use high pressure techniques to make you buy it. The worst I've had is the guy at Europcar in Nice airport saying that the excesses were unlimited and I could potentially be liable for several thousands of pounds if I didn't take it out. It is quite obviously a money making tactic and commission based one at that. No one puts that much pressure on unless they are incentivised to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
This is the bonnet of the car I was told that could be liable for several thousands of pounds with of excess for if I didn’t take out the CDM by Europcar. Complete joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Timberwolf wrote: |
| DotM, Rob, Snoodles...........easy guys - i know 2 of you well enough to know that you're way more chilled than this in real life...... |
You must be referring to Dave and Rob then 
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| @Roguevfr, Look at the bit where @Timberwolf got a supply and fit quote from a local VW dealer - who cares what you think they cost now? |
I said I had no idea when that was, and a price for a quote is not a supply and fit price , I've stated repeatedly that the cost of the repair is not the only cost .
I'm not here to defend every set of circumstances, as I've said before, use the major companies |
Surely if it was a reasonable charge then they'd have simply backed it up with a breakdown stating that windscreen costs X, lost hire equals Y and other associated costs equal Z? They dropped it as matter settle presumably because of either a) they decided to be nice about it and take the loss or b) someone else footed the bill. Lets give the benefit of the doubt and assume it's A in this case, but in any other industry B will happen on occasion and I simply can't believe that car rental is somehow the last bastion of morality where it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I tried here dude 
There's no way a windscreen for a Golf costs €600......even if it was not possible to rent the vehicle for a week ( who couldn't organise it to be done in 48 hours at worst ?? ) at €30 a day, it still doesn't cost €450 !
More importantly, what i didn't understand was why they demanded the extortionate cost of repair with a heavy lawyer's letter ( perhaps that was why the cost was €600 ?? ) but then wrote to say it was all resolved....... peculiar..... and i guess, when a business/industry seems to act in an odd manner, customers of that industry are naturally wary ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| andy wrote: |
| and well wrapped up in total budget for new car acquisitions and expected price at disposal at auction |
Assuming the cars are disposed of in that way. Its incredible how so many people here know the ins and outs without having any actual knowledge of the truth.
In fact, the large majority of cars bought by LARGE car rental companies are sold back into dealerships , and that 1- owner low mileage car you're buying off the forecourt might well have someone like Arnold Clark as the owner.
Virtually no cars from major rental companies go to auction UNLESS there is some reason that they will not be put directly onto dealers forecourts , such as excessive repair work. Very often cheaper cars with a fair amount of damage will be simply written off , as its not economical to repair them if they would then go to auction. |
The 2008 consumer protection from unfair trading regulations ensure that dealers are legally obliged to tell you if a car they are selling you is ex-rental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Timberwolf wrote: |
| There's no way a windscreen for a Golf costs €600......even if it was not possible to rent the vehicle for a week ( who couldn't organise it to be done in 48 hours at worst ?? ) at €30 a day, it still doesn't cost €450 ! |
Tricky to get hold of a windscreen for a Golf though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Timberwolf wrote: |
I tried here dude
There's no way a windscreen for a Golf costs €600......even if it was not possible to rent the vehicle for a week ( who couldn't organise it to be done in 48 hours at worst ?? ) at €30 a day, it still doesn't cost €450 !
More importantly, what i didn't understand was why they demanded the extortionate cost of repair with a heavy lawyer's letter ( perhaps that was why the cost was €600 ?? ) but then wrote to say it was all resolved....... peculiar..... and i guess, when a business/industry seems to act in an odd manner, customers of that industry are naturally wary ? |
I've no current price list for car parts, but if you have, then delighted to see it.
I cant explain the circumstances to you, perhaps you should enquire with them ?
As I have tried to explain several times now, the loss of use of the vehicle extends to more than simply the cost of the windscreen.
You've no idea whether the screen is available in 1, 2 or 10 days or not at all, and its not simply the loss of that vehicle specifically, but the other costs incurred, for example in order to fulfil the next hire, the next customers may get an upgrade to a more expensive car at the lower rate, which might mean moving a car from another branch a significant distance away, and associated fuel and staff costs, EVEN if such a car is possible to source or available elsewhere.
