 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Roguevfr, I truly think you don't understand the definition of "out of pocket"
try the first line of the key takeaway here
| Quote: |
An out-of-pocket expense is a payment you make with your own money even if you are reimbursed later. |
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/outofpocket.asp
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 9-06-21 16:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| 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. |
I agree, it should be included in the cost , as It was when I worked the desk. However, as has been stated, people want the cheapest basic price, and if meeting that means passing the potential damage costs onto the customer then the customer has that choice to make. I'd suggest that any company hiring anything out with a " do what you want to it, its all OK by us" attitude wouldn't be in business very long.
Quite often we'd receive customers in the office who you wouldn't have trusted with a pork pie, let alone a new car. You'd be relieved on those occasions when you could find a small detail that allowed you to gently refuse the hire, and breath a sigh of relief when they shambled out.
The local DO NOT HIRE list was extensive, and regularly updated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
OK, redefined as " loss of potential or actual earnings, and costs paid from profit "
Happy now? It's a cost to be borne, by any definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It isn't a cost to be borne by any definition. It's a "cost" that doesn't exist incrementally because the asset cost is already accounted for and it's unlikely to sell for any less just because there has been a repair. The "cost" that you are referring to is a potential loss of earnings i.e. reduced income, with emphasis on the potential until you prove it.
Interesting to see Accounting 101 from a rental car co perspective - doesn't greatly surprise me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
It isn't a cost to be borne by any definition. It's a "cost" that doesn't exist incrementally because the asset cost is already accounted for and it's unlikely to sell for any less just because there has been a repair. The "cost" that you are referring to is a potential loss of earnings i.e. reduced income, with emphasis on the potential until you prove it.
Interesting to see Accounting 101 from a rental car co perspective - doesn't greatly surprise me |
This. As a Fellow of ACCA, this is smack on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
It isn't a cost to be borne by any definition. It's a "cost" that doesn't exist incrementally because the asset cost is already accounted for and it's unlikely to sell for any less just because there has been a repair. The "cost" that you are referring to is a potential loss of earnings i.e. reduced income, with emphasis on the potential until you prove it.
Interesting to see Accounting 101 from a rental car co perspective - doesn't greatly surprise me |
I see you have your dictionary out. I made no reference to the future value of the vehicle being reduced because it has been repaired, although that is enivitably true.
The asset cost is already accounted for , and it is costed to generate a revenue based on its rental value, and the expected utilisation of that asset.
The asset costs you the company to have it, and you expect a return based on that availability.
If the vehicle is off the road for the reasons discussed, then it is not only not generating revenue today , tomorrow or until it is available again.
It is not only not being rented to someone today, but it is UNAVAILABLE to be rented to anyone who decides today to rent a car. So not the same as a car that is simply not popular / slack rental period or whatever.
Not available for use is not the same as sitting in the yard unrented, yet available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see you now understand that it is loss of income not "cost". But a car that is unavailable is EXACTLY the same as a car that is not wanted that day from a financial perspective - neither are generating revenue that day. The fact that you think that there is a fantasy customer unique to that unavailable car willing to pay if only that car were available does not make it true. It is only true if you have to cancel a confirmed booking or are turning away customers because you have no more cars (in that class).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I see you now understand that it is loss of income not "cost". But a car that is unavailable is EXACTLY the same as a car that is not wanted that day from a financial perspective - neither are generating revenue that day. The fact that you think that there is a fantasy customer unique to that unavailable car willing to pay if only that car were available does not make it true. It is only true if you have to cancel a confirmed booking or are turning away customers because you have no more cars (in that class). |
In my experience, we NEVER cancelled a booking, rather we would ensure that customer was served in the manner they'd expect. That in itself would incur costs, whether it be bringing a car in from another branch , sub contracting a car from another company or most commonly , giving the hirer an upgrade to a bigger car at no extra cost.
All of which incur costs, due to the lack of availability of their originally booked vehicle.
Loss of income while an unavailable asset is still costing you money is a cost
The fact the car may not have been rented HAD it been available is not the matter, since you can neither prove nor disprove that possibility.
