Sixt van hire scam

[des8]

As you suggest R0b, it is down to interpretation.
I agree that the letter is drafted to scare the uninitiated into thinking it presages court action, but the use of "may" IMO suggests they will claim the letter just sets out their client's possible course of action.

It really is a case of either telling them briefly why you dispute the invoice or challenging them on the basis of not following pre action protocols and issuing a non compliant LBA.
I prefer the first option, R0b the second.
That's the best of this forum... different viewpoints without rancour

[Minxi]

Perhaps my first letter should ask what sort of letter theirs was intended to be ...

Or should I make a choice?

[des8]

Sorry, but can't answer that one for you!

[R0b]

It's up to you how you want to go about it and whether you want to ask them in what capacity they are acting. Or you can get down to it and take my route or Des' route.

Either way, you'll find out if they are serious about legal proceedings sooner or later.

[Minxi]

Okay guys thanks!

I think I'm going to write to them to say that their letter looks like a (non-compliant) LBA and ask them to respond as to that issue. I'll also say that once we understand what their position is, we'll discuss the matter.

I'll draft it and post it up.

[Minxi]

DES8

ROB

Dear Sirs

Due to certain aspects of its content, the letter you have sent appears to us to be a letter before action. If indeed that is what you intend it to be, we consider that said letter is not compliant with the pre-action protocols for debt claims. In that case, it follows that any issuing of legal proceedings will be premature until compliance is met. Please therefore advise with absolute clarity what you mean this letter to be, and in what capacity you act.

Once we have that information, we can enter into a discussion with you as appropriate regarding your client's claim for damage, which (as your client is fully aware) we absolutely dispute.

YF
Minxi

If there's anything I should add or subtract let me know. I'm doing it this way because I'd prefer to know what they are up to, especially with regard to any court proceedings, as my complaints to Sixt about this incident remain unanswered.

[des8]

It's easy to see what they are up to.
They are a firm of solicitors trying to obtain money their client tells them you owe.
They will ,as they are paid by their client, do and say almost anything to frighten you into paying.
Hence their letter, which is close to an LBA, mentioning their client reserving the right to initiate court proceedings to obtain a court judgement etc etc
That sort of language would faze some, and so they try it on.
Whether or not they would actually proceed to court is a completely different matter.

They are looking for £500...... small claims track.
Recoverable costs for winning side are very limited
So even if they win their costs are likely to outweigh their winnings (depending on their arrangement with Flint Bishop)
They are a commercial enterprise and look for profit, not loss

I doubt it matters what you write as you'll probably get a template response.
I like the use of the royal "we"

[Minxi]

DES 8

Hah okay Des! Well, I'll send that up anyway and wait for their response. Thanks guys for the help on it.

Meanwhile I'll try to kick ass on the complaint I put in via Resolver. They (Resolver) say, incidentally, 'if you want to chase the complaint just give Sixt a ring'. Yeah sure. Sixt has to pick up the bloody phone for that to happen! And so long as the complaint remains unanswered, I suppose I have a bargaining point with Sue & Grabbit or whatever they're called.

With 'we' I just hope it annoys them.

MInxi

[Minxi]

DES8

ROB

Hello guys

They have responded to my missive @ #111 (their original letter is at #99 fyc):

We write further to your letter dated 03 September 2019.

Our client's claim would be a claim in damages rather than a debt claim. Our letter to you of 02 September is compliant with the protocol for such claims.

We note that you dispute our client's claim and therefore look forward to receiving details of the same to enable us to seek further instructions from our client.

(ends)

If there's anything wrong with what they're saying perhaps you could advise, and I'll bang one back.

On the matter of dispute, the situation is as follows. I sent a complaint in to Sixt Customer Services 11 weeks ago, and thus far there has been no response. Advised by BVRLA that this is an unacceptably long time to wait, one among them advised me to escalate to BVRLA. This I did, only to be advised (by someone else there) that I must wait for Sixt's written response before escalation to BVRLA. BVRLA did however forward my complaint to '(their) senior contact at Sixt', whoever that is (no name given). So perhaps I will soon get a response from Sixt.

In terms of advising Flint Bishop, one factor is that where court proceedings have been instigated I can't escalate the claim to BVRLA (a stipulation of theirs), which I may need to do if I disagree with what Sixt says (if I ever hear from them). So it would be best if FB could be prevented from doing that.

Cheers
Minxi

[des8]

OK, so you are expected to follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
This means you need to act reasonably in exchanging information about the claim, and defence , including relevant documents in support of your case.
and the suitability of mediation or another form or ADR should also be considered to resolve the issue.
Now you have tried this and have referred to BVRLA,through their complaint resolution service but Sixt aren't co-operating.
Just point that out to FB and ask them to chivvy up their client!

