UKC

Looking for the UKC oracle’s take on an issue with an  Enterprise van hire. Got a Luton van from Enterprise Woolwich on 18th April to help my son and his fiancée move into their new house, this involved collecting their possessions from their flat in Greenwich which you do by driving into the subterranean car park. It has 4m minimum headroom in the thoroughfares, but 2m high where people park their cars. No problem so far. However, once in I had to execute a 3 point turn, also with 4m headroom, but there was an obstruction (pile of building materials I think) in the middle of the turning bay, which of course vanished from my mirrors. I shuffled forward, to try & realign the van and get sight of the obstruction again - drove a fraction too far and contacted a 2m high concrete lintel, more or less square on. This made the fibreglass front pod deform enough that the two corners cracked open. 
Did an incident report with Enterprise the next morning, paid the additional £50 towards the excess and, as I’d taken the £21 Excess Protection option, didn’t worry too much about it.

They’ve now hit me with a £3100 bill claiming that I’ve failed to comply with conditions of hire. They also refer to previous correspondence that never arrived, and saying they’ll take the money from my credit card in 2 weeks from the date of the letter.

i replied by return disputing previous correspondence questioning how I’ve been non compliant and pointing out that I had taken their insurance. That was on Wednesday, I’ve heard nothing back so have escalated to a complaint.

On going through the bill I find £400 exactly for towing and storage from Woolwich to Ashford (30 miles), paid to a defunct company whose registered address is a private house in Chingford (with a derelict BMW outside, for additional local flavour ) I’d have thought £150 for a 30 mile flatbed carry would have been nearer the mark?

Then the repair shop has charged £1200 for a new roof pod and £850 for “specialist carriage”. 
Can anyone on here shed light on what this might entail? The pod price seems a little high but the carriage charge I find unbelievable.

I’m still pushing back re their repudiation of the insurance but looking at other folks experience of Enterprise I’m not particularly optimistic. Any experience or expertise from this community would be appreciated 

Because you didn't see an earlier correspondence does this mean you don't know what conditions you supposedly haven't met?

Until you know what conditions they think you've fallen foul of there's not much to say.

When they tell you these conditions, if you think it's unfair I'd go straight to the ombudsman.

Sounds grim. For what it's worth I have used Enterprise for many years and always found them reasonable, if a bit slow, to deal with.  Hope it's all sorted.

I think that the insurance for hire vans usually excludes damage to the roof unfortunately, no matter what the company. Have a look through the hire contract.

Did it have a height sign in the cab?

My first thought would be to cancel your credit card. Inconvenient, but means they can't just take the money, so you have more time to 'negotiate' - my experience is that once they have payment there is no incentive on their part to try and find a resolution to your dispute.

Or freeze your card in your banking app, would that work?

I’ve now had a reply to my email, ignoring my request to consider my response as a complaint ( although it probably helped to stop them just running the clock down). So they’re saying firstly that I’ve not complied with the rental terms  by taking the van into an underground car park (even though it has 4m headroom) and they regard that as too high risk an environment. Nothing in the conditions about this. They have also said that damage to roof is excluded from cover. Nothing in the written conditions about that either. Raking about online it’s clear that they have a really bad reputation for this stuff and I think I might be about to find out if the BVRLA (the industry body) is a watchdog or a poodle.

im keeping a Section 75 payment dispute with my card provider up my sleeve til the industry body proofed is exhausted.

If it really isn't in the terms you signed then you should win.

Best of luck.

I’ve been using them for more than 25 years, regularly, and haven’t had any problems. 

To the OP, it looks like you knew you were going to an underground car park with restricted height areas. Did you check any restrictions on insurance cover when you booked, and did you regularly get out during the manoeuvre to check for obstructions, or get someone to watch you out?

Not being arsey, but these are the things which hire companies will look for.

These are questions more around whether the manoeuvre was done safely rather than whether insurance will pay out or not. I'd be surprised if they would have a requirement for a spotter for example.

I certainly wouldn't have done. It never would have occurred to me that entry into a height restricted area wouldn't be covered. It's a vehicle going into a vehicle parking area. Sounds pretty typical. Apparently I'd be wrong not to check, but hire companies need to do better at making these non obvious exceptions clear at the time of booking. Giving you a 30 page T&C's which I may or may not understand isn't good enough.

Hi, yes I take your point about the spotter, but it ‘could’ be rolled up into due care and attention in a restricted space. My experience having accounts with both Enterprise and Eurocar is basically ‘it’s not my vehicle, assume nothing’. I think the hire companies could do much more to inform the uninitiated. I’m picking up a hire car at Geneva airport week after next, and will start with taking a close op video of the whole vehicle just in case before I sign for it, and I’m a long term customer! 

In this case it's on the second page of the T&Cs and is pretty clear:

3. Use of the Vehicle

(c) Prohibited Use of the Vehicle: The Vehicle must not be used:

• (xv) to drive through height-restricted entrances and passages if the height restriction is lower than the overhead clearance of the Vehicle

It sounds like that was not the case though, it’s common sense that you wouldn’t be covered if there is a restriction and it is /lower/ than the height of the vehicle. 

So entering height restricted areas is ok provided you fit. This is what I would expect.

As would I.

However the OP, although accidentally, did drive the Van into a height restricted area where it didn't fit - hence the damage.

I guess we need to know (well the insurance company needs to know) if entry to the underground car park had a height restriction in place or not. If the main routes had clearance of 4m, and parts of it are accessible at that height, then there may not have been a restriction below 4m in place.

In answer to that, no it didn’t. A big tall electric security gate leads to a 2-lane thouroughfare, I.e. plenty of room for 2 vans to pass each other. It’s the only feasible entry for furniture deliveries or house (flat) removals. To the side of the thoroughfare the headroom for parked cars is circa 2 metres. The lintel that I touched actually overhangs its supporting concrete pillars by about a foot, which I  think was a factor in the incident.

If it's not signed then surely it's not a 'height restriction'? From your OP it sounded like the 4m and 2m areas were signed as such, apologies if that's not the case.

Edit: Get photos ASAP if the height restriction isn't clearly identified.

Thank you, I’ve arranged for some specific photos of the actual spot. I’ve got one picture just now which illustrates the scene clearly but I can’t seem to upload it here.