Thanks for your input Conniff and king12345. Sixt already have the repair note from Autoglass: it is since they have received it that they declared the a repair was not good enough. Prior to this they were offering me 50% off on the grounds that I must have lost the receipt after all this time (it was an email receipt, so no I hadn't)

I think there is danger here of getting into a technical discussion that has no bearing on the matter (and I know nothing about). At the time both Sixt (who I called about 6 times because I didn't know whether I could drive the vehicle) and Autoglass said they would need to see the chip to see whether it could be repaired, but this was to do with driver view (position) and type of chip. They were both aware that it was about 2cm and neither party said that it had to be smaller. Autoglass use £2 as a reference in their slideshow here: https://www.autoglass.co.uk/glass-repair-and-replacement/windscreen-repair/ In any event, the chip was successfully repaired, almost invisible and was guaranteed. So much so that had I not pointed it out to the guy doing the inspection (to produce the receipt for the repair), I doubt that it would have been spotted. I feel the main issue is that Sixt have twice now promised that I would not bear any additional cost (owing to their negligence in the first instance) and I am now being asked to cough up for a replacement that I don't believe was required after I returned the vehicle. I believe that the windscreen did require replacing in February, but this was down to other motorists and this particular model being very prone to chips and nothing to do with my time of hire. I also feel that my level of honesty and integrity handling this matter (ie reporting the chip, pointing out the repair on return and so on) has been my downfall. It is being used against me. This is evidenced by Sixt sending me a pending bill one day BEFORE I had returned the vehicle. I naturally assumed that this would be zero once all the details had worked their way though.

I am not sure what you source is and you might care to provide it, but this is a red herring. Autoglass undertook and guaranteed the repair. They did not have to do this, they were fully aware of the situation and could have said that a new windscreen was needed if it actually was. The first time Sixt suggested that the repair was inadequate was 5 months after the incident.

There is a whole thread here which discusses the mens era v strict referencing a landmark case. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59393 The bottom line is that the OP is being asked to pay a penalty fare. The railway company cannot seek prosecution if they do not pay. It is important to understand exactly what the letter says because if this is what they are trying to do then a well worded letter back should close the issue.

A quick question for anyone who know about these things. Obviously my ideal outcome would be for this to just go away. But failing this, if there any way that I can "counter claim" against Autoglass? I have no gripe with them, I think that they turned up promptly and did a terrific job, but I am in no position to prove that a repair was appropriate whereas they are.

What paper did you fill in? In order to secure a criminal prosecution for an dishonesty crime (ie theft), prosecution MUST show mens rea. Because you offered to pay on a voluntary basis immediately on arrival, I think they would struggle to show that you intended to evade the fare. In addition as a season ticket holder, assuming that you have a history of back to back season tickets, this would also support your claim that you had no intention of avoiding paying. Also note that the contents of their letter is important. If they have asked you to pay £80 then they cannot seek a criminal prosecution. Threat of criminal prosecution if you do not pay their £80 fine is making a demand with menaces and a criminal act under 1968 Theft Act Threat of civil action (ie county court for a civil debt) if you do not cough up, is not. The fine is purely a revenue generating exercise for the railway company. I don't know how you would avoid paying it if this is their policy under terms and conditions of travel.

I wanted to update you all on this and also see if there is any advice going. Five months on, this is still ongoing. Since I last wrote I had communication from Sixt requesting the receipt for the repair, which I didn't see until they sent a follow up (owing to the amount of junk mail I have going to that particular email address). The follow up was interesting: I was offered 50% reduction on the basis that I probably no longer had the receipt. I wrote back asking for confirmation that the issue would be closed on production of receipt and received the following email: "I can confirm if you can provide a receipt to evidence that this glass was repaired the matter will be settled" I sent the receipt by reply. Six weeks roll by and last week I receive an email as follows: "We received your invoice for the chip repair carried out by Autoglass. Having reviewed the invoice along with the images of the windscreen from when the vehicle returned it is clear that a chip repair should not have been carried out in this instance. Unfortunately the chip repair was insufficient and the glass has still had to be replaced. " If you recall, the car was returned with "no new damage" on the slip. In addition, there is no way that Autoglass would have made a repair if this had been inappropriate: knowing nothing about windscreens I was directed by them and would consider Autoglass "expert" at windscreens over some bod at Sixt. Because the Autoglass work was guaranteed, they also took photos of their work although they are not in my possession. Any advice would be appreciated. I feel quite harassed by Sixt who have now reneged on a "no pay" agreement for the second time. Incidentally, contrary to the information I provided in my initial post, I was actually insured for the excess, but the amount of time which had elapsed between the incidence and the initial bill invalidated any claim (30 days)

Still ongoing. Emailed them back to state that they had no claim. Need to send it through the post as well, recorded I think.

