Unfair Penalty by Hire Car Company

[captainjayjay]

weird -

 

this happened in june - and while we did have SOME rain in June, it was not raining on that day, or in the 3 day period in the South East when I had the car. FACT, not assumption.

 

Motorways do not suggest 'probably long journeys'. I use a motorway every day to work, I drive 8 miles along it. Does that make it a long journey?

 

a 'few' seconds. 12.6 seconds. Quite a few seconds. Enough to stop the car. If that isn't safe, what is? Safer than rigidly sticking to speed limits irrespective of the conditions I would say.

 

I'm not whinging that my speeding got me into trouble. You take your choices. The fee was not due to my ignorance, I was aware of it. I'm arguing it on the basis it is unfair and does not adequately reflect their costs. Did you miss this bit?

 

I'm still a member of the IAM (one speeding conviction doesn't mean they strip you of your membership).

 

Not surprised you're not a member, or your rigid views on speeding might have been more learned.

[captainjayjay]

Remember, this is in the same vein as bank charges.

 

The banks put their charges in their terms and conditions from the outset, however its the UNFAIR part that is challenged.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

weird -

 

this happened in june - and while we did have SOME rain in June, it was not raining on that day, or in the 3 day period in the South East when I had the car. FACT, not assumption.

 

Motorways do not suggest 'probably long journeys'. I use a motorway every day to work, I drive 8 miles along it. Does that make it a long journey?

 

a 'few' seconds. 12.6 seconds. Quite a few seconds. Enough to stop the car. If that isn't safe, what is? Safer than rigidly sticking to speed limits irrespective of the conditions I would say.

 

I'm not whinging that my speeding got me into trouble. You take your choices. The fee was not due to my ignorance, I was aware of it. I'm arguing it on the basis it is unfair and does not adequately reflect their costs. Did you miss this bit?

 

I'm still a member of the IAM (one speeding conviction doesn't mean they strip you of your membership).

 

Not surprised you're not a member, or your rigid views on speeding might have been more learned.

 

Oh give us a big sloppy kiss!

[buzby]

Agreed - but Always worth a try!

[Parva]

Argue the original speeding fine all you like but you're still stuck with the administration fee which you agreed to when you signed on the dotted line and you've little chance of recouping that. Good luck trying.

[patdavies]

At the end of the day the charge was listed in the terms and conditions and it only came into play when you commited the offence of speeding. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, maybe you should have taken note of the charge applied in the case of speeding convictions and taken your business elsewhere that provided a much lower administration fee. Of course, had you not been speeding in the first place this wouldn't be an issue. I honestly believe you are on a hiding to nothing here and should put it down to experience.

 

It is not as a result of a conviction, nor does it only come into play for committing a speeding offence.

 

An S.172 request is issued because of an allegation. The car hire company are legally obliged to provide the information - whether or not the hirer committed an offence.

 

So let's just drop all the "holier than thou" posts, shall we?

[Monty2007]

The same happened to me last November with Alamo but they only charged me £22. I did not look at the T&C's but assume that they must mention something about admin charges though £47 does seem steep. I was able to reclaim it from my company. Unfortunately I could not claim the £60 fine though!

[Bookworm]

but an individual took Stelios's EasyRentaCar firm to court on this and lost.

 

Was it in High Court? If it wasn't (and it is unlikely to be) and was instead in County Court, it does not set a precedent, and a different judge may well judge differently.

 

If you could find the case in question, it would be useful.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

So let's just drop all the "holier than thou" posts, shall we?

 

Those of us who have personal experience of the ramifications of speeding naturally campaign/speak out about it and be extra vigilant.

 

This isn't 'holier than thou' but, rather, being more aware.

[Parva]

I do apologise patdavies, of course the offence is not yet proven. Regardless of whether it is or it isn't the admin charge was listed and I suspect that the time and effort trying to reclaim that £45 admin charge will be futile. I wasn't attempting to be 'holier than thou', merely suggesting that he's probably flogging a dead horse.

[podgydad]

I guess you have to argue that its a penalty and not a service charge, if you can do that then they would have to prove that £47 was a reflection of their costs.

[bribri]

If the speeding penalty is not uphold, will the op get their £47 back?

 

since different companies, appear to charge different amounts, then it is a fair question to ask how Avis reached their figure.

 

It would be interesting if a few of us started questionning such T&Cs before signing the contact.

[patdavies]

If the speeding penalty is not uphold, will the op get their £47 back?

 

 

No, I would think not. The car hire company are claiming it as a service charge for providing the hirer's details to the Police. That service was undertaken regardless of whether a conviction results.

 

Although £47 seems excessive for no more than 5 - 10 minutes clerical work.