Sixt van hire scam

[Minxi]

DES8

Hi Des. We said:

Good afternoon Miss Sagoo

The panel we are alleged to have damaged was at the time, according to your own documentation, already damaged.

We are advised that we are only liable for the diminution in value to the van that we (allegedly) caused.

As stated, the panel under discussion was already damaged, so any additional scratch to it caused no further loss in value. We are thus liable for nothing.

Regarding the outlandish amount you are asking for, a SMART repair for a 10cm scratch, such as the one we are alleged to have caused, costs less than £100.

Regards
Minxi
Sixt customer

[Minxi]

DES8

So Sixt's Ravjot Sagoo says:


Thank you for your e-mail.

We do not accept SMART repairs, due to ownership of the vehicle we lease the vehicle from the manufacture therefore all repairs must be done to the manufacture standard.

I have offered you a settlement of £450 or you Can obtain your own like for like full repair quote from a garage.

(ends)

She does not say anything about our liability claim as regards the pre-existing damage. She does however refer to 'repairs ... done to the manufacture (sic) standard', which they never apparently get done. Nb there's nothing in the contract that prohibits SMART repairs as far as I can see.

Cheers
Minxi.

[des8]

I didn't realise that car manufacturers leased vehicles. especially to leasing companies like Sixt, but there you are.. learn something new everyday!

You can continue to play letter tennis with them by reverting to "my liability for depreciation is nil as panel was already damaged, and my scratch did not cause further depreciation"
or ignore them and see what their next move is

[Minxi]

DES8

Many thanks. We said:

Dear Miss Sagoo

I note you did not respond, so please allow us to reiterate: our liability for depreciation is nil as the panel was already damaged. Any further damage, such as a scratch, would not cause further depreciation.

Regarding SMART repairs, or any other type of repair, we can see nothing in the contract between us that precludes using them.

(ends)

Thanks
Minxi.

[Minxi]

DES8

Miss Sagoo is having a cuppa, so now we have been responded to by a certain John Sebastian Wallis:

Thank you for your e-mail. Please let me bring your attention to why we do not accept SMART repairs as highlighted in our terms and conditions.

14.11 We will calculate the compensation due to us for any other damage by asking an appropriately qualified expert to provide an estimate of our losses resulting from the damage and such losses will include the reasonable fees charged to us by that expert. The expert will base that estimate on the reasonable cost of the repairs to the Vehicle necessary as a result of the damage. The estimate is intended to reflect the loss measured by the open market rate of repairs to the Vehicle at an SIXT Terms and Conditions for Rental of a Vehicle 02.19 appropriate dealership or authorised repair centre of the Vehicle

14.13 If you disagree with the expert’s estimate of the losses resulting from the damage, you may instruct your own suitably qualified and accredited expert (at your own cost) and we will allow you and/or your expert to access the evidence of the damage in our possession. If we cannot agree with you the amount due in respect of the damage, it may be necessary for a court to decide on the appropriate payment.

As you can see the terms and conditions, we have to bring the car back to the value of what it was worth before the damage has happened. Also stated it has to be an authorized dealership repair and it has to be to manufactor standard. SMART repairs are not to manufactorer standard.

Best regards (ends).

FYI the 'damage' was assessed by someone approx 170 miles away from the vehicle, using a relatively poor quality photo.

Also, this Johann Sebastian doesn't seem to have addressed our claim as to pre-existing damage/ zero liability.

What do you think?

Cheers
Minxi

[des8]

Ask them to address the matter of pre-existing damage/ zero liability.

Might as well play letter tennis!

[Minxi]

DES8

We said:

Good morning Sixt

You have already admitted in previous communications that the vehicle was never sent to be assessed.

Your 'expert', in Burton-on-Trent, 170 miles away from Bromley, never saw the van, but was sent the same photographs we have seen, which are ambiguous at best in showing any alleged damage.

Please address the issue of pre-existing damage per our previous email.

[Minxi]

DES8

Ms Sagoo is back, though her colleague Jack did phone this morning. I told him not to call.

They are contesting regarding our 'existing damage' point, saying there is no existing damage on the panel. However, I've seen that regardless of how they term the panel areas, the panel is indeed one piece all the way back to the rear lights, including whaat they call 'centre' and 'bottom' areas. The engineer's report (repair bloke up north) gives the part number which is for the whole side rear panel. This panel definitely shows earlier damage.

Here is what Sixt said plus my reply:

The damage you are being charged for is-

Side panel, rear, bottom Passenger side Dent > 10 cm (with paint damage)

The pre-existing damage to the vehicle concerning the side panel as per the rental agreement is-

Side panel, front, centre Passenger side scratch < 5 cm (down to primer)
Side panel, rear, centre Passenger side scratch > 10 cm (down to primer)
Side panel, rear, bottom Driver side scratch < 5 cm superficial
Side panel, rear, bottom Driver side scratch < 5 cm superficial
Side panel, rear, bottom Driver side scratch 5-10 cm superficial

As you can see there is no pre-existing damage as the one we have logged found upon the return of your vehicle.

