Company disclaims liability for car damage in their care

I WOULD like to ask for your advice about a situation in which I believe I have been very unfairly treated by a Johannesburg company, Klipkop Car Care.

I entrusted my car to Klipkop on December 19 for safe storage while I was away over the Christmas/New Year period. I paid R1 182 upfront for the service. I have dealt with Klipkop a number of times over the past 20 years.

On December 24, I received an email from them advising my car had been damaged in a hailstorm which had torn their netting. On their website they say that cars are protected by “fully enclosed shade netting”.

On my return, my insurers examined my car and agreed to pay hail damage to the cost of R18 861. I would, as a result of this claim, lose an OUT bonus of R4 053.

I believe that this financial loss to me is the responsibility of Klipkop as they had failed to protect my car as they had contracted to do.

Klipkop completely rejected my claim. They did not contest the facts as set out, they just rejected liability.

I did sign a disclaimer at the airport which I had to do before they would take the car. I have read, in the papers, on several occasions that such disclaimers are legally worthless. How can a company whose business is caring for cars, disclaim liability when that car is damaged in their care?

I feel very strongly about this and I would appreciate if you could tell me where and how I can lodge a formal complaint against Klipkop and whether in your experience, I stand a chance of a successful outcome. AD Colhoun

Rosalind Lake explained: “It depends what exactly the airport parking service is offering to consumers and what the terms are of the parking. People often assume that paying for parking guarantees that the car will be kept safe and secure and that they will have a claim for any damage.

But sometimes all that is offered is a place to park and this is done at the risk of the owner.

It is arguable in terms of the CPA that when a supplier has control over a person’s car that they are liable for any damage to that vehicle while under their care – and this would certainly be a good argument if it was a valet service and they had crashed into the car for example, however hail would likely be an act of God and not something that the parking service provider could avoid.

Arguably, the consumer should also be aware that parking under shade netting is unlikely to protect a vehicle in a hailstorm and therefore they appreciate that the car will not be protected in these circumstances.

Especially in circumstances where the car is simply parked there and the parking provider does not have the keys or permission to move the vehicle – it is not clear what steps they could have taken to avoid the damage to the vehicle caused by the storm. The consumer would need to claim in terms of their own insurance policy.”

Gideon van der Merwe, Klip-kop’s owner, responded: “(We practised) reasonable diligence and care by looking after his vehicle, as we have been doing so for the last couple of years.

I think he can also testify about this if you asked him about the previous times he left the vehicle in our care.

We store all our clients’ vehicles under our carports that are extended on all four sides especially to protect the vehicle from the unforeseen and uncontrollable event such as a hailstorm.

Our carports also had the additional ski ropes added over them in case of the unlikely event of a wind storm. I therefore deny that any damages caused to Mr Colhoun’s vehicle were due to our business’s failure to handle the vehicle with the necessary diligence and skill that can reasonably be expected.”