Car Policy

[979316]

Hi all hope you can help.

I left my former employer 7 months ago and at the time had a company car which when handed over I was asked if it had any damage which I stated no (never saw the Director actually inspect it), which to the best of my knowledge was the truth.

I have now just received a letter off them requesting payment for damage. When I handed the car over it had done about 15,000 miles and is now at 30,000 so has been well used since.

The company has a car policy (not one signed) which states paying excess. My issue is having worked there 12 years and having damaged cars in that time through accidents this policy was never enforced to me and many colleagues. I am only aware of 1 time it was applied to a working employee who was new but the rest only when staff leave and is selectively applied. Is this legal? Also, after 7 months is it legal to invoice for damages to a vehicle which was seem as undamaged when I left?

If someone cam offer advice it would be appreciated.

[des8]

Re: Car Policy

Hi and welcome

I don't suppose when you returned the car you obtained a receipt, stating the condition.
Certainly the lapse of time makes it unreasonable for your ex employers to require you pay the insurance excess and I would be inclined to tell them to take a hike!

Have they given you any documentation which would support their claim that you were responsible for damage (dated photos?), copies of insurance claim (made shortly after you returned vehicle) Proof they ever made an insurance claim?

Even if they do have such documentation it isn't proof the damage was caused whilst in your custody.

[979316]

Re: Car Policy

Nothing signed off them re condition when handed over I'm afraid.

Along with their invoice was a breakdown off the lease firm of their charges to them for a list of damages.

My former employer has highlighted one of these happened whilst the vehicle was in my position as it refers to damage caused by a roof rack and I did have one installed, however, it was one specific for the car and caused no damage installing or removing it that I could see.

I do not know if after handing the vehicle back if someone else has applied a roof rack, I guess if not, that is why they are charging me, but I did not see any damage and have not been given specifics of what damage the roof rack apparently made.

[wales01man]

Re: Car Policy

When was the damage reported and estimates obtained?
The new driver must of looked the car over when they took it a fool would not

[979316]

Re: Car Policy

No date on the report, but as the vehicle had done a further 15,000 miles since in my possession which was recorded on the report. On this basis I reckon the vehicle has only recently gone back to the lease firm so my guess would be the damage has only been identified then probably within the past 2 weeks.

[teaboy2]

Re: Car Policy

No date on the report, but as the vehicle had done a further 15,000 miles since in my possession which was recorded on the report. On this basis I reckon the vehicle has only recently gone back to the lease firm so my guess would be the damage has only been identified then probably within the past 2 weeks.

I would write back to them outlining the fact the vehicle when handed back to them 7 months ago had only done 15,000 miles and according to the documents it has now done 30,000 miles. Therefore the vehicle has clearly been used and done double the mileage to when you handed it in, that and given the fact the damage was reported only 2 weeks ago, makes it clear the damage was only recent. Ask them for proof that any damage was caused by you and also remind them that they had at the time you handed the vehicle back failed to inform you of any damage, therefore they agreed at the time there was no damage. Inform them that the law of estoppel prevents them from now 7 months after agreeing their was no damage, changing their stance to now say there was damage, especially when the vehicle has done double the mileage as to the mileage it had done when you handed it in. Not only that, but the onus is on them to proof the damage was done by you in if this went to a court of law, and given the circumstances and the time that has past since you handed the car in and they now making a claim against you for monies to cover damage 7 months and 15,000 miles later i therefore refer you to arkell v pressdram!!

[979316]

Re: Car Policy

Thanks Teaboy2. My only concern was they would claim the proof was as it was supposedly a roof rack caused damage and they may claim no one else has attached one since being handed in and that this is proof of my fault. Will follow your advice though and send a letter requesting further proof.

[teaboy2]

Re: Car Policy

Thanks Teaboy2. My only concern was they would claim the proof was as it was supposedly a roof rack caused damage and they may claim no one else has attached one since being handed in and that this is proof of my fault. Will follow your advice though and send a letter requesting further proof.

When was the roof rack removed, who removed it (also who put it on)? If it was removed after you handed in the car, then the damage could if not more likely have been caused by removing it than putting it on. In most cases the damage is minor damage to paint work which can be repaired with a touch up pen and t-cut, or it could simply be marks on the paint work where the legs of the rack fixed to the roof (basically dirt and dust around the legs that have hardened) which can be removed with a good old fashioned elbow grease! Plus if it was removed by someone after you handed the car in, then they would have no claim against you as the damage is more likely to have been caused during the removal of the rack!

If it was removed before you handed the car back in, then as they made no mention of damage until now they basically agreed that their was no damage - So they would have no claim against you.

A decade of so ago my first full time job was working in a motor accessories shop with a fitting bay, i was assistant manager their after being promoted from a shop floor lad, so i have fitted loads of roof racks, and know its unlikely damage was caused fitting the rack! - Plus you have rubber pads that sit under the legs of the rack to protect the paint work, but over time those rubber pads disintegrate and stick to the paint work etc - Therefore causing damage to the paint work if removed forcefully instead of by removing with hot water of white spirits to soften the rubber.

[979316]

Re: Car Policy

Cheers Teaboy2. I removed it before handing the vehicle back so they had plenty of opportunity to identify any damage at the time I left the business. Thanks again for the advice.

[teaboy2]

Re: Car Policy

Your welcome - Since you removed it before handing it back, you should point out this to them in the letter i suggested and state that as at the time they didn't mention anything about any damage where the roof rack had been at the time you handed it back then they legally accepted that their was no damage and the law of estoppel now prevents them from claiming otherwise!