Would you rather turn up to get your car and have the company shrug and say "sorry mate, we don't have a car for you, here's the local taxi number" ?
I believe this is how many companies would handle this, but not what I'd expect from a decent company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Timberwolf wrote: |
| There's no way a windscreen for a Golf costs €600......even if it was not possible to rent the vehicle for a week ( who couldn't organise it to be done in 48 hours at worst ?? ) at €30 a day, it still doesn't cost €450 ! |
Tricky to get hold of a windscreen for a Golf though. |
Easy to make snidey comments about when you have no idea of the facts.
Of course every local autoglass outlet has every windscreen and glass for every possible car of every spec and model year on the shelf, ready to fit. They might even be looking for a glass from a car that's just recently been introduced to the market and spares are not yet available in any number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| musher wrote: |
The 2008 consumer protection from unfair trading regulations ensure that dealers are legally obliged to tell you if a car they are selling you is ex-rental. |
That may well be the case, I wasn't aware of that.
On the other hand, the condition of the car and its provenance doesn't seem to bother most of the posters on here, so why should it matter if its ex rental UNLESS its because people know the way rental cars are treated by hirers?
If you buy a car from Arnold Clark , off the forecourt, at a low price, and you know that Arnold Clark do car rental out of the same depot , of the same type of cars , and its 6 months old with 9500 miles on the clock would you really be surprised to find out it was ex rental ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Roguevfr, I drive rental cars the same way I drive my own car.
That said, when I was a teenager, an ambulance wrote off my car (with me in it, totally their fault) and I was given a courtesy Corsa for a couple of weeks. Man I ragged that thing to hell and back. That's the only time I've driven a rental like I didn't care.
Handbrake turns, J turns, handbrake into wheelspin and the best one was a rolling reverse wheelspin. I reckon I got through about 1000 miles worth of tyre with that last one. To do it you stop on a hill facing upwards, put it in first, hold the clutch down then let go of the brake so that you roll backwards. When you think you're going fast enough, max the throttle then let out the clutch. Lots of smoke/burnt rubber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
@Roguevfr, I drive rental cars the same way I drive my own car.
That said, when I was a teenager, an ambulance wrote off my car (with me in it, totally their fault) and I was given a courtesy Corsa for a couple of weeks. Man I ragged that thing to hell and back. That's the only time I've driven a rental like I didn't care.
Handbrake turns, J turns, handbrake into wheelspin and the best one was a rolling reverse wheelspin. I reckon I got through about 1000 miles worth of tyre with that last one. To do it you stop on a hill facing upwards, put it in first, hold the clutch down then let go of the brake so that you roll backwards. When you think you're going fast enough, max the throttle then let out the clutch. Lots of smoke/burnt rubber. |
That first comment is open to interpretation 
I never suggested anything to the contrary, but equally I've watched people wearing rental skis ski across rocks, tarmac roads, down metal stairs and worse, and literally throw them over walls and watched them fall into other folks skis in boot rooms. They wouldn't dream of treating them that way if they were on their own skis but "they're rentals" . But they are quick enough to complain about their condition when they're stood in the shop demanding a better/ newer sharper pair at the start of the week.
There is no reason to assume these people behave any differently with other rented items, be it cars or accommodation or other .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Pay for the cdw . Problem averted. Presumably you're hiring most often at peak busy periods. Previous caveats regarding supply were explained, as were the turnover requirements particularly at an airport location.
I can't comment on your multiple excess statement as I have no relative experience. Once again, pay the cdw. |
No. And this goes directly to the heart of the problem. Things like CDW should be made clear and offered at the point of sale, not at the point of collection where they will use high pressure techniques to make you buy it. The worst I've had is the guy at Europcar in Nice airport saying that the excesses were unlimited and I could potentially be liable for several thousands of pounds if I didn't take it out. It is quite obviously a money making tactic and commission based one at that. No one puts that much pressure on unless they are incentivised to. |
I'm not sure that there's a company that doesn't advertise such at the point of sale , I can't say one way or another because I haven't hired a car through regular channels for over 20 years . .
