I wouldn't drive the car at all (0 miles used), and reject it as unsuitable and avoid Drive Assist like the plague.

If possible borrow a friends camera / camcorder and take a video walking round the car noting any damage and the same internally.

So when they try to claim damage you can point out it was already there.

Get them to come and collect it asap as you are not happy to be responsible for it whilst it is parked on your doorstep.

Be assertive but polite. Don't take no for an answer.

Sparky.

I phoned them last night to off hire the car, someone is coming to pick it up today between 12-2, fingers crossed!! Thanks for the advice folks, i will ley u know how it goes, its a shame because its a dream to drive and the g/friend loves it!

Dont worry any miles or little use....product (hire vehicle) was unsuitable- check any credit card company to see if any charges made- simply tell them goods not up to standard and any payments should be refunded- if Drive Assist seek to argue raise formal complaint as it would seem they breached many FSA Regulations in failing to inform you with Letter Of Compliance of charges and certainly it would seem common for 'insurer hire companies' that they insurer and Drive Assist may well have offered you services that operated with a potential conflict of interests not agreed or details taken ....such is insurers and their chosen partners way......give em jip as and when

R

I've read through this discussion with some interest and can confirm that, in my experience, Drive Assist is a bit dodgy.

After a week of missed dealines and delays (which makes them slightly rubbish rather than actively deceptive), they eventually delivered a car well below the specification I had been promised. After a 30 second whizz round the car with the delivery guy, I gave them my credit card for what I thought were idenfication purposes.

I drove the car for month and then they came to pick it up. This time the woman they sent spent 40 minutes "identifying" several items of microscopic "damage" to the vehicle. Only one 2cm scuff on the rear bumper was visible to the naked eye. When the hand-held device showed over £ 400 of costs, I was astonished and refused to sign the acceptance.

After much discussion they reduced the charges to £ 187.50, which relates to the small scuff on the bumper. I maintain this was fair wear and tear, and in any case so insignificant that I wouldn't have noticed it in the delivery inspection. They wrote to me saying the intended to charge my credit card. I replied telling them I did not authorise them do so. (I am kicking myself for not cancelling the card before they took the money!). They replied and said that that was their final decision and I could take it to their regulator if I wanted to.

I've complained to my bank to try and get the credit card transaction reversed. Assuming they won't do this I intend to take Drive Assist to the small claims court. Presumably I can do this without the need to go to the regulator?

Consider informing your credit card company that the charges are for goods/services neither supplied nor requested.

This way the charges can be swiftly credited back to your account.

At a guess I would anticipate the car was arranged by an insurer.

Just for info, I and a colleague have been reasearching an 'insurer engineer's' web based valuation system.

Despite my 30+ years of experience within the Motor Trade including nearly 20 of acting for consumers who are the victims of insurer under-payments from the structured systems used in order to add to insurers profits from claims have I never seen such a prejudiced system that pourposely reduces values of motor vehicles for such things as only 6 months MOT left before the next MOT test is due, more than 3 owners upon a vehicles V5 or Registration document, A complete service history from 'Independant Garage Servicing', and one that strutured to enable insurer's engineers to omit many Vehicle Manufacturers Chargeable Optional Extras in order to reduce the value of consumer's damaged vehicles.

Not that the FSA, OFT, FOS, MoJ or any MPs give a jot of the complex profit centred processes operated against the interests of injured and vulnerable individuals.

Thankfully, virtually all County Court Judges do. But then again, just how many consumer's have access to Independant Claims Management Companies that only work for consumers and without one eye upon the rewards insurers offer for more than willing to advise consumers what they cant claim?

But, there we have it! The FSA now feel they are fit for purpose.....

R

Just like to add my two penneth to this on-going discussion.

We were duped into signing a credit hire agreement with Drive Assist last May when my wife's car was reversed into outside our house by a furniture van. It was a straight forward claim, but for the driver leaving the scene. We had witnesses so there was no problem with ID'ing the culprit.

I contacted my insurance company - Budget - to report it. I clearly stated I did not want to initiate a claim until liability could be acertained and did not want to rack up ANY charges or lose any no-claims discount. The car was an 1994 old banger -written off by this incident subsequently-, but was in good nick pre-accident, having only been used for school runs. I made my wishes CRYSTAL clear and was passed over to Drive Assist who, at the time, assured me there would be no charges whatsoever in relation to hire.

At the time I had a basic idea of Credit Hire, but was lead to believe this service built on it, where the hire company took up the risk of recovery from third party. I have to make it clear I have no problem with the concept of Credit Hire. In case anyone doesn't know, credit hire is where you hire a car 'on credit' and the hire comapny attempts to recover the cost from the, at fault, third party. If this is not possible the hirer is ultimately responsible for this cost.

