-
Looks like Amex refused to repay a customers Excess after damage to a hire car. Despite it being covered under it’s Platinum insurance policy.
Looks like they pushed back on everything they could, then stuck to their guns that the vehicle was commercial so not covered (despite Avis confirming to Amex in writing that it wasn’t commercial, and legally the customer would not be allowed to rent a commercial vehicle on Italy).
Amex still refused to pay.
Once the Telegraph got involved they immediately paid out.
Customer has been with them for 40 years!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/fight-amex-ruined-dream-italian-wedding/
You can understand how this happened though. The customer hired a fiat scudo, which is clearly a commercial vehicle – that’s what you get when you search.
If customer had searched and seen what amex would have seen, they would have instead confirmed it was a fiat scudo 9 seater, which is not a commercial vehicle. Because the customer couldn’t see it from amex point of view, it dragged on. This is not entirely on amex….
Cached version for those without access past the paywall
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/fight-amex-ruined-dream-italian-wedding/The commercial clause has been in there since I can remember. I rented a pickup truck in Thailand and phoned Amex beforehand to confirm that it wouldn’t be classed as a commercial vehicle. The agent said it was fine as long as I wasn’t using it for commercial purposes. I just wanted a car that was large and 4×4 for going up the steep hillside roads to a villa in Koh Samui.
Would have been a simple enough case though MCOL too.
@ChrisBCN No. It is entirely on Amex. Avis confirmed in writing to Amex that the Fiat 9 seater hired was not a commercial vehicle and that the card holder would not have been able to rent a commercial vehicle even if they had wanted to as their drivers licence did not entitle them to do so. Therefore Amex should’ve paid out.
@AJA I respectfully disagree; should Amex take the word of a third party (Avis) over the actual manufacturer of the vehicle? No, they shouldn’t.
This case needed somebody to point out that there is more than one version of this vehicle (ideally somebody at amex/AXA should have spotted it, but also the customer could have taken some responsibility here).
This is pretty similar to the conversation I had with AXA/Amex about Zipvans – https://www.headforpoints.com/forums/topic/zipcars-are-covered-under-platinum-car-hire-excess-insurance-but-zipvans-are-not/
Thankfully it was before I needed to claim, but I do feel like there is an issue with AXA/Amex not defining what a commercial vehicle is…
Amex has generally got more difficult to deal with – lots more cases than there used to be, (particularly chargeback / s75) ending up at the FOS. While some of them are quite ridiculously brought by the cardholder, Amex is making some very harsh decisions which they never budge on and not much benefit of the doubt.
This is the old chestnut about car-based vans or van-based cars. In the UK one of these (van based cars, apparently) is still subject to speed limits that apply on a road for conmercial vehicles, which are sometimes lower speed limits than apply on the same road for cars. Even though the van based car, such as the passenger version of the Dacia Dokker, is clearly not being used as a conmercial vehicle and isn’t sold as one, in some cases restrictions for commercial vehicles mighy apply to a van-based passenger vehicle.
To make things worse, sometimes the car version based on a van keeps the same model name as tbe van, such as tbe Scudo (or the opposie case where tbe Multipla car name has been used for both tbe car and its derivative van), even worse this varies according to market for the same vehicle.
Added to that,the customer doesn’t always have the choice of vehicle at rental pickup – only within a category. The one thing sure is that passenger and commercial vehicles are not booked in tbe sqme category – the passenger books commercial or passenger category either-or. As confirmed by Avis.
I’d refuse to stand for this from Amex unless they can point me to small print which existed and was clearly drawn to my attention by Amex with any relevant restriction. If Amex’s underwriters want to impose a restriction or refuse cover on van-based passenger vehicles then they should state so clearly in the terms Amex provides.
@ChrisBCN No. It is entirely on Amex. Avis confirmed in writing to Amex that the Fiat 9 seater hired was not a commercial vehicle and that the card holder would not have been able to rent a commercial vehicle even if they had wanted to as their drivers licence did not entitle them to do so. Therefore Amex should’ve paid out.
If you have a car licence you can drive commercial vehicles, just not heavy commercial vehicles. This isn’t entirely on Amex at all. I’ve hired a box truck on a car licence (Aussie car licences cover up to 4.5T), not a chance I’d expect Amex to have paid on that.
However a Ute (or pickup, if you must) may be a different story – technically they’re classified as LGVs, but if not being used commercially (as a large proportion aren’t in Australia), it’s no differen’t to a family car (well, large SUV), especially the dual cab versions. That’d be a grey area for me which I’d want to confirm first before relying on Amex off the bat.
I wouldn’t blame Amex but AXA clearly don’t want to be in the insurance game anymore but have the feet being held to the fire by whatever deal they have with Amex. They AXA fight everything now, they make it difficult with a long list of demands when making a claim and are frankly then incompetent. I had to cancel a multi flight long trip due medical issues with the cancellation fees running to over £300. Every e ticket, every receipt had to be provided and then they wanted more information. The patient discharge paperwork was not sufficient to show the operation was not planned or that the event was known about at time of booking a year previously. They then demanded a GP letter confirming the date of diagnoses which of course they will not pay for, ( my GP charges £75) fortunately my consultant issued the letter for free at which point AXA screwed up the payment. They are a joke, would hate to be in real Medical need away from home!
10 years ago claims were handled quickly and with little fuss.
@ChrisBCN
Yes, Amex can take the view of a third party, as they are the hire car company, own the vehicle and have all the details of the vehicle. And, Avis are a global company, this is not some tiny local hire car company.It stinks.
@ChrisBCN No. It is entirely on Amex. Avis confirmed in writing to Amex that the Fiat 9 seater hired was not a commercial vehicle and that the card holder would not have been able to rent a commercial vehicle even if they had wanted to as their drivers licence did not entitle them to do so. Therefore Amex should’ve paid out.
If you have a car licence you can drive commercial vehicles, just not heavy commercial vehicles. This isn’t entirely on Amex at all. I’ve hired a box truck on a car licence (Aussie car licences cover up to 4.5T), not a chance I’d expect Amex to have paid on that.
However a Ute (or pickup, if you must) may be a different story – technically they’re classified as LGVs, but if not being used commercially (as a large proportion aren’t in Australia), it’s no differen’t to a family car (well, large SUV), especially the dual cab versions. That’d be a grey area for me which I’d want to confirm first before relying on Amex off the bat.
I think you might have missed part of my initial post where I state that
Avis having reviewed the customers actual driving licence, stated that the customer COULD NOT legally have hired a commercial vehicle in Italy.There is no ambiguity at all. Laws are different in each country, in Italy you clearly need a different licence from your regular.
The distinction here is that:
1. AVIS had NO skin in the game, they were paid, it no longer mattered to them. Yet they went out of their way, even clarifying local law, to assist their customer.
2. AMEX, whose obligation it was to pay their customer, tried every form of refusal, ignored clear evidence, and refused to pay, until a national newspaper got involved.
Note this was NOT AXA, it WAS AMEX. The Telegraph article is clear on that.
@Paul – I agree that Axa’s administration of claims is appalling, but I can’t understand where your statement that “AXA clearly don’t want to be in the insurance game anymore” comes from. They are one of the largest insurers in the world; are you suggesting they are wanting to be in coffee bars or something else instead? If you were correct, it would be a nasty surprise for the firms 150,000 or so employees if Axa pulled out of insurance. For the medical section of the Plat policy (but not the car hire), Axa underwrites the policy as well administering claims…
P.S. There is an obvious reason why claims administration is hugely more bureaucratic and difficult than ten years ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
