Dangerous Hire Van

[islandgirl]

I have a feeling they will not go to court...it may be a threat to scare you.

[des8]

Has a court claim actually been initiated yet?
I can find no mention of it in scanning through this thread.
If it has been issued it might be helpful if it could be posted up (suitably redacted)

It sounds to me a typical car hire type of scam where the company tries to frighten hirers into paying for non existent repairs following damage which was not the hirer's responsibility. Sixt have a bit of a history on this forum for acting in this way.

[tesla6518]

Thank you all for your respected input, my friend has informed me that they have issued a letter before Claim, In correspondence I have seen, it seems they are relying on that fact that a clause in section 4 of the agreement has been breached (Failure to provide third party details) however going through other posting on the website it seems that the FCA made a ruling that unless the failure affects the risk it cannot be relied upon.
Saying that, if they do issue a claim , their reasons may alter. I will keep post updated,

[tesla6518]

Echat1 reply to part 20 question, against the hire company as it seems they are self insuring

[echat11]

Echat1 reply to part 20 question, against the hire company as it seems they are self insuring

When you file your Defence, you make a Counterclaim on the same Defence document and pay the fee for the Counterclaim.
But it's important to take the correct route.

[tesla6518]

Well contrary to belief they have submitted a claim, originally they claaimed that the insurance was null and void because third party details were not supplied, now they are claiming negligence.any advice please on a defence, acknowledgement being sent today. claim form attached Claim Form_Redacted.pdf

[tesla6518]

sorry I inserted PDF

[echat11]

a) First Acknowledge the Claim, you can do this online via MCOL, this will give you 28 days (plus 5 days postal) in total to work on your defence - you've done this (via post).

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ledge-a-claim/

b) Send a SAR request to the Claimant, they have 30 days to provide all the data they hold on the account. Make sure you get Proof of Postage.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...ccess-request/

c) Send a CPR 31.14 request to the Claimant, they have 7 days to provide all the documents they are relying on to make the claim against you, again get Proof of Postage.

https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-of-documents/

d) The following is the correct form

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._0524_save.pdf

e) Guidance on Defending the Claim, go through the thread,

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...+web+FINAL.pdf

Workout when your Defence is due, 28 days (5 days postal) from the date on the claim form.

Copy / paste your Defence on this thread 7 days before it due.

Update the thread when they respond to requests or any communications from the Claimant.

[tesla6518]

Echat11 I do not understand the purpose of sending a SAR request to the claimant, my friend is aware that they only hold the information that she has given them, also Sending a CPR 31.14 request also

seems a waste of rescources, as they have already provided the invoice that they are relying on in the claim form.

the matter now hinges on the fact that they have changed stance from what at first was a breach of a contract term in the Collision Damage Waiver insurance (failure to provide third party details)

to one of negligence,(failure to secure the tail-lift correctly).

A third party claim will not be forthcoming as the third party would not surrender his details (believed to be uninsured) and drove straight-off after incident.

With regards to the invoice, firstly it is obvious from photographs of before and after repair that there is no damage to the roller shutter door and therefore should not have been replaced.

It is also obvious that items such as company logo have been charged for but were not on the original vehicle other items have been boosted by excessive amounts and should she claim

Unjust Enrichment.

The claimant used a Claims management company to assess the damage online via photographs. I used the same photographs to obtain an alternative quote from a bodywork

specialist company who quoted £480 + VAT for the same repair.

I will upload the various documents later today.

I appreciate your help in this matter and respect your input

[echat11]

SAR's sometimes throw up information that is helpful.
It costs nothing to do, but it's up to you.

[des8]

......and should send a CPR31.14 letter to ensure defendant has copies of all specific documents relied on by claimant in their claim.
It doesn't matter that the defendant is convinced the claimant has provided everything .. their certainty might be mistaken

[echat11]

I misread, I thought he was stating that the CPR 31.14 will be sent.

In your Defence you can show that the documents they are relying on to make the claim
have been requested under the Civil Procedure Rules, then state whether the Claimant has
complied or not.

[tesla6518]

Echat11 DES8 Thank you for the clarification on the requests to be made , I will ensure that she does this.

[tesla6518]

Siobhan has now provided her defence and would be grateful if you could review and comment.

1. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of claim is admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 of the Particulars of claim is admitted.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of claim is admitted
4. Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of claim is denied, it is believed that the Tail-Lift securing system was faulty, The vehicle was not fitted with the Safe Stowage indicator system as recommended by BS EN 1756-1 2021 (s)5.10.1, it is further believed that the platform torsion spring was faulty, this would have also been a protection against the tail-lift platform dropping of it own accord. We require the claimant to prove the operator failed to secure the platform correctly stated within the claim.
5. The claimant upon request refused to provide the maintenance and servicing records of the vehicle, stating that it was not a requirement in the circumstances.
6. The defendant has repeatedly requested photographic evidence of the vehicle damage repair as required by the claimant's Claim Management Company, these have been denied.
7. Paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim is denied. The claimant merely provided an invoice No:UD0336783U to the sum of £8,667.36 on 23^rd January 2025 and demanded payment within seven (7) days.
8. Several items in Invoice UD 0336783U were queried, a full explanation was requested, the claimant denied this request claiming Legal Privilege.
9. The Defendant and her nominated driver deny the damage stated within the claim and invoice supplied by the Claimant. Defendant further alleges Claimant has misrepresented the damage constituting Unjust Enrichment.
10. Using the same method of assessment as the Claimant, details and photographs were sent to an independent Bodywork repair company upon which a quotation to complete the repairs for the sum of £480.00 was received.
11. Certain materials within the repair invoice have been increased by a factor of 1000% above retail prices, the defendant believes this to be unconscionable Conduct and a breach of the implied term of “reasonable price” under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
12. Invoice UD 0336783U requires a sum for the loss of rental revenue, the defendant believes the stated days being grossly overstated and relies on the claimant’s own photographs as evidence.
13. Defendant requests full disclosure of all documents relating to the claim.
14. Defendant had purchased Collision Damage Waiver insurance to supplement the 3^rd party insurance provided within the contract, however, supplementary documents outlining the full extent of the coverage were not provided, when requested, the claimant was merely referred to section 4 of the contract by the claimant’s claims manager.
15. When requesting further details of the insurance which the contract states as available from the branch of hire, the branch manager was unaware of such provisions within the contract and asked to be shown the relevant clause, upon which he stated the documents would be emailed to the defendant, these documents were never received.
16. The defendant believes that this is an insurance matter and that the claim should be “Struck Out”

[tesla6518]

is it worth imserting that the defendant requested to view the damaged, replaced roller shutter door but was informed that it had already been disposed of.