It is the job of those employed in the industry to make sure that every available car is rented, every available day , and that holds for airlines, hotels and every business where such transactions occur. If you think that there is a lack of demand for a rental car at a busy time of the year when running at 95% plus utilisation is expected or demanded, then you're sadly mistaken.
When fleet utilisation drops due to lack of demand the fleet numbers are reduced by the requisite overstock, until the utilisation is back where it needs to be. There's almost never huge numbers of unrented vehicles sitting in a depot- they'd either be moved to a currently busier depot, or sold off, or the management and staff encouraged to do a better job of turning wheels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
You might even think some people on this thread actually know what they are talking about
I'm sure there would be many CFOs delighted to bank a bonus for the past year on presenting a P&L that included all the income they thought they would have earned if only they'd been allowed to be open or perhaps booking all that lost income opportunity as a cost to get a nice tax loss. |
Yet I'm faced daily by TV reports of countless business owners claiming and receiving money from the public purse because they have been unable to sell beer or rent out rooms that they expected to receive income from due to the ability to generate such income being unavailable to them .
They are paying for assets they are unable to use, yet they expect to recover some income as a result? How very dare they!
I wonder why that's different ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
You might even think some people on this thread actually know what they are talking about
I'm sure there would be many CFOs delighted to bank a bonus for the past year on presenting a P&L that included all the income they thought they would have earned if only they'd been allowed to be open or perhaps booking all that lost income opportunity as a cost to get a nice tax loss. |
Yet I'm faced daily by TV reports of countless business owners claiming and receiving money from the public purse because they have been unable to sell beer or rent out rooms that they expected to receive income from due to the ability to generate such income being unavailable to them .
They are paying for assets they are unable to use, yet they expect to recover some income as a result? How very dare they!
I wonder why that's different .. |
I think it’s different because we’re in the middle of a global pandemic and the government have ordered the business not to trade, and don’t want to be faced with an economy with no businesses at the end of it. That can’t really be compared with someone dinging a car door at the supermarket and the company choosing to have the ding repaired. Not the best comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
You might even think some people on this thread actually know what they are talking about
I'm sure there would be many CFOs delighted to bank a bonus for the past year on presenting a P&L that included all the income they thought they would have earned if only they'd been allowed to be open or perhaps booking all that lost income opportunity as a cost to get a nice tax loss. |
Yet I'm faced daily by TV reports of countless business owners claiming and receiving money from the public purse because they have been unable to sell beer or rent out rooms that they expected to receive income from due to the ability to generate such income being unavailable to them .
They are paying for assets they are unable to use, yet they expect to recover some income as a result? How very dare they!
I wonder why that's different .. |
I think it’s different because we’re in the middle of a global pandemic and the government have ordered the business not to trade, and don’t want to be faced with an economy with no businesses at the end of it. That can’t really be compared with someone singing a car door at the supermarket and the company choosing to have the ding repaired. Not the best comparison. |
Do you think car rental companies have sailed through unaffected while the airlines were running at minimum capacity ? Travel was banned ?
Poor analogy or not, the similarity and inability to make money from an asset remains the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
You might even think some people on this thread actually know what they are talking about
I'm sure there would be many CFOs delighted to bank a bonus for the past year on presenting a P&L that included all the income they thought they would have earned if only they'd been allowed to be open or perhaps booking all that lost income opportunity as a cost to get a nice tax loss. |
Yet I'm faced daily by TV reports of countless business owners claiming and receiving money from the public purse because they have been unable to sell beer or rent out rooms that they expected to receive income from due to the ability to generate such income being unavailable to them .
They are paying for assets they are unable to use, yet they expect to recover some income as a result? How very dare they!
I wonder why that's different .. |
It's different because there is no dispute - the payer is positively offering to pay them and making it as easy as possible for them to claim. Though I suspect like car rental charges there will have been more than a few fradulent claims made against the Treasury.
