Dangerous Hire Van

[tesla6518]

A friend hired a Luton van with electric tail lift to move home. It was on a 24 hr hire and she took out extra insurance cover.

She had two friends to drive and move the furniture, however at the destination they used the control to open the lift, which immediately fell open and the whole rear frame of the vehicle fell apart.

The tail lift part fell itself onto a parked car wheel arch and damaged it. Despite being told the vehicle would be recovered within 4 hours it was not until the next day. Therefore she had to go to another hire company for a replacement van.

The heart of the matter is the hire company are claiming £8,000 against the hirer for the damage caused.

Looking at the matter from a logical point of view and because she is distraught I stated that she should not have to as the vehicle as not in a fit state to be hired.

I have asked for copies of the hire agreement, insurance cover, photos and the repair bill. but have not arrived yet.

I know that they are claiming £4,000 for lost business whilst the vehicle was in the workshop being repaired. Also the other vehicle that was damaged is not included as it was uninsured at the time of the accident.

So at this point any pertinent points would be appreciated,

[tesla6518]

Sorry I now have the correct sequence of events as they happened, The vehicle was loaded by the driver, who drives these vehicles for a living. He secured the tail-lift in the correct manner and drove to the planned destination some 2 miles away over some bumpy roads. when he arrived he had to negotiate a corner at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, he heard a loud bang, which presumably was the tail lift dropping down, unfortunately the corner of the tail lift connected with another vehicle, causing the tail lift framework to detach from the vehicle.

[tesla6518]

Update: the hire company are now claiming for extensive damages including replacement of the roller shutter door, which from the pre hire photographs shows the same damage as the after collision damage photo's, they also claiming for a company logo which was non existent as shown by pre hire photo's. To the tune of £4800.00 + loss of use of van hire £4220.00 total £9,020.00

However my question relates to the clause that they are using to cancel the Collision Damage Waiver which was purchased.

Clause 2 (c) where reasonable practicable to do so,obtain names and addresses of any third persons and witnesses and supply them to U-Drive in writing.

The third person involved would not give any details, stated he did not want to be involved and drove off immediately. can they plead that they could not give any third person names or addresses as the person refused to supply them and they have not breached this clause.

Also the damage assessment was done online with photographs which clearly shows the existing damage and the assessor states a 6 day repair cycle, yet the hire company are claiming 50 days loss of hire.
what evidence should they be asking for as they are Litigants in Person.

much appreciated

[islandgirl]

This is not my field but hoping a reply will bump it up so someone with more knowledge will reply. My view is that this is what insurance is for. Insurance was obtained. End of story. "reasonably practical" - the hirer did what was reasonably practical to obtain names and addresses and in my view this clause would not be sufficient to cancel the insurance anyway. I would be pushing the insurance company and insisting they sort it out - it should be nothing to do with your friend in my view but a matter between the insurer and the owner of the van. Once again I stress that this is not my area of in depth knowledge and the views are what I would do in that situation so do not constitute advice!

[tesla6518]

IslandGirl thank you for your input, as usual sound advice
I believe the hire company back their own insurance so are reluctant to honour the contract. I was also surprised when I asked my friend for the insurance terms & conditions and that of the additional CDW, only to be told that all they had was the hire agreement which is very vague. have attached a copy.
4a insurance: we have tried to get a copy of the summary of the insurance and CDW but have merely been told by the debt recovery manager "it is all in section 4", they also went to the depot and asked the manager for the summaries, but he asked where it said it in the contract, and was amazed when he saw what was written he said he would email them Monday, however I doubt this as we have requested them via email 4 times and each time received the same response.

Hire agreement.pdf

[islandgirl]

atticus echat11 any thoughts?

[echat11]

It doesn't matter what the agreement / Terms and Conditions states, if the following is true:
(providing the lift was lowered correctly).

Is it correct that the 'van' hired wasn't fit for purpose i.e. moving goods etc.

The lift was lowered using the correct control on the 'van', this is because the 'van' wasn't
maintained by the company.

Your friend would then be an 'unwitted' user of the 'van', in this case the claim's made by]the
company against your friend are without merit and if they raise any claims against your
friend then they should be defended and she should counter - claim.

It could be that, the 'van' was hired to your friend to, exactly to 'fail', so they can claim from
your friend. Thus the outrageous amounts they are claiming.

The 'van' would have maintenance records.

Or was it a case that the 'van' was to close to the parked car?

'The tail lift part fell itself onto a parked car wheel arch and damaged it.'

[tesla6518]

Echat11

I have confused things a bit by putting up the first reported version of events. It is the second post that has the facts of the platform dropping and hitting the vehicle.
You could be correct about the "Fit Up" as looking at the prices of some of the repair items they have charged between 150 - 216% markup. Also they have listed all the items used for the repair, but then put in another huge sum for materials.
With regards to the maintenance record I asked them to request them. With the reply that they are of no significance in this matter. We will have to wait until discovery to request these documents.

[islandgirl]

I see nothing in the hire agreement to make me think this is anything other than an insurance matter. They can ask for you to pay all they want but my response would be that you took out their insurance, were given a vehicle which was clearly unfit although the faults could not be seen on pick up (the conditions say you should inspect the vehicle) and that the insurance company should be paying out.

[echat11]

Has your friend got Legal Expenses Insurance in any of her Insurance policies?

I take it that the accident happened on a public highway.

I've had a look at the insurance, the only things that apply, would be the non - authorised Drivers penalty of £50.
Providing the Collision Damage Waiver has been taken out, then the excess is reduced to £75 - £125.

https://www.u-drive.co.uk/faq

[tesla6518]

I should like to thank Islandgirl and Echat11 for their valued opinions and help

[tesla6518]

Pre-empting this matter, would it be advisable when acknowledging service ( presume they will go MCOL route) to make a Part 20 Claim for Indemnity? Do you just complete N211 and send to court?

Suggestions for wording would be appreciated

[tesla6518]

Just received. I asked for photos of the repaired van. They did not supply them but sent the following.

For the avoidance of doubt, certain documents have been redacted in part to withhold information subject to legal professional privilege and/or litigation privilege. Accordingly, some gaps in pagination are deliberate and do not signify missing documentation. All material relevant to the issues in dispute has been disclosed insofar as it is not privileged*

Could someone please translate this for me, are they saying the photos of the repaired van are privileged?

[echat11]

Pre-empting this matter, would it be advisable when acknowledging service ( presume they will go MCOL route) to make a Part 20 Claim for Indemnity? Do you just complete N211 and send to court?

Suggestions for wording would be appreciated

Who would you make a Part 20 Claim for Indemnity against?

If a Part 20 Claim was necessary you would lodge it with Court at the same time as your Defence.

Posted for information only - https://www.mills-reeve.com/publicat...20to%20succeed.

[echat11]

Just received. I asked for photos of the repaired van. They did not supply them but sent the following.

For the avoidance of doubt, certain documents have been redacted in part to withhold information subject to legal professional privilege and/or litigation privilege. Accordingly, some gaps in pagination are deliberate and do not signify missing documentation. All material relevant to the issues in dispute has been disclosed insofar as it is not privileged*

Could someone please translate this for me, are they saying the photos of the repaired van are privileged?

It's like they are saying, it's been repaired, but we aren't going to show you it's been repaired.

That's possibly something you can use to your advantage, i.e. they want you to pay monies, but not
showing any of the work done to the van.

You can say you requested evidence of repair, but they failed to provide any before they made their claim.