Car rental firm wanted £654 for windscreen chip that was already there

Dear Sally

I RECENTLY received a demand for $800 (£654) from Alamo car rentals for the cost of replacing the windscreen on a car we hired last summer. We had reported a small chip on the glass before we drove off on our trip from Melbourne airport in Florida and it was accepted as a pre-existing defect. There were no incidents during the ten-day holiday. I appealed but have had two emails saying we still owe the money. We don’t have these funds. I am unable to sleep with the worry. I am a paramedic and must be alert at work. Please can you help?

P.A., Rotherham, South Yorks. I get the jitters about hiring cars on holiday because you never quite know what extra charges you will be persuaded to pay while standing at the desk desperate to set off on your trip. I also find it a great relief to hand back the motor at the end of the period with the bodywork unscathed — although I always take photos to prove it, just in case something comes back to bite.

Your story sparked palpitations because it seems customers cannot always totally relax, even more than six months after returning a car to the depot.

You gave me further details of your experience. When you got to the hire desk at the start of your trip you were told the only vehicle large enough for your family of six had a slight chip in the windscreen.

You were a little concerned but checked it out in the presence of a member of Alamo’s staff.

there was indeed a small nick in the glass, but you agreed to take it anyway as your children, one of whom has special needs, were tired after the long flight. the employee told you he would log the damage, put it on the invoice and suggested you take photos of the windscreen, just in case, which you did.

On handing back the vehicle ten days later, all in one piece and refuelled, it was inspected and you were sent an email confirming you owed $0.

So, I can imagine just how anxious you felt when many months later on February 13, a letter arrived stating ‘our review indicates that you are responsible for the damage to our vehicle’. You made an immediate appeal, sending copies of your date- stamped photos. It cut no ice with the decision-makers. Unfortunately, you’d discarded the email from the time that confirmed you owed nothing.

You asked Alamo for a copy but it had not responded to this request by the time you contacted me several days later.

I decided to rev up my consumer champion engine and ask Alamo to investigate this obvious mistake. It agreed to reopen your case. About ten days passed before a response came but it was one that finally put an end to your sleepless nights — that it would not be pursuing you for the bill. Quite right.

An Alamo spokesman says: ‘Following an investigation, we believe there was a clerical error and we have now waived the cost of the claim. We accept our communication with the customer in this case could have been better and apologise for any inconvenience caused.’

ernesto Suarez, founder of excess cover firm iCarhireinsurance.com, says it is highly unusual for a customer to be slapped with a charge so long after a rental.

While it’s routine practice for a hire company to ring-fence a sum on a renter’s credit card to cover any excess due in the event of damage, accident or theft claim, this amount (typically £1,000£2,000) is usually unfrozen after 30 days at most, as in your case.

Suarez says your case highlights the importance of holding on to photographic evidence in case of any dispute.

Another issue to watch out for is the excess waiver insurance sold by hire firms, which is often pressed on customers upon arrival at the hire desk. It can be more expensive than standalone policies, and often excludes cover for damage to windscreens ( and tyres). Standalone insurance sold by firms such as iCarhireinsurance is typically cheaper and includes this cover.

MY HUSBAND and I have a package from BT which includes broadband, TV, entertainment and landline and costs about £85 a month.

I recently found out that customers in receipt of disability benefits qualify for a reduced tariff. I am disabled and receive disability living allowance so contacted BT.

The problem is our account is in my husband’s name and I was told it would need to be switched into my name to qualify but to do this would cost £900.

I was stunned and considered leaving BT. I was also told it would cost £ 900 to end the contract early. It is mean and petty and I feel we are being held to ransom. M. F., Sleaford, Lincs.

MAnY broadband firms offer deals called social tariffs, which are designed to help those on certain benefits. they carry low monthly charges ( currently between £10-£20 a month) and offer flexible terms.

eligibility for these deals varies between providers, but all of them accept customers on Universal Credit.

Whatever the benefit involved, the person receiving it usually needs to be the lead name on a contract. If a provider doesn’t offer a social tariff, then it is possible to switch to one that does — with some companies allowing this without an exit penalty. the exit penalty waiver was not going to apply to you, it seems, because the contract wasn’t in your name.

Perversely, in order to arrange it so you could receive the disability discount (worth more than half your £85 monthly bill) you would need to pay a £900 fee. Like you, I felt this penalty was on the mean side and asked Bt to reconsider.

the company re-examined your claim. Soon afterwards it confirmed that the account had to be in the correct name to enable it to carry out the relevant eligibility checks.

It also explained that the information on the early termination costs of your fixed-term contract had been given to you correctly.

However, I am pleased to say Bt agreed to remove these charges as a goodwill gesture.

Instead of £85 a month, you are now paying £36, which includes £20 for Fibre Home essentials and a separate £16 charge for Bt tV, which you wanted to keep.

A Bt spokesman says: ‘We are very sorry that we didn’t make it easier for the couple when they contacted us. We have spoken to them and arranged for the account to be put into the wife’s name without charge.’

Readers wanting to find out more about social tariffs can visit the website of telecoms regulator Ofcom at ofcom.org.uk or phone 0300 123 3333.

WRITE to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email sally@dailymail.co.uk — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.