"No new damage" was input by them.

Funny you should ask: Jeep Renegade. I had ordered a different class and they talked me into the upgrade. Turns out these type of cars with upright windscreens are notorious for getting chips (stones don't roll off like they would on a sedan).

I apologise if this is going to be a bit lengthy: thank you so much for reading this and I appreciate any advice I can have on my situation. I hired a car for a week before Christmas from LHR. I live in the middle east. Within one hour of collection, a flying stone on the motorway had caused a middle to driver side windscreen chip, about the size of a two pound coin. Upon arriving at my destination, I called teh accident hotline they supplied to ask for the chip to be examined and repaired because i was not sure that the car was roadworthy. They took details and promised to send someone out. Three phone calls and 24 hours later I was still waiting and asked for a new vehicle. At this point I was told to speak to Sixt!!?! (I thought that I was but it turns out I was speaking to Auto Fleet Solutions!). One call to customer services and they agreed that I could organise the repair myself since I had been waiting so long and I confirmed that I would not have to pay again. Within a couple of hours the chip was repaired by Autoglass, with guarantee. When I returned the vehicle I explained all that had occurred, produced a receipt for the repair and it was returned as "no new damage" Roll on two months and I have an invoice for £750++ for a replacement windscreen. I should state that this is not an insured amount for reasons that are not interesting (I thought that it was, but I was mistaken). It seems to me that the invoice and some other correspondence received at the time of hire is all generated from the Auto Fleet Solutions bunch, who despite being by telephone call that I was given permission to make the repair directly don't seem to have registered this in any of their correspondence. Anyhow, I want to know what I should do. - just pay - no chance of fighting this. - I live overseas, can i just ignore it? The rental was a debit card transaction not credit card. - agree a settlement whereby I deduct lost retail time and money already paid for repair. - refuse to pay on the basis that I already paid for the repair, which was all that was required according to Autoglass. If I take this last route, which I am most inclined to, what should I say or not say. Are there any relevant consumer protections which I should be aware of? Many thanks in anticipation

If Civil Enforcement are not relying on schedule 4 PoFA then they cannot pursue the registered keeper for the alleged debt - only the driver. Do not advise on the identity of the driver and submit a response as the register keeper under PoFA.

Sorry, it was in the title!

Thanks, Kirkby - who are Cel?

The editor keeps on removing my paragraphs - sorry. Hope the above makes sense.

Unless I have miscounted, I think they have failed to comply with Schedule 4 Protections of Freedoms Acts 9(5) and 9(6) 5) "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” 6) "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." So it is dated 13 days after the event took place, but they failed to allow for 2 days of postage so it would arrive within the relevant period.

Hi there, I hoping that someone can offer me some advice on this. I have had a parking charge notice, as the registered keeper, from APCOA Luton Airport. The charge is for failing to park in a designated parking area. I was not driving nor present, but the driver was making their way to pre-paid for car parking. They were alone, so no drop off pick up, and the driver genuinely has no recollection of stopping. Now, the photograph "evidence" is quite interesting. The vehicle has moved positions (by change in lamp post positions in the background) in at least two of the three photographs provided over 30secs or so "footage". I have normal defences available - they sent the charge after 14 days, poor signage (this is evident from the photos), no contract with the driver etc. The question is, do I deny the charge altogether here? It seems that this is tantamount to extortion to be sent a parking ticket for giving way to other traffic. Any comments?