We're at least getting somewhere with your 95% utilisation number - that's closer to proving on average any given car would be likely to be rented. Your point on prove or disprove is interesting - I'd say it's incumbent on the invoicer to "prove" that the charges they are trying to bill are reasonable and not hide behind some obfuscating "costs of business" waffle or making up things that are untrue like saying the difference is out of pocket expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Do you think car rental companies have sailed through unaffected while the airlines were running at minimum capacity ? Travel was banned ?
Poor analogy or not, the similarity and inability to make money from an asset remains the same. |
Yep and where I came in on this thread was a car rental company (and a top brand/$ one at that) thinking they could rinse me a few months after the rental has concluded for a spurious charge to ease their Covid cashflow. Sounds fair doesn't it - why shouldn't all customers who had rented a car in the past year be charged proportionately for the time it could no longer be rented? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@philwig, Pre covid, I used to book with Buchbinder at Salzburg alway found them good but they close early in the evening so I switched to Avis, I signed up for their Preferred loyalty scheme, In the 12 months pre covid I've rented from Munich, Salzburg and Faro.
Benefits of Preferred, you put in your preferences, in a number of locations you can go straight to the car paper work all done, you earn upgrades and free weekend, but the benefit is not having to queue and no sales stuff.
Munich, to help with the big queues they had a person wondering around he asked if we had booked, checked his iPad then sent us straight to the fourth floor in the car park as we are Preferred, had to give my driving license over for them to check you can add it to your profile.
Salzburg, the car hire bit is small no ability to separate proffered from any other punter, they alway hand over the keys , can't recall being asked for additional insurance, I have a separate policy. I only ever book a group A car and have never had one in 3 or 4 rentals.
Faro, line going out the door, left Mrs R with the luggage while I went into the office, there was a separate line with two staff and two customer, so I was next in line, the non preferred Q had one person serving many. The only upsell was to have the motorway tag which turned out to be a good one.
I always book a group A car and either book through BA or direct with Avis which ever works out the cheaper
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Do you think car rental companies have sailed through unaffected while the airlines were running at minimum capacity ? Travel was banned ?
Poor analogy or not, the similarity and inability to make money from an asset remains the same. |
Yep and where I came in on this thread was a car rental company (and a top brand/$ one at that) thinking they could rinse me a few months after the rental has concluded for a spurious charge to ease their Covid cashflow. Sounds fair doesn't it - why shouldn't all customers who had rented a car in the past year be charged proportionately for the time it could no longer be rented? |
For the simple reason the customers are not responsible for the inability of the vehicles to be rented, unlike those whose car rental results in the vehicle requiring repair. I can't comment on your particular case. I wasn't present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
If you'll use your superior intellect to clarify the position then I'm sure I'll be gratified.
Please do tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Roguevfr, a very interesting discussion.
There is no doubt that many people think that Hire companies are a bunch of crooks on the make. Some of them even on this board.
And why is this?
I suggest it is personal experience.
And no matter how much you are right, personal experience will always triumph.
Have I had good service? Yes.
Have I had bad service ? Yes.
Have the desk tried to sell me stuff? Oh Yes.
Do I photograph - nay video with commentary nowadays, every square inch of a car before taking it out because I am scared stupid that I am going to be charged vast sums by the hire company if they think they can get away it it? You betcha.
And why do I do that? Because I've been stung before.
So while I can accept your points that there is reason behind the costs, you need to accept that in the minds of many of us great unwashed, the hire companies have a disastrous PR face, and an even worse customer service record.
And whether that's justified or not, the fact is your interlocutors on here do. not. trust. hire companies. And that is something they need to think seriously about fixing.
Now, back to the popcorn. As you were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner. |
So you'd charge for the vehicle being off the road and also for a vehicle to replace that vehicle being off the road? That's some beautiful double bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Arctic Roll, Well said. I concur with everything you've said there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arctic Roll wrote: |
@Roguevfr, a very interesting discussion.
There is no doubt that many people think that Hire companies are a bunch of crooks on the make. Some of them even on this board.
And why is this?
I suggest it is personal experience.