Firstly, before I start 'banging on' I have to say I had no issues with charging for undisclosed damage etc. In fact, we suffered a flat tyre due to, proabably pre-existing, inner-tyre-wall damage. This was fixed promptly at no cost due to taking out the CDW. Car was nice -Vectra SRI CDI - and delivered next day by friendly driver.

The BIG issue is that we were asked to sign a PDA for 'reciept of delivery'. Existing damage was pointed out, but we were told it didn't matter as 'we'd taken CDW'. No documents were signed and no 'scripts' read.
Two days later a full hire agreement was sent via e-mail with signature transposed onto it. We had not been made aware of the terms contained within it at any time previous. We did subsequently see a watered-down version on the back of a piece of paper given with break down telephone numbers etc on it.

The agreement stated we were racking up charges of £67.00 per day plus VAT for the hire of the car. We were liable for this charge shlould recovery from third party would not be possible. As mentioned, I had made clear to both compaines I did not want to rack up ANY charges until laibility was proven. I would also like to point out the £67.00 is considerably higher than the maximum set by ABI for this type of vehicle: http://apps.abi.org.uk/tphire/ . It seems the hire rate, which the hirer may be charged, is higher than can realistically be claimed from third party insurer. Thus, the figure shown on the agreement is fantasy.

We cancelled the agreement straight away and complained to Budget and to Drive Assist. Our complaint was upheld by Budget and we received an apology after listening to recorded conversation. Complaint to Drive Assist was not upheld - strange eh?

In my opinion this company is VERY DODGY and I have no regrets in cancelling our agreement, despite the claim subsequently going in our favour and, no doubt, Drive Assist being fully capable of third party recovery.

They also don't mention your right to a cooling off period either which you have by law and should be included in any documentation. Guess what? its not.
Therefore, my issues are with fraudulant copy of signatures fromPDA's onto hire agreements without consent, with non-disclosure of cooliong off period and with the general mis-selling of this service. This is to sucker people into entering an agreement which they did not want or ask for. I wonder how many people would take up the service if they knew they were running up a bill on credit for every day they have the car?

I have no axe to grind and would happily use a Credit Hire service in future if I was 100% sure of recovery, but this company? No chance.

Wile I appreciate you believe you have an understanding of credit hire your post demonstates you basic omition of some key facts which lead to other misonceptions regarding the CCA and its exemption for certain types of agreement which, exclude cooling off periods.

It may be that you may not have the experience of handling a claim against a diver of a hit and run.

I ask as who was to be paid for the tracing, prosecution and recovery of the full and fair value of your vehicle- in theory you?

Assuming you needed your vehicle (or you would not have had it in the first place) you required a replacement unless a safe (to MOT standard) tempoary repair would be required at some expense, unless you were prepared to pay up front fopr a daily rental which, after all the add-ons often is within the charge amounts of credit-hire would you be prepared to await the 9-12 months or longer unril the close of play for you money back through the court with interest limited to 1%?

Hence, Accident Management Companies hire, recover vehicles, repair them and advocate for and on your behalf...at what cost...an amount that reflects the skill work etc etc....

Unfortunately, most consumers are unaware of the detailed traing and skill involved albeit the greatest virtue is patience.....It would not surprise me if the other driver was insurer with another company within the group of companies Budget are within?

In my recent experience the largest charges recovered has been from RBS comanies (the busted banks we all now own) where the insurer concerned decides to refuse a claim knowing that their other staff will advise both drivers to use their own insurance po0licies which leads to both having increased insurance payments over the next 5 years or so.

Protected policies protect (or in fact not) no-claims discounts in % not in amounts. Hence a claim with a protection policy in place will often lead to a £200.00 premium being increased to £600.00 with the protection guarantee reducing it back to £300...all in all always an increase after paying for every type of policy protection and legal protectio possible....

Legal Protections are a good money spinner- ALL insurers have the right to step into the shoes of their policyholders to defend a claim and always will as it reduces the monies they will have to pay....however, selling legal protection is a no-cost high sale value money maker as policyholders pay for the services that insurers obtain for free and which they often receive huge annual commission payments from those they pass the no-fault claims to

Could tell so much more but have to rush....and finally.....nothing for nothing hence beware bemoaning those who need to be paid for sorting collision where consumer's want remidies?

Happy hunting

R

However, I expect the FSMA ICOBS Regulations regarding disclosing conflicts of interests and the commissions paid to insurers by tied hire companies.