And if you didn't know about it the first time, you certainly should on subsequent hires, and if , in this knowledge you still choose not to buy it, then that to me is on your own head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| @Roguevfr, Look at the bit where @Timberwolf got a supply and fit quote from a local VW dealer - who cares what you think they cost now? |
I said I had no idea when that was, and a price for a quote is not a supply and fit price , I've stated repeatedly that the cost of the repair is not the only cost .
I'm not here to defend every set of circumstances, as I've said before, use the major companies.
"Who cares what I think they cost" isn't the issue YOU stated what YOU think the cost should be , I'm suggesting you're incorrect.
Happy to leave it at that ? |
I know this is debating with a man signed up for the 50p argument who will argue whatever. But I didn't state anything about what I thought the cost should be, I offered a possible explanation of why the rental co dropped it. So no not happy with a misrepresentation of what I said.
I'd put Is in shouty capitals if I could but y'know English grammatical conventions are so limiting 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Pay for the cdw . Problem averted. Presumably you're hiring most often at peak busy periods. Previous caveats regarding supply were explained, as were the turnover requirements particularly at an airport location.
I can't comment on your multiple excess statement as I have no relative experience. Once again, pay the cdw. |
No. And this goes directly to the heart of the problem. Things like CDW should be made clear and offered at the point of sale, not at the point of collection where they will use high pressure techniques to make you buy it. The worst I've had is the guy at Europcar in Nice airport saying that the excesses were unlimited and I could potentially be liable for several thousands of pounds if I didn't take it out. It is quite obviously a money making tactic and commission based one at that. No one puts that much pressure on unless they are incentivised to. |
I'm not sure that there's a company that doesn't advertise such at the point of sale , I can't say one way or another because I haven't hired a car through regular channels for over 20 years . .
And if you didn't know about it the first time, you certainly should on subsequent hires, and if , in this knowledge you still choose not to buy it, then that to me is on your own head. |
I'm aware of it. However my two main issues are 1) they try to pressure sell you it 2) the excess seems to be chargeable regardless of whether they actually intend to carry out the repairs or not (see my photo of a car I hired in Nice above).
2 subsequently makes 1 seem immoral at best and illegal at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Timberwolf wrote: |
| There's no way a windscreen for a Golf costs €600......even if it was not possible to rent the vehicle for a week ( who couldn't organise it to be done in 48 hours at worst ?? ) at €30 a day, it still doesn't cost €450 ! |
Tricky to get hold of a windscreen for a Golf though. |
Easy to make snidey comments about when you have no idea of the facts. |
Very easy
It's a Golf windscreen, not a Lancia Stratos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| @Roguevfr, Look at the bit where @Timberwolf got a supply and fit quote from a local VW dealer - who cares what you think they cost now? |
I said I had no idea when that was, and a price for a quote is not a supply and fit price , I've stated repeatedly that the cost of the repair is not the only cost .
I'm not here to defend every set of circumstances, as I've said before, use the major companies.
"Who cares what I think they cost" isn't the issue YOU stated what YOU think the cost should be , I'm suggesting you're incorrect.
Happy to leave it at that ? |
I know this is debating with a man signed up for the 50p argument who will argue whatever. But I didn't state anything about what I thought the cost should be, I offered a possible explanation of why the rental co dropped it. So no not happy with a misrepresentation of what I said.