And no matter how much you are right, personal experience will always triumph.
Have I had good service? Yes.
Have I had bad service ? Yes.
Have the desk tried to sell me stuff? Oh Yes.
Do I photograph - nay video with commentary nowadays, every square inch of a car before taking it out because I am scared stupid that I am going to be charged vast sums by the hire company if they think they can get away it it? You betcha.
And why do I do that? Because I've been stung before.
So while I can accept your points that there is reason behind the costs, you need to accept that in the minds of many of us great unwashed, the hire companies have a disastrous PR face, and an even worse customer service record.
And whether that's justified or not, the fact is your interlocutors on here do. not. trust. hire companies. And that is something they need to think seriously about fixing.
Now, back to the popcorn. As you were. |
You're absolutely correct.
On the other hand , those same people are entirely unconvinced that the opposite position exists, and that the vast majority of companies are entirely truthful in their business practices and the huge number of transactions end to the satisfaction of both parties.
Equally, they believe that their behaviour is above reproach,even when they themselves have proven it not to be so.
Further, they've signed an agreement they have had explained to them, the provisos and ramifications of which they sign to state they understand and agree to .
But they don't want to listen to the "speil" because they're a bit tired and they know better.
I've no time for people who come the big " I am" , I'd certainly be making absolutely certain that every possible box was ticked if someone came at me with that attitude . It certainly didn't cut any ice with me, and it sure as hell wouldn't have got you the Mercedes instead of the mondeo.
I'm sure many of those I'm arguing with would tut tut if someone they knew spoke abruptly to a waiter or shop assistant , yet they're happy to criticise rental operators and by proxy , me, by daring to try to do their job the way they are instructed to do by their employers.
Frankly, cowboys exist in all businesses, no argument, but the way people go on about it you'd think they didn't have a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner. |
So you'd charge for the vehicle being off the road and also for a vehicle to replace that vehicle being off the road? That's some beautiful double bubble. |
In order to keep a good customer , I would spend money to ensure they did not have their rental cancelled. Yes.
Would you rather I just cancelled their holiday booking ?
That may or may not mean sub contract or other costs. Its an example of costs that occur, not a set in stone example. Some may not be applicable in every case, some may.
Imagine if you could have avoided all this simply by paying a small surcharge ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we have an example of another business which operates in the same way?
Pub: buy a drink, pay for drink, leave glass on table, waiter notices a small chip in the glass, sends glass away for a repair and charges original customer for several drinks which may, or may not, be consumed by future punters.
*Runs away*
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner. |
So you'd charge for the vehicle being off the road and also for a vehicle to replace that vehicle being off the road? That's some beautiful double bubble. |
In order to keep a good customer , I would spend money to ensure they did not have their rental cancelled. Yes.
Would you rather I just cancelled their holiday booking ?
That may or may not mean sub contract or other costs. Its an example of costs that occur, not a set in stone example. Some may not be applicable in every case, some may.
Imagine if you could have avoided all this simply by paying a small surcharge ? |
Then I think your former industry has changed since you left. I know several people that have been stranded for hours at airports because the rental company has sold the cars at over 100% capacity (in the same way that airlines and hotels do, hoping for no shows). And they certainly weren’t interested in finding an alternative arrangement. They were told they’d just have to wait for another car to return at some point.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Wed 9-06-21 19:26; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Klamm Franzer wrote: |
Can we have an example of another business which operates in the same way?
Pub: buy a drink, pay for drink, leave glass on table, waiter notices a small chip in the glass, sends glass away for a repair and charges original customer for several drinks which may, or may not, be consumed by future punters.
*Runs away* |
now that would fall under reasonable wear and tear. On the other hand, if you're pissed and stood at the bar, and you lurch into the waiter who's carrying a £200 round of spirits, I'd reasonably expect you to be stumping up for the goods that suddenly became unavailable to the intended customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Roguevfr, you don't get it. Vehicle A gets damaged by Client A. You charge client A for the fact you can't can't rent Vehicle A. You also charge Client A to bring in Vehicle B to rent to Client B.