(ends)


Good afternoon Ms Sagoo

Thank you for your mail.

Please may we reiterate following your colleague Jack's intrusion today: DO NOT call us. Please use email for all correspondence.

The side panel quoted for in the engineer's report includes areas previously damaged, regardless of any alleged other damage occurring during our hire, according to your own list. Therefore regarding the information you sent today, I am afraid we do not agree.

Regards
Minxi

[des8]

Interesting the way a superficial scratch 10 cm long (post1) has become a dent with paint damage.
Do you still have your copy of the original inspection report?

[Minxi]

DES8

Morning.

On 'assessment pix' in the first image you will see TWO instances of damage. One is a faint line about 10cm long, the other a scuff on the wheel-arch. Our attention was only ever drawn to the line, not the scuff, and it was the line we were forced to admit to by a very heavy-handed and bullying Sixt rep. However, neither the scuff nor the line appears on the pre-existing damage list (they call this new damage '+34' on the checksheet).

On 'checksheet anon' you can see the red '+34' marker which represents the damage we are supposed to have caused. But as there are two 'damages' in that area, it's not clear what they mean. Also in that attachment you can see '+9', which IS listed as pre-existing damage, and which appears to be on the same panel. They are trying to say that it is not on the same panel, and that there is a difference between 'side panel rear bottom' (our damage +34) and 'side panel rear centre' (+9).

It's all being made to seem a bit misty really, and I'm trying to find out today (at the local Renault garage) whether or not the panels divide between +34 and +9. If those areas are on the same panel, we can claim pre-existing damage without a problem. If not, we can look at the following.

If at +34 there are indeed not one but two instances of damage, even though neither was on the pre-existing damage list, we can say that our attention was only ever drawn to the line (which is true), and not the wheel-arch scuff, which would therefore have been a pre-existing scrape. I think it would be hard for them to say that the two things happened at the same time, as they are very different in character.

Phew!

[Minxi]

DES8

Update: we went round a Renault garage today and found a Renault Master 135 (longer model) 2015 reg. The rear side panel, passenger side, goes from the top to the bottom of the van and is not cut to accommodate the door slider. It's a one piece job. It extends back to what Sixt are calling the 'door pillar', which is the bit that houses the rear lights and goes around the corner to the back doors. Please see the sample images that show the panel layout.

The key wording to establish position of damage is therefore 'side panel rear': if damage at +9 is listed as such (which it is: side panel rear centre), then it is by definition on the same panel as our supposed damage at +34 (side panel rear bottom), and must therefore be classified as pre-existing damage.

Cheers
Minxi

[des8]

But it is not just the damage to that particular panel.
One has to take the value of the van as a whole and calculate if "your" damage causes any further reduction in value and if so how much.

They can only claim for the cost of repair if they actually pay for it to be repaired, otherwise they can only claim for loss of value

[Minxi]

DES8

Sorry I thought we were talking about the respray cost for 'side panel rear'.

You seem to imply that an extra dink on a van with at least 33 prior dinks will cause no additional loss in value, but what IS the legal position? I'm obviously not quite clear on it, so perhaps you could swat me around the head with it one more time. I mean, Sixt seem happy enough to pursue me for this: are they doing so as most people pay up because they don't want to get involved in a wrangle?

I don't imagine, as a hire company, they will ever repair the van. It would be pointless where the thing is constantly out on hire and at risk of further damage. And that's not their game anyway, with such a lot of cash being taken in from damage claims. Why spend all that ill-gotten profit on a respray or two?

I don't know what their lease arrangement is with Renault, or whoever else: lease-purchase maybe? I would have thought that as soon as a vehicle gets too shabby or too knackered it goes straight to the s/h market.

Minxi

[des8]

Basically if a person damages someone else's property the owner has a right to be put back into the position they were in prior to the damage.
The cost of doing that should be borne by the person causing the damage, but that cost is not incurred until it has been paid to the repairer.
If the injured party forgoes that repair they are only entitled to the devaluation that has been caused.

Those two figures are not necessarily identical.
As you have found out the ESTIMATE to repair a minor scratch to showroom standard is £500++.
The actual cost might be different.
The actual devaluation to a vehicle already bearing the scars of a hard life may well be nil.

Until Sixt actually have the van repaired they are entitled to nothing.
If they claim to have had the vehicle repair and present you with a bill, request proof of the repair ie you need to examine the vehicle

[Minxi]

DES8

Many thanks. I'll wait for their next missive.

Cheers
Minxi