[R0b]

Well, it was worth a try and I'd probably agree with them on that point.

Just adding to Des' comments, Sixt will of course be putting forward their own evidence and facts to their clients which will be based around their viewpoint. They will be motivated to reocvering the money that they are claiming from you and so it is entirely possible that they are being economical with the truth and omitting certain things that don't support their claim e.g. the failure to provide a response within a reasonable time in accordance with BVRLA Code of Conduct.

I think that needs to be emphasised to FB and point out that it is well established that legal proceedings are considered to be of last resort and ADR options should be considered by both parties. You've made several attempts to follow the BVRLA complaints process but Sixt are wilfully choosing to ignore its obligations as a member of the BVRLA to enable you to have the matter considered by an indepedent party.

For those reasons you could say that legal proceedings are premature and suggest that Sixt comply with the BVRLA Code of Conduct in respect of complaints handling but if they persist, then you won't hesitate to raise their unreasonable conduct and failure to abide by their membership rules to the court's attention and seek a costs order for unreasonable conduct and/or wasted costs for refusing to consider ADR.

[Minxi]

DES8

ROB

Wot about:

Thank you for your letter, received 00.09.2019.

Please allow us to advise that we have already raised the matter under discussion with Sixt in the form of an official complaint. However, your client has so far been completely uncooperative, having seen fit not to respond to our justified and reasonable communication within a proper time-frame. After 12 weeks we still await contact: as a guide, Which? magazine cites 14 days as an acceptable response time, whilst the BVRLA — with whom we are also liaising in the matter — suggests 28.

It is well-established that legal proceedings are considered to be of last resort, and thus we are puzzled as to why your company has been brought in at this premature point. First, ADR options (inter alia) should be considered by both parties as a means of resolving any issue. As pointed out, we have met our responsibilities fully in this regard, whereas your client is wilfully choosing to stymie the process. Might we therefore suggest you contact Sixt with a view to dealing with our complaint ASAP (if you can get through, that is: we have certainly tried).

In light of the above we feel that any legal proceedings are premature, and suggest that Sixt comply with the BVRLA Code of Conduct in respect of complaints handling. Should they persist, then we won't hesitate to bring their unreasonable conduct and failure to abide by their membership rules to the court's attention, and seek a costs order for unreasonable conduct and/or wasted costs for refusing to consider ADR.


We look forward to hearing from you, especially with regard to your client’s apparent reticence to engage with us.

[seduraed]

DES8

Thanks

We said:

Dear Mr Khan

Thank you for Sixt's most recent revised offer, but to us this demand still seems inappropriate.

May we please refer Sixt to our previous emails regarding added loss of value.

Regards
Mr Minxi
Sixt customer

I would without prejudice offer them the £24 which they spent on getting the damage assessed.

[Minxi]

DES8

ROB

Nothing from Blint Fishop yet this week.

Went on little recce today. Original hire venue Sixt Bromley has been closed down, but there's a note on the wall saying refer all enquiries to Sixt Croydon. This is where the Bromley fleet was sent after the closure.

So I spoke to this guy Temmy, the man on the customer desk at Croydon, about the vehicle I hired, and asked if they still had it. I gave him the (2015) reg and he said, "no, no man, that's ANCIENT. We wouldn't use one that old. Stuff like that we send back to the lease company, where they are sold on at auction. That's the deal, we buy them, hire them for a while, then send them back to the lease company for second-hand sale". I said do you repair them before they go back? "No no, maybe a valet, but that's it. They're all in pretty good shape anyway". Oh yeah, I said, just a few small scratches. "Yeah, that's it".

Further to this, a manager on the Sixt national line told me that nothing older than six months is used in the fleet. That's a lie as far as I know, but shows they want to keep the fleet youngish.

Anyway, the van concerned was, somewhere between date of hire and a few weeks ago when Bromley shut (or slightly later after being sent on to Croydon), sent out for auction, very likely without being repaired. And I think you guys said that in law, without having actually shelled out for repairs, Sixt are due no compensation?

I tried to get the Old Bill to tell me who owns the veh now, but no go. Data protection.

Minxi

[R0b]

Anyway, the van concerned was, somewhere between date of hire and a few weeks ago when Bromley shut (or slightly later after being sent on to Croydon), sent out for auction, very likely without being repaired. And I think you guys said that in law, without having actually shelled out for repairs, Sixt are due no compensation?

If I did say that then my position has changed, there is some case law that says they don't need to pay for repairs to claim compensation. I'm sure I posted something recently on this point but can't find it.