The facts of the case
A consumer hired a car from a local car rental company. As agreed in the sales contract, when the rental period ended, the consumer left the car at Malta International Airport. At the time of the drop-off, the company did not send a representative to meet the consumer to inspect the returned car for any damages.
The following day, the consumer received an e-mail from the company to inform him that upon inspecting the car, they discovered new damages. For this reason, the company charged the consumer €350. The consumer disputed this amount also because he was only allowed to check the alleged damages several weeks later, and in the meantime, the car was hired to other customers.
In view of this, the consumer requested a full refund of the money withdrawn from his account. When the company rejected the consumer’s request, he lodged an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to initiate a conciliation process with the aim of reaching an amicable agreement. However, as no agreement was reached, the consumer opted to submit a claim with the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal noted that the dispute between the consumer and the car rental company arose because when the consumer left the rented car at the airport, there was no one representing the company to inspect it. Furthermore, the consumer was only given the possibility to check the new damages weeks after the incident, and in the meantime, the car had been rented to other customers.
The tribunal acknowledged that it may be impractical for a company to have employees checking returned cars for damages 24 hours a day. However, the tribunal also reasoned that when a company claims that the vehicle has been damaged during the rental period, it is responsible to present timely proof of such claims.
In addition, the company decided to rent the same vehicle to another client without first giving the consumer the possibility to verify the alleged damages. The tribunal however also noted that the company immediately informed the consumer about the alleged damages.
From the consumer’s perspective, the tribunal argued that it was also the consumer’s responsibility to make sure he had proof that the car was dropped off in the same condition it was rented. The consumer could have taken photos of the car as proof of this.
The tribunal’s decision
When considering the above-mentioned facts, the tribunal concluded that both parties were responsible to ensure that they had proof in their possession to support their respective claims. For these reasons, the tribunal partially upheld the consumer’s claim and ordered the car rental company to refund half of the amount charged to the consumer, amounting to €175.
The tribunal also ruled that each party should pay its own share of the tribunal’s expenses.
Odette Vella, director, Information and Research Directorate