Charge to Credit Card

[alan30]

I recently hired a van and paid by credit card including collission damage waiver. After loading the van and driving 100 miles I discovered the front offside tyre was completely bald across the inner one third of the tread. I thought it was illegal and phoned the hire company. They suggested I drove it back to them for inspection which I was not prepared to do. They claimed it was inspected the day before and no notes were made about the tyre. To cut a long story short I agreed to change it for the spare which was OK. I couldn't undo the wheel nuts however and phoned them back, They said no problem and called out the RAC which was included in teh hire agreement. RAC came and said in his opinion tyre was just legal and no need to change it and gave me a form for his attendance. One week later hire company without authorisation charged �77 to my credit card for RAC call out claiming as it was abortive RAC charged them. At no point was I advised of a possible charge. VAn hire company have failed to return telephone calls. Terms and conditions allow them to charge for unrecoverable damage but nothing like this. Credit card company efuse to help saying they have no end of problems with car hire companies. Where do I stand?

[Stu Dent]

Check the terms and conditions of the hire contract. If the agreement made no mention of any charge for an abortive call-out then the hire company cannot enforce the charge as it was not agreed to. If it's there, even in small print, you will have to pay.

[mandimoo]

put your case in writing and ask for a refund. keep copies and note your conversations. you may be lucky even if it is in the smallprint somewhere. if this doesnt work and you are serious about getting the money back, try the Citzens Advice Beaureau for further advice.

[mandimoo]

i would also try again with the credit card company, again putting your case in writing.

[alan30]

Many thanks for the answers. The credit card company, Halifax, don't want to know as they feel it is likely to be covered in terms and conditions, which it isn't. I have asked to see a copy of the RAC invoice and for them to show where they think it is Ts and Cs. RAC advised they don't charged for member call out unless someone abuses the system. Now becoming a matter of principle!

[Stu Dent]

What was the cost of the hire, Alan? And what was the total billed once the charge for the RAC call-out was added?

[Stu Dent]

If the original cost of the bill was �100 or more (before the call-out charge was added) my advice is this:

Start with making a formal complaint to Halifax, Alan. Explain that no such term to make such a charge existed and send them a copy of the agreement.

http://www.halifax.co.uk/contactus/howtocompla in.asp

Then, if they don't recompense you, go to the ombudsman. Their email address is helpfully supplied by Halifax further down the page on the link above.

If the original bill agreed was over �100 the credit card company are joint and severally liable for the supplier having subsequently overcharged you and thus breaching the contract.

Your complaint is on the grounds that Halifax (the creditor) is jointly and severally liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for the supplier's breach of contract. The breach is that you were charged more than you (the debtor) and the hire company (the supplier) had agreed to, and that no agreement existed in which the hirer was permitted to vary the terms of the agreement. Because no agreement to vary the terms existed, the contract cannot be altered unilaterally (Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd, 1971).

In addition, since the RAC did not charge the hirer for the call-out, any contractual term that did allow the hirer to charge you is unreasonable and unfair under the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

That should be enough for the Ombudsman to side with you. If not you can raise a small claims action (costs around �40) against Halifax, the Hire Company, or both. Actually you don't even need to go through the ombudsman to take such action, but it might be less stressful to let the ombudsman get involved. The mere threat of the ombudsman may be enough.

[alan30]

Excellent answer. Thank you Stu Dent.