You haven't lost use of a vehicle because Client A has paid to provide Vehicle B, so to also charge them for Vehicle A being off the road is a scam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Klamm Franzer wrote: |
Can we have an example of another business which operates in the same way?
Pub: buy a drink, pay for drink, leave glass on table, waiter notices a small chip in the glass, sends glass away for a repair and charges original customer for several drinks which may, or may not, be consumed by future punters.
*Runs away* |
Pay for a drink, leave glass on table, waiter notices a scratch (perhaps from a diamond ring) on the side of the glass, charges original customer for a new glass, doesn’t replace the glass, gives the old glass a quick wash then uses it for a drink for the next customer, who also scratches it with a diamond ring..... and so on....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner. |
So you'd charge for the vehicle being off the road and also for a vehicle to replace that vehicle being off the road? That's some beautiful double bubble. |
In order to keep a good customer , I would spend money to ensure they did not have their rental cancelled. Yes.
Would you rather I just cancelled their holiday booking ?
That may or may not mean sub contract or other costs. Its an example of costs that occur, not a set in stone example. Some may not be applicable in every case, some may.
Imagine if you could have avoided all this simply by paying a small surcharge ? |
Then I think your former industry has changed since you left. I know several people that have been stranded for hours at airports because the rental company has sold the cars at over 100% capacity (in the same way that airlines and hotels do, hoping for no shows). And they certainly weren’t interested in finding an alternative arrangement. They were told they’d just have to wait for another car to return at some point. |
Maybe, but that's far more likely to be because the previous renter thought it'd be OK to keep the car past their return time, or decided to keep the car another day , when it really wasn't OK for them to do so. Every single renter who's been late returning a car for whatever reason thinks its irrelevant.
Despite the opinions on here, you cannot magic a car out of thin air. Once again, not necessarily the companies fault.
On the other hand , some people just suck, on both sides of the desk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Roguevfr, they were literally told by the staff that they routinely oversell rental capacity. Now if I was a rental car guy, and I had a furious family in front of me, knackered from hours of travelling, I would rather say that another punter hadn’t brought their car back.
If I was the business owner, I would calculate the frequency of this occurring, based on historic averages, and over stock to that amount. I would then charge the late returner to cover the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
@Roguevfr, they were literally told by the staff that they routinely oversell rental capacity. Now if I was a rental car guy, and I had a furious family in front of me, knackered from hours of travelling, I would rather say that another punter hadn’t brought their car back.
If I was the business owner, I would calculate the frequency of this occurring, based on historic averages, and over stock to that amount. I would then charge the late returner to cover the cost. |
I'd imagine they were trying to be consoling to say that. I'd be surprised if there were that many no-shows at an airport, since the flight times etc are regulated, however, flights do get delayed or cancelled.
Can't say if I'd rather blame the last customer or not ? Probably they are told not to bad mouth the customer. As I've explained already, you cannot overstock, since you cannot cover all possible rental needs. Keep 5 extra vehicles ? What happens if 6 are late ? It's a shame for the renter who has to wait, but that's still out of the culpability of the rental location. Might be absolutely genuine, a breakdown , puncture whatever, but you can't cover every eventuality.
The staff are constantly reallocating which car is going to which renter as they are returned / late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
@Roguevfr, you don't get it. Vehicle A gets damaged by Client A. You charge client A for the fact you can't can't rent Vehicle A. You also charge Client A to bring in Vehicle B to rent to Client B.
You haven't lost use of a vehicle because Client A has paid to provide Vehicle B, so to also charge them for Vehicle A being off the road is a scam. |
I do get it, absolutely. Nobody said that full costs for both vehicles are being invoiced out. In any case, you're likely to be facing a maximum excess charge, however High or low that is.
. Pay the waiver. The potential costs are explained to you . You agreed to that contract. If you're not happy with a particular company, then use another, there's plenty of choice.
Companies are there to make a profit .
At the outset of this discussion I stated : stick to the reputable big companies. .Pay the waiver .