Hi I am bumping this old thread up since I have a similar problem. We have given notice on our apartment and move out in two weeks. The landlord has decided to sell and has put the house on the market with a different estate agency to the lettings agency which we rented through and who manage the property. On Monday I receive a call from the lettings agency saying that the sales agency would like to enter the property to take photographs at 9am the following morning and also had a viewing arranged for 6pm and would this be okay. I explained that we were in the process of packing up and that the removalists were due that day, but had already postponed, that there were boxes all over the apartment and that although I had no objection to them entering the premises, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to take photographs, and for the viewings, they might have to overlook the clutter of boxes. The agent asked would it be okay to pass on my contact details to the sales agency so that they could make future arrangements with me directly, which I agreed to. I didn't hear anything further from either agency but when I arrived home on Tuesday evening, it was quite apparent that someone had been in, moved around a good number of my personal possessions, including my underwear, quite evidently in an attempt to take photographs. No attempts had been made to put back items in their original place, however haphazard that might have been, and some items had tossed quite carelesly in my opinion (It should be noted that because we had been packing, absolutely everything had been taken out of cupboards and anything that wasn't to be shipped had been left out on surfaces). All in all it was extremely intrusive. The sales agency called me for the first time this morning and I tore the guy off a strip about this. He put me through to his sales manger, who far from apologising, blamed the letting agency for not providing enough notice and seemed to think that I should expect my items to be moved around. I had left it with the young guy to email me a list of viewing that he wanted (his original purpose of the call) and have heard nothing further. I also called the lettings agency and notified them of the "row". I have come home this evening and strongly suspect that someone has been in the apartment again today - with absolutely no permission. I will send an email to the agencies to ensure that it is clear that they do not have permission from me to enter the apartment for anything other than emergencies. My question is, what recourse do I have if the agents persist in doing this? I am out during the day and cannot control the entry/exit without changing the locks. I move out in 10 days and don't really want the hassle but I feel totally violated by these people coming into my home with their complete lack of respect for my possessions. Also note that the landlord is abroad and we have never had direct contact with him. Any input would be appreciated Maursh

Amg, Pay the last months rent, otherwise your position legally is somewhat tenuous. If the landlord does not return your deposit in full, you have him by the short and curlies since he hasn't placed your deposit in a protection scheme and you can take him to court for 3x this amount. Maursh

Usually when you make an offer via an estate agency, you pay a holding deposit of some kind. Two weeks rent or the like which then has the property removed from the market while all these checks are being run. If you back out of the deal then the landlord keeps the deposit but otherwise this is offset against the bond and first months rent. My question is, does anyone know if you fail credit or reference checks whether you can claim this holding deposit back? Or more generally, under what circumstances can you reclaim the holding deposit? For instance if there was a clause on the AST which neither party could agree on, would you be entitled to it back then or not? Any info on this would be appreciated

Thanks for your replies. Upon departure from the property we completed a form with bank details to return the deposit to and sent this by fax, phoning to confirm that the fax had been received. Today my partner contacted the landlord and the letting agency. The landlord requested that we email him the wording that we want sent to the agency and he will do this to ensure that teh deposit is released. I will up-date when I hear anything

Hi All, I have something of a small problem at the moment, but I have a suspicion that it might start to become a large one so I would appreciate some advice on what the best course of action should be, at this stage. I was in a rented property for about 18months from Apr-07, but deposit was paid pre 7th April so am not covered by TDS. The deposit of £2400 was paid to the agency and retained by them as independent adjuticators. Over the course of the 18th months my partner and I enjoyed a good relationship with the landlord. The only blight on our stay was a burst pipe from another flat which caused considerable damage to the bathroom and upstairs wooden floor. After enduring repair work to the bathroom, my partner and I elected to exercise our 18th month break clause and moved out. It is my understanding that the insurance (presumably from the flat which caused the damage) was covering the cost of repairs plus lost rent to the landlord. Upon departure, my partner spoke to the landlord who agreed verbally that he wouldn't be charging us any deposit deduction since we had been very patient reasonable tenants, he knew we had kept the place in good state (we had a weekly cleaner) and declined our offer to pay for a cleaner to come in after the repairs to the floor had been made. We didn't feel that it made sense to throughly clean the place when workmen were about to descend. For all intents and purposes, the landlord has been trustworthy througout the course of our tenancy. Now, my problem is that one month after leaving the property, there is no sign of our deposit being returned from the letting agency. I know that they would require the go ahead from the landlord to release the money, but I have a strong suspicion that this particular agency (which is a known name) has some cash flow issues as well as having an exceedingly bad reputation for making unnecessarily expensive deduction to deposit for things like cleaning. What do you think the best course of action would be now? If the letting agency goes into liquidation is my deposit protected, or will I just be at the end of a line of other creditors? Any thoughts would be appreciated

If you were in the property for 5 years then this pre-dates TDS (intoduced Apr 07). I am not sufficiently knowledgable to know what your next course of action should be.

I just wanted to add - for teh benefit of others seeking advice - the baliffs were surely court baliffs and in which case, they must have had a name against the debt. I don't think that there would be a legal case without one. In which case, the baliffs were acting unlawfully insofar as they need to identify that you are the named debtor. If baliffs turn up on anyones doorstep and try to enter your premise or remove property when the named person does not live there CALL THE POLICE.

Because fare evasion is a non-arrestable offence, you are not entitled to free legal advice / defence, as you would be for pretty much any other crime. I believe that you could put in a claim for the recovery of your legal costs if you were acquitted. It doesn't guarantee that the judge would award them though.