Originally Posted by
AdMEL
From their perspective, why would they want to get involved when it costs them time and money to do so?
This is the first I have heard of a rental car company in Australia charging loss of use fees (it is common in the US, from my understanding). My understanding of the rental agreeemnt is that provided you comply with the terms of the agreement and pay the excess (note that the excess is subject to GST and the airport fee, and some rental car companies charge their admin fee [usually 3.5% in Australia] as well) and the admin fee for the damage, provided the agreement specifies it, that is all you are liable for.....
....Finally, out of interest, what the total amount Budget initially billed or charged to your credit card and what was the breakdown?
Originally Posted by
AdMEL
The way I interpret it is, that provided you do not breach the rental agreement and pay the excess, you are not liable for any other costs. However, if you breach the rental agreement, you become liable for loss or revenue.
Thanks
AdMEL for your very useful and insightful response. I actually refused to pay the excess initially, since I felt it was their responsibility to have the car repaired and deal with the third party's insurer directly (as any owner would if their car was involved in an accident and as advised by the third party's insurance company as the standard practice). As you say though, why would they bother when they can just screw their customers over with much less effort?
(Having said that, it took 7 weeks, 10 phone calls and 20 emails to resolve, so I'd say that this has cost them more time and effort than it would have done to actually talk to the insurer directly).
After a long and very aggressive phone call (with the lady from Budget not even letting me finish my sentances, and telling me that she didn't need to let me either!
) I arrived at the airport to be told that I wouldn't be charged anything at this stage and that they would hold the car for a quote, at which time they would charge my card for the exact amounts as laid out in the rental agreement. These were as you have described, including 'loss of use'. However, as you have pointed out (and I had determined myself), I was only liable for loss of use if I had breached the agreement. However, no-where in the agreement does it explain what constitutes a breach. One could argue that not paying the excess could be a breach, and if so, this is a very dirty tactic by Budget, appearing to be lenient, but in turn causing me to breach the contract. Based on my experience, that would not surprise me at all.
With the help of an expert in such things at the third party's insurance company, I was given enough ammunition to dispute the loss of use charges, since these were based on forecast utlisation (which showed about 85% for the month with a total fleet of almost 100 cars) and not any actual facts such as "we had to turn away the following bookings".
It took about 2 or 3 emails and phone calls to actually get a break down of charges, and then a further 3 emails to get them to produce one that actually made sense and wasn't full of their internal charge codes. I threatened to dispute the charge with my bank unless they were able to tell me exactly what I had been charged for and give me a proper receipt showing the GST breakdown (which they are required to do so by law for any invoice over $1000).
All in all, a total nightmare, threatening phone calls and emails from Budget, disputed charges and general stress. It is fair to say that I will never be dealing with Budget ever again. Ironically, the third party were very pleasent and easy to deal with as were his insurance company. Both were pretty bewildered by Budget's behaviour, especially the insurance company, who said they'd never seen a case like this and the fact that Budget were refusing to speak to them directly! Crazy.