This is good advice. It may not be the best profitable position for the company, but such is life.
If it all goes pear shaped , then don't try to be clever, return the car to where its meant to be, when its meant to be returned , in good condition and in the agreed fuel status.
If you have complaints after the fact, then take it up with the head office, and you'll probably get the decision in your favour, rightly or wrongly.
Be courteous to public facing employees, and they'll be the same to you generally. Dealing with the public is the most stressful job most people have to deal with other than those in hazardous occupations . Not everyone they deal with is a dick, but a high percentage are , and nobody wants to stand in a queue, and the people behind you are unlikely to be impressed by you throwing a tantrum.
Join a membership if its worthwhile for you to do so. All the major companies offer them, and it may well circumvent many or all of the main complaints people have. It also provides the hire companies with a more reliable, steady Client base. The emerald club or equivalent offer real benefits to regular hirers.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 9-06-21 20:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
@Roguevfr, you don't get it. Vehicle A gets damaged by Client A. You charge client A for the fact you can't can't rent Vehicle A. You also charge Client A to bring in Vehicle B to rent to Client B.
You haven't lost use of a vehicle because Client A has paid to provide Vehicle B, so to also charge them for Vehicle A being off the road is a scam. |
I do get it, absolutely. Nobody said that full costs for both vehicles are being invoiced out. In any case, you're likely to be facing a maximum excess charge, however High or low that is.
. Pay the waiver. The potential costs are explained to you . You agreed to that contract. If you're not happy with a particular company, then use another, there's plenty of choice.
Companies are there to make a profit .
At the outset of this discussion I stated : stick to the reputable big companies. .Pay the waiver .
This is good advice. It may not be the best profitable position for the company, but such is life.
If it all goes pear shaped , then don't try to be clever, return the car to where its meant to be, where its meant to be returned , in good condition and in the agreed fuel status.
If you have complaints after the fact, then take it up with the head office, and you'll probably get the decision in your favour, rightly or wrongly.
Be courteous to public facing employees, and they'll be the same to you generally. Dealing with the public is the most stressful job most people have to deal with other than those in hazardous occupations . Not everyone they deal with is a dick, but a high percentage are , and nobody wants to stand in a queue, and the people behind you are unlikely to be impressed by you throwing a tantrum.
Join a membership if its worthwhile for you to do so. All the major companies offer them, and it may well circumvent many or all of the main complaints people have. It also provides the hire companies with a more reliable, steady Client base. The emerald club or equivalent offer real benefits to regular hirers. |
Nothing that the rental companies should change about their customer service? Or are the complaints expressed in this thread entirely unjustified? I stick to the big renters, I take their comprehensive insurance but decline their (exorbitant, IMO) top up policies. According to you I do the right thing, but I have to endure the hard sell, I got stiffed on minor damage, and on at least one occasion was subject to what I think is probably fraudulently charging me for fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| I do get it, absolutely. Nobody said that full costs for both vehicles are being invoiced out. |
Nobody except you.
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| I do get it, absolutely. Nobody said that full costs for both vehicles are being invoiced out. |
Nobody except you.
| Roguevfr wrote: |
Im sure an invoice for loss of use is fairly easy to produce :
Chargeable costs for damage repair £xxxx
Vehicle off the road due to damage suffered (period of repair) £ xxxx
Cost of procurement of replacement vehicle to fulfill commitments £ xxxx
Staffing and fuelling costs, incurred due to procurement of said vehicle £xxxx
Total £xxxxx
Thanks very much, please ensure settlement is made in a timeous manner.
|
|
Sorry, where does it say what the charges are ?
If you've got facts hit me with them, otherwise, accept that's its a simple example of a potential (and undoubtedly contested) bill , not the 10 commandments. Purely indicating costs which may be part of the excess charged.
When I buy a load of decking I don't get an invoice from the supplier so that I can query if he should have used a cheaper truck, or bought fuel at a different petrol station or otherwise query it. Its the cost. That's it. Costs exceeding the amount of the excess are still a loss against profit, and would exceed the excess limit quite easily- a couple of tyres and an alloy might easily hit the limits without any other costs at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
@Roguevfr, you don't get it. Vehicle A gets damaged by Client A. You charge client A for the fact you can't can't rent Vehicle A. You also charge Client A to bring in Vehicle B to rent to Client B.
