«6850 rubles — normal?» Carsharing client complained about a huge fine after an accident. What the company replied

On Threads, a case with Anytime carsharing is being discussed. The user said she got into an accident through her own fault and named the fine amount, specified as «damage compensation,» — 6850 rubles. «Do you think it's normal?» — she asks.

Павялічыць

The discussion grew and now has over 2000 comments.

And what does Anytime say?

The situation was commented on by the Anytime service.

— We understand the client's frustration with the car situation. However, her assertion that «Protection Plan» is a myth does not correspond to reality and misleads other clients. It is a real support tool that works when the rules, prescribed in the Accession Agreement, which every client of the service agrees to, are followed, — Anytime noted.

They noted that, according to the service rules, the «Protection Plan» does not apply in case of gross violations of traffic rules throughout the entire rental period.

— During the inspection, we recorded repeated speeding by the client — up to 153 km/h. This is not about a single instance, but about a systematic, prolonged violation, and not only during this rental.

If a client grossly violates traffic rules during rental, the «Protection Plan» does not apply. We always communicate this to clients, because it is important for us that rules are followed and the lives of others are not put at risk. The «Protection Plan» in our service exists to protect clients in unexpected accidents, not to encourage violations.

The amount of damage, it is claimed, was calculated by an independent appraiser.

The editorial office has the conclusion and calculation at its disposal. For understanding: here are some of the elements that need to be replaced after the accident.

Павялічыць

Павялічыць

In total, the list of parts subject to replacement and necessary work takes up seven pages.

The service showed more photos of the damaged car.

— The inspection was conducted in the direct presence of the client. The car suffered a strong impact against the tow hitch of another vehicle. A tow truck was needed for delivery to the service station. The conclusion regarding the extent of the damage was sent to the client via official correspondence. We particularly want to note: instead of immediately contacting the company for explanations through official communication channels, the client chose the path of public accusations. Although we are open to dialogue and ready to explain the logic of our rules. Later, the client sent us a letter requesting an individual review of the situation and a reconsideration of the damage compensation amount.

It is not reported whether the company made a decision on this appeal.

As Onlíner writes, during the preparation of the publication, the service also received an inquiry from the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding speeding by this car, recorded by a camera.

• 0
• 0
• 1
• 1
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0