A tourist has managed to get a refund on a rental car hire after she crashed five minutes after leaving the hire depot while driving on the wrong side of the road.
She has successfully used a clause in the fine print of the hire contract after the rental firm terminated it and declined to provide a replacement vehicle, out of concern for the safety of other road users.
The tourist had only just arrived in New Zealand when in July last year she picked up the rental car on a 20-day hire for $1481 in advance, at $68.09 a day, which included a zero insurance excess.
She was seen driving on a roundabout on the wrong side of the road and soon hit a row of parked cars.
Because the rental firm declined to give her a replacement vehicle, she lodged a claim for a refund with the Disputes Tribunal, for the amount paid for the 20-day rental in advance.
The decision hinged on the terms of the contract around termination. The tribunal found the tourist was entitled to a $1293 refund, being the 19 days remaining on the rental agreement.
The hire firm disputed that and provided an independent assessment of the vehicle completed by its manufacturer, which found no evidence of mechanical defects.
In addition, the hire firm provided a statement from a witness who was following the tourist and who saw her enter and exit the roundabout on the wrong side.
She admitted she had been on the wrong side of the road, but said that was because she had just arrived in New Zealand, and that she had not driven in a country that drives on the left-hand side of the road.
The tribunal found no evidence of a mechanical defect with the car, and that the accident was more likely due to driver error.
Instead, the tribunal focused on the terms and conditions of the rental agreement which were agreed upon when the booking was made and the vehicle uplifted.
The hire firm said the agreement allowed it to refuse to provide a replacement car if it had concerns the driver could pose a safety risk to other road users.
Because the accident happened within minutes of the hire, staff felt it appropriate for safety reasons to refuse the request for a replacement vehicle.
The tribunal found this was reasonable in the circumstances, but delved into the fine print within the terms and conditions.
Despite the rental firm relying on a clause which stated refunds were not available on vehicles returned early, the tribunal said this did not cover an early return in the event of damage.
A separate clause allowed the hirer to request the early return of a vehicle in the event of damage, but the contract was “silent” as to whether fees paid in advance would be refunded in a situation like that of the tourist.
Tribunal referee Kaye Edwards said while the rental firm was justified in refusing a replacement vehicle, the contract was unclear, and the onus was on the hirer to ensure the terms and conditions were clear.