You haven't lost use of a vehicle because Client A has paid to provide Vehicle B, so to also charge them for Vehicle A being off the road is a scam. |
I do get it, absolutely. Nobody said that full costs for both vehicles are being invoiced out. In any case, you're likely to be facing a maximum excess charge, however High or low that is.
. Pay the waiver. The potential costs are explained to you . You agreed to that contract. If you're not happy with a particular company, then use another, there's plenty of choice.
Companies are there to make a profit .
At the outset of this discussion I stated : stick to the reputable big companies. .Pay the waiver .
This is good advice. It may not be the best profitable position for the company, but such is life.
If it all goes pear shaped , then don't try to be clever, return the car to where its meant to be, where its meant to be returned , in good condition and in the agreed fuel status.
If you have complaints after the fact, then take it up with the head office, and you'll probably get the decision in your favour, rightly or wrongly.
Be courteous to public facing employees, and they'll be the same to you generally. Dealing with the public is the most stressful job most people have to deal with other than those in hazardous occupations . Not everyone they deal with is a dick, but a high percentage are , and nobody wants to stand in a queue, and the people behind you are unlikely to be impressed by you throwing a tantrum.
Join a membership if its worthwhile for you to do so. All the major companies offer them, and it may well circumvent many or all of the main complaints people have. It also provides the hire companies with a more reliable, steady Client base. The emerald club or equivalent offer real benefits to regular hirers. |
Nothing that the rental companies should change about their customer service? Or are the complaints expressed in this thread entirely unjustified? I stick to the big renters, I take their comprehensive insurance but decline their (exorbitant, IMO) top up policies. According to you I do the right thing, but I have to endure the hard sell, I got stiffed on minor damage, and on at least one occasion was subject to what I think is probably fraudulently charging me for fuel. |
Sorry for your bad experiences. Not my place to excuse or apologise for them or explain in any way for them, any more than I'd expect you to apologise for someone being a dick to me or others during a rental contract. As I said before, some people just suck, regardless of which side of the counter they stand.
Yet you don't take the cdw as you think it's exorbitant. That's your choice to make. I guess that's just your opinion. Others may agree, some may not. It's still your choice. I can buy a steak for £4 or pay £31 for the same steak in a restaurant, I think that's exorbitant, but once again, that's just my opinion. I don't go hammering on the kitchen door demanding the chef justify his ability to fry the steak, especially if I've already seen the menu and know the price.
I've been to many restaurants where I've fancied a steak, only to find it "comes with " nothing at all,and been rather miffed to pay $8 for some chips and $5 for a small order of broccoli. I'd certainly rather pay for an entree that includes "fixins" than bite off my nose to spite my face by getting a plate with only a hunk of steak on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for explaining. I always wondered what CDW stood for!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Sorry for your bad experiences. Not my place to excuse or apologise for them or explain in any way for them, any more than I'd expect you to apologise for someone being a dick to me or others during a rental contract. As I said before, some people just suck, regardless of which side of the counter they stand. |
Glad you said that and I fully agree it’s unacceptable if customers are being dicks to staff. I think some of the issues I’ve had are systemic rather than just a case of an employee having a bad day, but I suspect that’s a step too far for you to acknowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Roguevfr wrote: |
| Sorry for your bad experiences. Not my place to excuse or apologise for them or explain in any way for them, any more than I'd expect you to apologise for someone being a dick to me or others during a rental contract. As I said before, some people just suck, regardless of which side of the counter they stand. |
Glad you said that and I fully agree it’s unacceptable if customers are being dicks to staff. I think some of the issues I’ve had are systemic rather than just a case of an employee having a bad day, but I suspect that’s a step too far for you to acknowledge. |
I'm not going to gratify your opinion any further than to restate the last line of my quoted post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
