Tweet
I had an issue last year where I was given a hire car as part of the contract I had with RAC at the time where they would supply a vehicle if they couldn't repair mine. I was given the hire car and a date was agreed for its return. I requested its extension from RAC and they granted it for another day. The car was returned back late in the end, but the way I was charged for the new balance was without my permission and knowledge.
The notion that the car may have been returned late is a separate point of discussion. What is in question is the method of retrieval of funds that the hire company actioned to pay off the new balance.
If I understand the process correctly, when a new Rental Agreement (RA) is made 3 criteria need to be fulfilled: a) the customer needs to be present at the time of the hire; b) the customer needs to sign for the RA; c) the customer needs to authorise payment for the RA to be finalised. The hire company have not been able to provide a signed copy of new RA that was created to pay off the new balance. The hire company has already confirmed via its head office that it ‘cannot find’ this RA; this is simply because it does not exist. It does not exist because the RA was never signed, authorised nor was any customer present in its inception. I challenged the branch to present any CCTV footage of the latter point if it feels that I may be mistaken.
A second point relates to where the payment information came from to make the charge in the first place. An American Express card was used in the chip and PIN reader of the branch during the inception of the original RA. It was not known to me that at the time, the branch was storing these details on its system, the legalities of which are unknown at this stage. As the hire company realised that the card could not be charged under the original agreement due to the contractual obligation it had with RAC, it create another RA as explained above. To achieve this, they ported the credit card details without my knowledge to a new RA (as explained above) and charged the credit card for the new balance without a signature, credit card authorisation and without my presence in branch. The false creation of the RA and the subsequent unauthorisation of charging a credit card on file amounts to fraud.
After raising the complaint with the hire company directly on multiple occasions via their head office via writing and telephone calls, they haven’t been able to explain why my credit card was wrongfully charged, and in a way, through their silence and ignorance have admitted to fraud which is why there are no answers in relation to how my credit card could have been charged against an RA that I did not know exist, nor had I authorised payment for.
Subsequently, I raised this transaction with American Express who after reviewing the evidence across the two RAs have refunded the cost back to me card. If they felt the hire company had been correct in its actions, why did they agree to refund approximately £250 back to the source of payment?
I have contacted the BVRLA about the issue and they are of the stance that the method in the way the new balance was charged was lawful because I was in breach of contract.
Is this correct?
The notion that the car may have been returned late is a separate point of discussion. What is in question is the method of retrieval of funds that the hire company actioned to pay off the new balance.
If I understand the process correctly, when a new Rental Agreement (RA) is made 3 criteria need to be fulfilled: a) the customer needs to be present at the time of the hire; b) the customer needs to sign for the RA; c) the customer needs to authorise payment for the RA to be finalised. The hire company have not been able to provide a signed copy of new RA that was created to pay off the new balance. The hire company has already confirmed via its head office that it ‘cannot find’ this RA; this is simply because it does not exist. It does not exist because the RA was never signed, authorised nor was any customer present in its inception. I challenged the branch to present any CCTV footage of the latter point if it feels that I may be mistaken.
A second point relates to where the payment information came from to make the charge in the first place. An American Express card was used in the chip and PIN reader of the branch during the inception of the original RA. It was not known to me that at the time, the branch was storing these details on its system, the legalities of which are unknown at this stage. As the hire company realised that the card could not be charged under the original agreement due to the contractual obligation it had with RAC, it create another RA as explained above. To achieve this, they ported the credit card details without my knowledge to a new RA (as explained above) and charged the credit card for the new balance without a signature, credit card authorisation and without my presence in branch. The false creation of the RA and the subsequent unauthorisation of charging a credit card on file amounts to fraud.
After raising the complaint with the hire company directly on multiple occasions via their head office via writing and telephone calls, they haven’t been able to explain why my credit card was wrongfully charged, and in a way, through their silence and ignorance have admitted to fraud which is why there are no answers in relation to how my credit card could have been charged against an RA that I did not know exist, nor had I authorised payment for.
Subsequently, I raised this transaction with American Express who after reviewing the evidence across the two RAs have refunded the cost back to me card. If they felt the hire company had been correct in its actions, why did they agree to refund approximately £250 back to the source of payment?
I have contacted the BVRLA about the issue and they are of the stance that the method in the way the new balance was charged was lawful because I was in breach of contract.
Is this correct?