I'd put Is in shouty capitals if I could but y'know English grammatical conventions are so limiting |
Fair enough, I seem to have misquoted your intent, and misunderstood your " who cares what you think they cost" . My intent was simply to point out that the perceived cost quoted was, in my opinion unrealistic, from whichever source the price was derived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Unlikely, it would be a huge claim. It's also far more reasonable to charge the person responsible for the damage...the crap bit is when they're basically charging a client for the general wear and tear which happens when the car isn't being driven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Not in my experience. Its simply an out of pocket expense to be borne, or claimed against the renter if appropriate, or claimed from the 3rd party insurance if either the hirer used their own/company insurance, or if damaged and a claim is made against another driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
They probably pool that risk by having an extra car in the fleet. Though I'd guess some will have chanced it by billing the customer for a replacement car supplied by a sister company
This gets to the heart of the industry's PR issue. One might say it's reasonable on a fleet basis to expect X% might be out of commission at any time (general maintenance, faults, self damage as well as customer damage) and say that they should probably factor that general cost into their rates. I'd be surprised if they don't model it when estimating yields and determining fleet requirements. So really that "out of use" cost should already be factored in or at least only when the fleet is completely sold out- only it appears not if there's an "opportunity" to gouge someone for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
They probably pool that risk by having an extra car in the fleet. Though I'd guess some will have chanced it by billing the customer for a replacement car supplied by a sister company
This gets to the heart of the industry's PR issue. One might say it's reasonable on a fleet basis to expect X% might be out of commission at any time (general maintenance, faults, self damage as well as customer damage) and say that they should probably factor that general cost into their rates. I'd be surprised if they don't model it when estimating yields and determining fleet requirements. So really that "out of use" cost should already be factored in or at least only when the fleet is completely sold out- only it appears not if there's an "opportunity" to gouge someone for it. |
Not practical.
What use is an extra fiesta if an estate is reserved ? What use is a small car if a 6-seater is booked ? Sister companies might well provide a vehicle in exceptional circumstances but they don't do it free .. what if the renter is unable to drive a manual car but that's all that's left? Should they keep duplicates of every car on the off chance ?
Fleets at airports could be in excess of 1200 cars or more, how many extra do you think should be spare to cover that amount.
I still can't understand why you think it's " gouging" someone when that renter has damaged the vehicle ? They had they opportunity to absolve themselves from any such " gouging" and opted not to do it .
When you insure your own vehicle, do you purchase the absolute lowest possible premium to be legally insured , or do you buy a nationally advertised, well known insurer who offers you a replacement vehicle if yours is off the road , breakdown cover, foreign travel cover, protected no claims bonus limited excess and so on ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Not in my experience. Its simply an out of pocket expense to be borne, or claimed against the renter if appropriate, or claimed from the 3rd party insurance if either the hirer used their own/company insurance, or if damaged and a claim is made against another driver. |
"Loss of use" is not an out of pocket expense. There is possibly an opportunity cost there but it's not actually real until a customer is lost because there is no other car to rent to them. So there is no difference between a car in the garage, being valeted slowly because the cleaning crew called in sick or just sat on the lot because it's a slack day or an unpopular model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
They probably pool that risk by having an extra car in the fleet. Though I'd guess some will have chanced it by billing the customer for a replacement car supplied by a sister company
This gets to the heart of the industry's PR issue. One might say it's reasonable on a fleet basis to expect X% might be out of commission at any time (general maintenance, faults, self damage as well as customer damage) and say that they should probably factor that general cost into their rates. I'd be surprised if they don't model it when estimating yields and determining fleet requirements. So really that "out of use" cost should already be factored in or at least only when the fleet is completely sold out- only it appears not if there's an "opportunity" to gouge someone for it. |
Not practical.
What use is an extra fiesta if an estate is reserved ? What use is a small car if a 6-seater is booked ? Sister companies might well provide a vehicle in exceptional circumstances but they don't do it free .. what if the renter is unable to drive a manual car but that's all that's left? Should they keep duplicates of every car on the off chance ?
Fleets at airports could be in excess of 1200 cars or more, how many extra do you think should be spare to cover that amount.
I still can't understand why you think it's " gouging" someone when that renter has damaged the vehicle ? They had they opportunity to absolve themselves from any such " gouging" and opted not to do it .
When you insure your own vehicle, do you purchase the absolute lowest possible premium to be legally insured , or do you buy a nationally advertised, well known insurer who offers you a replacement vehicle if yours is off the road , breakdown cover, foreign travel cover, protected no claims bonus limited excess and so on ? |
I'm not sure the analogy works as fully comp insurance is the norm now, and I think 3rd party F/T is actually more expensive.