It seems your reply suggests I question your esteemed wisdom on this matter. If I have matters wrong I apologise.

I was basing my opinion on Diamond v Lovell case where the Law Lords deemed Credit Hire Agreements to be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, thus attracting a cooling off period. I think there is other case law somewhere as well, but may be wrong.

As for Legal Protection. I didnt have it. I found contacting the guilty party, stating they'd been seem by several people hitting the car and the threat of a 'leaving the scene of an accident' conviction did the trick. They coughed to it and the claim was settled and paid within 3 months.

As for leaving the claim until liability could be acertained. This was down to a previous experience where a drunk driver hit my car (parked, yet again) and doing a runner. The police picked the driver up 10 minutes later on the way home, with airbag injuries etc. The driver was insured, but deemed not at fault as he stated car was stolen, he'd been to the pub and fell. The CPS didn't persue. I thought claim was 'in the bag' so to speak, but it wasn't. I had legal protection then and it was as much use as a chocolate teapot. And, yes, it did affect my premium for 3 years, despite having protected NCB

I didn't think it necessary to explain why I chose not to wait until liability was ascertaind, so now you have it.

IHi and I didn’t think you had matters worng persay but didn’t think you would like to mention ‘cooling off’ periods when the CCA has specific provisions for consumers where colling off would prevent them from accessing the goods/services they seek for immediate use as it were....car hire on credit falls into this area....a credit hire agreement must not be for more than 3 months hire and/or 12 months period of credit...there are some other detailed areas which MUST be within a hire agreement in oreder to avail itself of the exemptions of regulation by the act that governs it...although this always seemed *** and face in logic but is not so once the weird and wonderful ways the act behaves is understood......took me years.....!

I wont detail these other areas as it would harm the work I charge for detailing the failings of some hire agreements to meet the requirements of the act which, make the charges legally unenforceable and the consumer gets to keep the goods and/or services supplied upon the agreement.....

The recent adverts everywhere telling us all and that we can get out of liabilities because the failure of an agreement to meet CCA requirements are all based upon these potential defects.....I researched this in 2003 but decided that to take money from consumers to’ get them out of loan agreements etc’ was distasteful ads the lead cases decided by the House of Lords related to Hire Agreements and one on a Pawnbrokers agreement...read Wilson-v-First County Trust....makes fun reading of how Mrs Wilson managed to pawn her BMW then get the car back and not pay a penny to the Pawnbroker.............HOWEVER...these decisions are NOT about bank loans etc and I believe there may well be another case to go the House of Lords to decide if a loan of money that was given under an agreement which had a technical defect should be unpayable and/or a vehicle on an HP agreement (wher the last payment usually allows ownership of the car to be transferred to the customer) will be found to be unenforceable and the consumer keeps the goods/money......

In the meanwhile many, many companies are selling ...get out of the agreement delas for £350.00 up front payments with guarantee money back if the monies are not returned....in reality these companies are collecting the charges (many thousands x £350) when in reality NO BANK will CANCEL the agreements without a court hearing...which needs legal representation to be for by the individual refusing to pay the agreement.....then any appeal and further appeal...hence many cases are likely to be stayed until the courts hear a few specimen cases....hence the wording of any ‘guarantee’ is in reality likely to mean that until a final decision all the £350.00s stay with the companies charging with no chance of a rebate.....because of the requirements to take money up front from consumers I chose not to launce HP Claims .....I maybe missed a chance but am almost certain other issues arise over monies leant by banks on any defective agreements against goods/services upon a defective agreements....or maybe not but taking money from desperate folks up front ...not my companies approach...

Back to the plot.... I believe it should have been explained to you regarding the hit and run in these terms....it seems the vehicle was witnessed (independent witnesses or not don’t ever matter...its the truthfulness of their reports) and that a hire vehicle would be provided while rerpairs/PAV moines were recovered from the at fault party’s insurers.....the supplier of the hire vehicle would confirm to you that while there remains a liability to you for the hire charges, vehicle recovery, etc etc....the payments negotiated with the other party albeit may require attendance at court would extinguish your liability to to the hire company...we trade like this which fine......on tother drunker driver......simple tri to pub where car came from and other enquiries of the driver and his injuries within the civil court would be likely to secure recovery against him and his insurers...paint matches etc...the report of stolen who, what, where, when, why and how surrounding steal of car would provide the shifting sands for tother driver cough...also cctv from pubs.....NOT THAT POLICE EVER sort perverting the course of justice after civil courts find on balance of probabilities that drunker was driving....to hard to do tray etc

Anyhow, enough rants and must crack on with case loads.....

