When Kate Barton dropped off her Avis rental car at the airport after a thrilling five days driving around Kruger National Park with a friend, it was time for part two of her South African journey – a flight to see family in Western Cape via Johannesburg.
Although the flight out of Kruger Mpumalanga International Airport was early morning, she was surprised that the Avis office had yet to open when she arrived with travel companion Helen.
But having already paid for the car hire and filled the petrol tank to the brim, she left the VW Tiguan in the appropriate bay and posted the keys through the letterbox.
But being a regular user of car hire companies, she left nothing to chance. So, she photographed the car – confirming no bumps or scratches Avis could charge her for. She also took a picture of the fuel gauge, indicating a full tank, and shot a video of her posting the keys into the drop-off box.
‘I was in a good mood,’ says 45-year-old Kate, owner of Reeves Model Engineers, a business that sells parts for model railways. ‘We had enjoyed our time in the park, seeing elephants, rhinos and our first ever porcupine.’
Counting the cost: Kate Barton had no idea until she returned home to the UK that Avis had taken a advocate £303 from her credit card
Yet, what she had no idea of until she returned home to the UK was that Avis had taken a advocate £303 from the credit card she had used to book the car when she had picked it up from Skukuza Airport at the beginning of her trip.
Avis was able to do this because, appreciate all car hire companies and many hotels, it is permitted to put a ‘hold’ on a slice of a customer’s card balance when they come to collect their car or check in at a hotel.
This ‘hold’ can then be drawn upon by the company if there are additional charges that a customer has racked up. In the case of a hire car, these could associate to the cost of repairing a scratch to the paintwork. For a hotel, they could cover room service or mini-bar costs.
Scrutinising the Avis invoice, Kate discovered that the car she had dropped off at Kruger Mpumalanga on November 15 had then been used by someone else for another two-and-a-half days. In that time, it had been driven 1,200 kilometres, the full tank of fuel had been depleted and multiple toll charges had been incurred – hence the £303 bill. ‘I was flabbergasted,’ says Kate. ‘I thought that maybe it was a billing or clerical error, or even fraud.
‘But I knew they were charges I had not racked up.’
She thought a refund would be straightforward, but it wasn’t. Despite providing Avis with irrefutable proof that the car had been returned on the agreed date – photos with geo-tagging and time stamps – Avis South Africa rejected her claim.
Kate wouldn’t let go. She sent Avis UK a copy of the video showing the car keys being dropped into the required box. Although the company said the evidence was undeniable, it was up to its South African operation to organise the refund.
After more than a week of ‘going on the offensive’ by messaging Avis on Facebook, she got a breakthrough. Avis South Africa admitted there had been an ‘error’ and that the extra charge would be refunded.
A few days ago, Kate got her money back – although it came with no compensation for the time she had spent trying to get the company to see sense. Avis’s public relations advisers, whom I asked to probe the case, thanked me for bringing it to their attention and confirmed a refund had been processed. No explanation for the mistake was given and no apology offered.
Kate is also angry that she was hit with a subsequent £5.47 refuelling charge when she returned another Avis hire car to George Airport, Western Cape at the end of her holiday.
Avis said the charge was applied because Kate did not fill up within the required five kilometres of the airport. But there is no petrol station within seven kilometres – and such a requirement is not in the hire terms.
‘Anyone hiring a car has to be vigilant,’ she warns. ‘Companies will use any opportunity to eat into a credit card hold. So photograph everything at the start and end of a hire – and take videos.’
- Has a car hire company used a hold on your credit card to take extra charges? Email: jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk.
The ‘criminal record’ that floored £5k policy payout
Costly: A broken bathroom valve caused the floor to collapse
Before someone takes out home insurance, they are asked whether anyone in the household has an unspent criminal record. Answering ‘yes’ can result in cover either becoming more expensive or declined altogether – although specialist insurers do now offer policies to households where a member has a criminal record.
The reason why insurers get edgy is that they see a criminal as a greater insurance risk.
Rachel McNamee, from Prenton, Merseyside, has just found out how costly it can be not to disclose an unspent criminal record.
In August, she took out home cover with Halifax. When applying, she was asked to agree or disagree to the statement: ‘You or anyone living with you have no unspent criminal convictions.’ She answered: ‘Agree’.
It was the wrong answer because two months earlier her 21-year-old son had received a conditional discharge order for harassing someone and causing them distress. The order stated that provided he did not commit another offence during the 18-month order, he would not be punished.
Rachel is a hard-working individual who has never broken the law. She made a genuine mistake in thinking a conditional discharge order was not a criminal conviction (I didn’t know either until I did an internet explore).
Sadly, it has cost her. In October, a broken valve in the bathroom of her four-bedroom home caused the floor to collapse. It was only when assessors came round to look at the damage that they learnt from Rachel that her son had a conditional discharge order. Last month, Halifax voided her cover. She will now have to pay the £5,000 of damage from her own pocket.
I’m not casting blame at Halifax’s door, although maybe its statement on criminal convictions should spell out that conditional discharge orders are included.
Yet there is a massive disconnect between the cause of the claim (a leaky valve) and the reason for its refuse (a failure to realise that a conditional discharge order is a criminal conviction.)
- I think Rachel has been punished harshly. What’s your view? Email: jeff.prestridge@mailonsunday.co.uk.
Tough times
These are tough times for Hargreaves Lansdown. A week on Monday, it will fall out of the blue-chip FTSE 100 Index.
The investment platform is also being pursued by litigation company RGL for the losses its customers incurred as a result of it recommending Woodford Equity Income right up to the day dealings in the fund were suspended in June 2019.
This recommendation to buy was despite Hargreaves Lansdown being aware of the fund’s mounting liquidity problems.
Investors in the Woodford fund at the time of suspension have just voted on whether to accept a redress package worth a minimum £180 million.
The result of this vote will be announced later this week. Irrespective of the outcome, RGL’s claim against Hargreaves Lansdown will rumble on regardless.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to encourage products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
