Idiot of the week

euroserv · August 19, 2011

Hello campers,

I thought I would share a story with you before I head home for the weekend;

One of our Luton vans; an aging Ducato 2.8JTD has returned from hire this afternoon and the customer said that it did not sound right. We examined it and found that the exhaust had been neatly cut from mid way down the down pipe to part of the way into the 'wiggly' main exhaust section. This renders both parts scrap since the first silencer and the joint have been removed.

The problem with this is that some oik has (in his mind) stolen the catalytic converter, when in fact it is just a silencer. Now this story is not one of those with a happy ending because my customer will get a bill for a couple of hundred quid for the replacement of the whole exhaust system but I would love to see the face of the miscreant when he turns up at the scrap yard and tries to cash in his bounty. He will get about 20p and a lot of laughter.

Idiot indeed.

Have a good weekend all.

Nick

Rayjsj · August 19, 2011

euroserv - 2011-08-19 5:45 PM

I would love to see the face of the miscreant when he turns up at the scrap yard and tries to cash in his bounty. He will get about 20p and a lot of laughter.

Idiot indeed.

Have a good weekend all.

Nick

made me laugh too ! what the 'Scrappy' AND his customer should get is about a £30,000 fine between them. until they do, more and more of us will be hearing 'A differant note' to our Exhausts from these 'Toe-rags' . Ray

robertandjean · August 19, 2011

What we can not understand Nick is why your customer should have to pay out £200 for somthing clearly not of his/her doing. Can you not, as a gesture of goodwill, put your small print to oneside this time and cover the cost?

BGD · August 19, 2011

robertandjean - 2011-08-19 9:22 PM

What we can not understand Nick is why your customer should have to pay out £200 for somthing clearly not of his/her doing. Can you not, as a gesture of goodwill, put your small print to oneside this time and cover the cost?

This is an attempt at a joke; right?

MattR · August 19, 2011

robertandjean - 2011-08-19 9:22 PM

What we can not understand Nick is why your customer should have to pay out £200 for somthing clearly not of his/her doing. Can you not, as a gesture of goodwill, put your small print to oneside this time and cover the cost?

Would you and why? Where would your generosity stop?

aultymer · August 20, 2011

MattR - 2011-08-19 11:14 PM

robertandjean - 2011-08-19 9:22 PM

What we can not understand Nick is why your customer should have to pay out £200 for somthing clearly not of his/her doing. Can you not, as a gesture of goodwill, put your small print to oneside this time and cover the cost?

Would you and why? Where would your generosity stop?

If you are hiring vans out it would be reasonable to have insurance against theft - a bit of the van has been stolen - why should the hirer pay for it?

Or is it another case of go for the soft target - too much bother to get money from the insurance company.

I hope that the customer in this case points out that the hirer has had a few years use from the silencer and should not be expected to leave the van in a better condition than he got it.

Generosity does not come into it - fair play does.

MandyAndy · August 20, 2011

Spoken to my friend who hires hers out and asked what they would do, she fell about laughing when I told her of your intentions. As the last person said unless you can prove that your customer removed the item then why should he pay for something he need not have told you about and until you drove it or your next customer did you would have been non the wiser.

My friend has 4 claims in with the insurance people at the moment so she has no problem in claiming when it is necessary but then you wouldn't want two may claims as this may put next years up wouldn't it.

August 20, 2011

Hiring a van is a lot cheaper than hiring a motorhome!

Its a very competative business. I can't see enough margin in it to provide unlimited free insurance, and I can imagine some customers not being so careful about where they parked it if they didn't have to pay for bits stolen off it.

MattR · August 20, 2011

If I hire a car, I am responsible for it. I pay for insurance to cover potential damage and would have to pay the excess. I cannot see why a company would be expected to waive the costs if I have to make a claim. I think that I would only have a case if I could prove that the company was negligent or contributed to the problem in any way. Would your own insurance company waive the costs if you made a claim for replacing the stolen exhaust? I think not. Why should the owner take the hit?

aultymer · August 20, 2011

MattR - 2011-08-20 8:50 AM

If I hire a car, I am responsible for it. I pay for insurance to cover potential damage and would have to pay the excess. I cannot see why a company would be expected to waive the costs if I have to make a claim. I think that I would only have a case if I could prove that the company was negligent or contributed to the problem in any way. Would your own insurance company waive the costs if you made a claim for replacing the stolen exhaust? I think not. Why should the owner take the hit?

With that kind of reasoning the hirer should pay for a new van if it were stolen during their period of hire.

As for suggesting that a hirer would be less careful where they park if they were not responsible for thefts - too daft a suggestion for words!

If you hire for reward you have insurance to cover theft of van or bits of it.

It is just possible that the previous hirer, or the one before that failed to complain about the van being ' a bit noisy'? These old (ie pre Cat days ) Sevel vans can be a bit 'noisy'.

euroserv · August 20, 2011

Hello,

Just popped in to work to meet a customer and had a look at the responses to what I thought would be a slightly amusing story about an idiot.