As for CDW. If it's such a necessity and a brilliant idea, why not just include it as standard and non negotiable. I can only assume they either make money out of the CDW, the excesses, or both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Unlikely, it would be a huge claim. It's also far more reasonable to charge the person responsible for the damage...the crap bit is when they're basically charging a client for the general wear and tear which happens when the car isn't being driven. |
Wear and tear is wiper blades, brake shoes , small stone chips and the like. Tyres wear out, but not in the short rental lifespan that most cars have. Wear and tear does not occur when the vehicle is off the road unrented, other than self inflicted damage in a packed compound. Many companies operate a 3-and -out system for drivers/valeters etc so most non office staff are pretty careful when the yard is full. Of course , city centre locations tend to have more of such damage than airports, where the parking lots are regularly shaped and well defined, particularly if the city branch includes van rental as well as cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Not in my experience. Its simply an out of pocket expense to be borne, or claimed against the renter if appropriate, or claimed from the 3rd party insurance if either the hirer used their own/company insurance, or if damaged and a claim is made against another driver. |
"Loss of use" is not an out of pocket expense. There is possibly an opportunity cost there but it's not actually real until a customer is lost because there is no other car to rent to them. So there is no difference between a car in the garage, being valeted slowly because the cleaning crew called in sick or just sat on the lot because it's a slack day or an unpopular model. |
Loss of use is the same whether there is already a customer or not. Even if there is no booking, I cannot hire out a car which is unavailable to rent.
It is exactly an out of pocket expense, because as any business will tell you, it costs money to hold stock of any sort, and each moment the stock is not either going rented/ sold it is costing you money. If there is no way to recoup this cost, then it is an out of pocket expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Not practical.
I still can't understand why you think it's " gouging" someone when that renter has damaged the vehicle ? They had they opportunity to absolve themselves from any such " gouging" and opted not to do it .
When you insure your own vehicle, do you purchase the absolute lowest possible premium to be legally insured , or do you buy a nationally advertised, well known insurer who offers you a replacement vehicle if yours is off the road , breakdown cover, foreign travel cover, protected no claims bonus limited excess and so on ? |
Course it is practical in the broadest sense - keep a couple of extra Focus class cars on your fleet and you'd easily be able to address most requirements. Don't pull the line that all vehicles are carefully allocated and set aside from the point that they are reserved nor switching classes because of what's actually back on the lot is not commonplace.
When I'm talking about gouging I'm talking about representing that a windscreen takes many days to fix and hence the customer should pay for them all even if the car would not otherwise be being used.
Your latter is a good question, I certainly don't look for "nationally advertised" insurers because I know my premium is going into fancy advertising campaigns rather than the actual insurance product and the rest I look for what things I need vs what I am prepared to self insure for or buy elsewhere. Car hire I do from the "big brands" but that's where I have encountered lots of these practices and you have to be very careful when going international e.g. I believe Europcar use Advantage in the US and they are dogshite....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| dode wrote: |
| Do car rental companies not have insurance to cover against 'loss of use' for when their vehicles are off the road getting repaired? |
Not in my experience. Its simply an out of pocket expense to be borne, or claimed against the renter if appropriate, or claimed from the 3rd party insurance if either the hirer used their own/company insurance, or if damaged and a claim is made against another driver. |
"Loss of use" is not an out of pocket expense. There is possibly an opportunity cost there but it's not actually real until a customer is lost because there is no other car to rent to them. So there is no difference between a car in the garage, being valeted slowly because the cleaning crew called in sick or just sat on the lot because it's a slack day or an unpopular model. |
Loss of use is the same whether there is already a customer or not. Even if there is no booking, I cannot hire out a car which is unavailable to rent.
It is exactly an out of pocket expense, because as any business will tell you, it costs money to hold stock of any sort, and each moment the stock is not either going rented/ sold it is costing you money. If there is no way to recoup this cost, then it is an out of pocket expense. |
Going to have to fundamentally disagree with this one. There are sunk costs involved, but not renting out a car on a certain day because it's in for a repair is most definitely an opportunity cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