Although just interviewed a Bodyshop supplier who confirmed that insurers(some insurers some bodyshops) now agree with their bodyshops that vehicle repairs must all be done for £1,100.00 or so regardless of extent of damage......Am wondering just how many second hand and non-manufacturer approved parts are used by these bodyshops to keeps costs down........not that the adverts on telly explain these tricks in claims departments and why appointed repairers are approved???!!!

Ah well such is commercial realities of insurance companies.....

Rnever spelt checked etc

What about if you didn't sign the agreement in the first place and your signature was transposed onto one. How long is the cooling off period then?

Like most matters...I belive without a signature there is NO agreement......therefore there can be no agreement upon which to seek to recover money or for the customer to receive goods/services....also no agreement no cooling off required.....

I would not anticipate making any recovery through the courts once the judge became aware that the customer had never signed the agreement ....

You may have seen an earlier post on this site from an employee of Drive Assist......it confirms the 'signature' given upon the pad that is used during the delivery of the car is transposed onto a hire agreement.......I think if my signature was transposed onto a cheque for my bank account without my agreement it would amount to fradulent misrepresentation ...the Police and CPS generally think this?

I have a friend who always signs electronic pads with scribble words 'unsigned' 'not present'....never ever had any agreement enforced when it is signed..not present or unsigned....?

I believe the practice stems from the kit parcel delivery companies use ...for some reason....maybe because if the customer had sight of the credit-hire agreement they would fail to sign for the car as it is nearly always represented to the customer as free....which as we all know....it never is or ever could be.......

My own companies hire to consumers Accident Replacement Vehicles...using the old fashion paper agreements......ALL charges are upon the agreement at the rates some folks on this site believe are outrageous (spelling going at this late hour) however....the agreemnts detail that the the customer allows us to seek the charges from the party who cuased the customer to lose the use of their own vehicle...which is always in effect the insurer of the other party.....we always offer large discounts for prompt payment....insurers never pay promptly....their own bodyshops now have to wait 90+ days to be paid for the repairs...plus much other hindrences from the insurers they are 'appointed' for....

Over the last 20 or so years of providing many other services which are on-credit as it were to many thousands of consumers I have ALWAYS found customers to be in total agreement of our charges PROVIDED all are explained......operating open book, transparently and detailing all we do for just how much makes the business so easy.....HOWEVER, insurers hate us without exception as when their legal teams argue the customer was misled as is common with many Accident Management Companies...the answers are not supportive of allegations etc....hence courts award monies to customers due to us......

On the only two cases where customers decided to keep the hire charges rather than allow the monies to come to us the courts have also awarded us the monies in full....thats the deal...we get for the customer all they are due and we get all we are due......

Fortunately for insurers and Unfortunatelyfor consumers accidents/collisons are rare occurances so consumers do not readiliy know what they are likely to lose out on and hence insurers in many ways do profit from this.....knowledge is power and lack of knowledge is lack of power?

Hi guys

We,ve ben waiting for churchill insurance to agree on our car repairs since last year april time and finally the cars booked into be repaired and drive assist are dropping a car off tommorow,they did say theres a £150 excess if damage is found or we could pay £4 per day and have all damages waived,in both cases how do drive assist make such numbers and ask people to pay this, i dont get it

also i dont understand, is if we pay for a replacement car under our insurance how and why are we having to deal with a hire company via an agreement of credit in the first place, Dont we pay for this service already via the insurance

sorry if this has been answered before but getting confused a bit about the whole thing

My advice is to spend at least 40 minutes on the delivery inspection. Note down even a fleck of paint on the bumper or anything at all on the car that would lead anyone to believe that it isn't brand new. If in doubt about dirt- mark it down as damage. Have a magnifying glass handy if you have one! While you have the car try not to actually drive it anywhere as Drive Assist have no concept of fair wear and tear!

If you need to give them a credit card, cancel the card if they say there is any damage to vehicle before they debit the card.

wow...Insurers get worse and worse...you paid for something that went straight into the insurers pockets as they can receive a commision for the hire referral...the hire company then need to make money somewhere...as they have an agreement with the other insurer who they promise not to charge CDW to they tell you to pay misadvising you that it is not recoverable.....

When you get 5 take some time to read....BUT you can get paid the $4 day back from Churchill.....raise complaint as car was no doubt told to you as free...

R

i will video the car if and when they drop it off, im a mechanic and have worked in the bodyshop for over 20 years so i know were cars get tagged most often and missed

im still unsure how an insurer offers a coutesy car then gains in this manner,arent the insurers in breach of the contract on passing me off to drive assist and if so isnt this grounds for court action to refund payments ive made for a service they dont provide ?