Only one of you actually suggested that this was in fact a crime and that the perpetrator was a criminal and so would be the scrap dealer for handling the stolen item.

We only hire to businesses and they provide their own insurance for the vehicles. The customer in question could claim on their insurance if they so wished but I suspect their excess will be higher than the cost of repair.

I get £45 a day for the hire of this vehicle and it is maintained to the highest of standards. The vehicle in question has recently had a new exhaust system and that may be why it was attractive to the thief. I delivered it myself and it was most certainly intact.

To anyone that suggested that I should replace it for free I would question your sanity. I run a tight ship here and charge as little for repairs to our vehicles and to those of our customers as I can so have no margin for goodwill especially when it was not my fault. The hirer is indeed responsible for returning the vehicle in the same condition as they received it. If you hired or borrowed a vehicle would you return it with parts missing? Of course not.

If you are not insane you must be a philanthropic do gooder and are probably raising money for some endangered ant in the New Forest this weekend so when you read this ask yourself this question... Would I have done it for free? If the answer is yes you are also a liar. We all have ideals but sadly have to settle for common sense.

That's the last time I will try to introduce a little levity on a Friday afternoon.

Nick

PS,

Aultymer. If the vehicle was stolen the hirer's insurer would have no pay out the value of the vehicle at the time that it was stolen. Not pay for a new one!

What planet are you on?

malc d · August 20, 2011

Don't give up on the levity NIck - we need a little something to cheer us up now and again.

;-)

MattR · August 20, 2011

I found the story amusing as intended but was surprised by the suggestion that you, the owner, should waive the cost. I am not sure what planet they come from but it is not from the reality that I know of.

2.8k · August 20, 2011

Ah Nick, you have found the Achilles heel of this forum. This is the reason that I follow threads but hardly ever post nowadays. The main attraction in coming here is to laugh at the childish spats and be amazed at the mentality of some of the members.

Are you aware that there are other motorhome forums, whose members are much more grown up. :D

Never mind, I enjoyed your post. Hopefully some members on here are an endangered species. I hope nobody goes out of their way to save them.

:D :D

BGD · August 20, 2011

aultymer - 2011-08-20 10:52 AM

MattR - 2011-08-20 8:50 AM

If I hire a car, I am responsible for it. I pay for insurance to cover potential damage and would have to pay the excess. I cannot see why a company would be expected to waive the costs if I have to make a claim. I think that I would only have a case if I could prove that the company was negligent or contributed to the problem in any way. Would your own insurance company waive the costs if you made a claim for replacing the stolen exhaust? I think not. Why should the owner take the hit?

1. With that kind of reasoning the hirer should pay for a new van if it were stolen during their period of hire.

2. As for suggesting that a hirer would be less careful where they park if they were not responsible for thefts - too daft a suggestion for words!

3. If you hire for reward you have insurance to cover theft of van or bits of it.
It is just possible that the previous hirer, or the one before that failed to complain about the van being ' a bit noisy'? These old (ie pre Cat days ) Sevel vans can be a bit 'noisy'.

(Numbers added to above comments to clarify to which I am responding):

1. No. Don't be silly. The hirer would be responsible for reimbursing the actual loss to the Principal - that is, the value of the van at that point in time, not a new van.

2. In my view many hirers would indeed take less care of the van, be careless about parking it etc, if they were not responsible for loss of/damage to the vehicle that they were hiring. Seems to me to be too daft for words to imagine that they'd take exactly the same level of care over the vehicle whether they were responsible for damage to it/theft of it/theft from it or not.

3. Not so. In business-to-business hiring, or leasing, it is almost always the Hiring Company which is, under the Contract For Hire that they agreed to, responsible for insuring the vehicle, NOT the vehicle owner.

The vehicle owners MAY have chosen some form of back-up insurance cover, but there is no contractual or legal obligation on him at all to do so at all.

I have to say that I have some experience of commercial lease-hire of Company cars and vans, from the Hirers point of view; and I'm totally with Nick on this one.

August 20, 2011

I had to giggle after reading some of the replies to Nick's post:D

Although in one way it does demonstrate how some members of the general public view people who run their own business8-)

Having been self employed since the late 80's and coming from 4 generations of the great unwashed(lol).....

I get the impression that too many, we are only interested in making a fast buck, and are obviously rolling in dosh, and if you manage to get one over on us that's ok8-)

I think TV programs like "Rogue Traders" have done a lot of damage to the reputation of many small businesses*-).............No doubt there are bad businesses out there........but there are also plenty of bad customers as well;-)............We never see any programs about them though*-)

August 20, 2011

Nick, I like your technical posts more than any on this forum.

But don't try and claim you have found the idiot of the week, because he is a genius compared to the idiots on here.

aultymer · August 20, 2011

(1. No. Don't be silly. The hirer would be responsible for reimbursing the actual loss to the Principal - that is, the value of the van at that point in time, not a new van.)

