I collected a hire car from the Enterprise desk at Tarbes Lourdes airport last July, and drove it about 12 miles to my holiday accommodation in Bagnères-de-Bigorre. That evening there was a severe storm that caused flash floods across town. Water entered the hire car, which was parked on a street at the top end of town, and left a muddy residue. No damage was evident, and the vehicle was working perfectly when I drove back to the airport four days later. I showed the residue to the Enterprise staff, who thoroughly inspected the vehicle and drove it a short distance before assuring me that everything was OK.
The following day, Enterprise called, claiming that the car’s engine light had come on, and it would need to be inspected at a garage. Weeks later I received a demand for a €1,500 (£1,278) excess payment. I contested this on the grounds that the company’s terms and conditions state that customers are exempt from charges if damage is caused by an unavoidable natural event, or force majeure. Enterprise insists I should have left the area before the storm hit.
This would have been impossible since the whole region was under a severe weather alert issued that afternoon. It also claims I should have parked in a secure area. While the dispute was ongoing, I received a letter threatening me with debt collectors if I didn’t pay within 15 days, and banning me from hiring from Enterprise, or its partner companies, for life. I am trying to buy my first house, and am worried about this is affecting my credit rating.
JG, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Your experience is outrageous on so many counts it’s hard to know where to begin. You had only arrived in France that afternoon and were unaware of a storm warning. However, the Enterprise staff should have known, since the airport was in the middle of the affected area. If the company felt the forecast was too risky for its vehicles, it shouldn’t have let you collect the car.
You say you were given no warnings, or waivers, by the hire desk. To override its own terms and conditions on the basis you should not have driven in the region is therefore preposterous. Moreover, when the storm hit, you were parked on higher ground a third of a mile from the river, and could not have predicted that floods would swamp it.
You showed me a video you took of the floods. The streets were inundated by fast flowing water and many vehicles and properties were damaged. Bizarrely, Enterprise tells me your video, filmed after the storm broke, was evidence that you should have known in advance to avoid the town. Finally, crucially, you say that there was no sign of damage when you drove the car, nor did staff spot any when the engine was started in your presence.
The demand from Enterprise was a bald, uncosted sum to cover “a change of condition” of the car. It gave no indication of what you are supposed to be paying for.
It was initially intransigent when I laboured all of these points. It continued to blame you for ignoring “extensive” weather warnings which its own French staff failed to flag. It said: “Having carried out a thorough review, we are confident that our approach has been correct and our processes and procedures have been followed. The view (of the repair garage) was that the vehicle had suffered damage due to water, and wiring and electrics would need replacing at a cost of €9,914.32. This resulted in the vehicle being written off.”
I therefore consulted an expert on consumer law, who reckoned Enterprise was taking the mickey. “It is essentially saying ‘we let you drive, but because you drove you were reckless!’,” said Gary Rycroft, partner at Joseph A Jones & Co Solicitors. “Enterprise has not offered any evidence to connect the driver to the damage, or proved its loss, and it should have proved its case before threatening debt collectors. A reputable business should be ashamed of such conduct and, in my view, it is harassment.”
Enterprise still tried to cling on. It declared that, since your contract was signed with its French branch, it’s governed by French law. Only when it was pointed out that French consumer protection laws were broadly similar to the UK’s in this scenario did it buckle.
Not that it has admitted it was in the wrong. “We are confident that the extensive damage to the electrics was as a result of water getting into the vehicle. We also maintain our concern that it may have been unwise for the customer to drive the vehicle, knowing water had entered it. However, on this occasion, we will cancel the excess charge as a gesture of goodwill.”
Car hire companies often help themselves to huge uncosted charges for unspecified damage after a vehicle is returned. Customers with an unresolved complaint about a cross-border car rental within the EU can appeal to the European Car Rental Conciliation Service whose decisions are binding on hire firms.
Email your.problems@observer.co.uk. Include an address and phone number. Submission and publication are subject to our terms and conditions