IF that's silly why should the hirer pay for a new exhaust?

"because my customer will get a bill for a couple of hundred quid for the replacement of the whole exhaust system"

(2. In my view many hirers would indeed take less care of the van, be careless about parking it etc, if they were not responsible for loss of/damage to the vehicle that they were hiring. Seems to me to be too daft for words to imagine that they'd take exactly the same level of care over the vehicle whether they were responsible for damage to it/theft of it/theft from it or not.)

That may be your way of working - Most people I know will take as much care where they park a hired van as they take with their own - the hired van may after all be carrying the hirers property and damage to the van may interupt the job the van was hired for.

(3. Not so. In business-to-business hiring, or leasing, it is almost always the Hiring Company which is, under the Contract For Hire that they agreed to, responsible for insuring the vehicle, NOT the vehicle owner.

The vehicle owners MAY have chosen some form of back-up insurance cover, but there is no contractual or legal obligation on him at all to do so at all.)

When I was in business my insurance covererd loss of use of equipment due to theft or fire or misuse by employees whether in the workshop, in transit or at trade fairs - it wasnt cheap but it was comprehensive. I don't understand a van hire company having less.

robertandjean · August 20, 2011

Well suppose it depends on your view of what makes good business sense. Are you interested in the here and now or think it might be more important to consider the longer term? If the former then by all means make the person pay the £200 and come over as mean spirited and put customers off. If the latter then pay the £200 and look forward to more business built upon an enhanced reputation. So nothing to do about us "being do gooders" or out of touch with reality but just suggesting a solution that would benefit both parties. In response to other points yes of course the thief should, when apprehended, face appropriate punishment and agree there are many contenders for idiot of the week but not us this time!

art338 · August 20, 2011

I don't see the renting company being responsible for anything other than normal wear and tear. Perhaps there should be an additional insurance offered to the renter as in the US where a CDW (Collision Damage Waver) system is offered that covers unknown circumstances and is well worth buying.

Stealing a section of the pipe is no different to stealing a whole engine, then what, who pays? I'll bet the insurers have missed out on more revenue here.

art

aultymer · August 20, 2011

art338 - 2011-08-20 9:06 PM

I don't see the renting company being responsible for anything other than normal wear and tear. Perhaps there should be an additional insurance offered to the renter as in the US where a CDW (Collision Damage Waver) system is offered that covers unknown circumstances and is well worth buying.

Stealing a section of the pipe is no different to stealing a whole engine, then what, who pays? I'll bet the insurers have missed out on more revenue here.

art

I have never yet rented a car, van or boat where insurance was less than compulsory.

So why bill the hirer?

BGD · August 21, 2011

aultymer - 2011-08-20 9:44 PM

art338 - 2011-08-20 9:06 PM

I don't see the renting company being responsible for anything other than normal wear and tear. Perhaps there should be an additional insurance offered to the renter as in the US where a CDW (Collision Damage Waver) system is offered that covers unknown circumstances and is well worth buying.

Stealing a section of the pipe is no different to stealing a whole engine, then what, who pays? I'll bet the insurers have missed out on more revenue here.

art

I have never yet rented a car, van or boat where insurance was less than compulsory.
So why bill the hirer?

I'll have one more go at explaining it.

Many of you are confusing your own experiences of car hire, at a "retail" level as individuals, with the completely different circumstances and contractual arrangements that are involved in COMMERCIAL hiring of fleets of vehicles by Companies from specialist commercial fleet hire suppliers.

You have to separate these two animals; they are entirely different.

Very many Companies choose not to buy their own commercial vehicles/Comapny cars, because doing so hits their cashflow, and also increases their fixed assets, which are added to their Balance Sheet; and thus at any given level of trading profit, this makes their Return-On Capital ratio poorer.

There are a lot of specialist Contract Hire Companies who supply cars/vans/lorries/specialist vehicles on a business rental, or lease-purchase basis.

The terms that they offer these to other customer Companies ALWAYS stipulate that it is the CUSTOMER company which is responsible for the safekeeping and proper maintenance of the vehicle throughout the hire period (which could be anything from a couple of days to 3 or 4 years). The customer Company undertakes that responsibility, and agrees that it will keep the vehicles properly insured against fir, theft, and third party claims, and will indemnify the supplier against any un-insured losses.

From what Nick has said, his business is as a Fleet Hirer, Business to Business.

As I' ve tried to make clear, this is nothing like being a retail hire company...I assume the customer Company is, as usual, fully liable for all and any damage to the van concerned, because they signed agreeing to exactly that when they entered into the Master Lease agreement.

Now the Customer Company can look to its own insurance to pay for the damage/theft, or can pay fro it from its own accounts....but that is how commercial leasehires work.

I'll repeat one final time: please do not compare them to retail hire.

They are totally different, complex commercial contracts, often covering hundreds of vehicles and valued in millions of pounds, with completely different terms and liabilities and duties.

BGD · August 21, 2011