Hi @Geoff2,
I’ve only received a letter of demand with an estimate of the repair cost, no mention of GST that I can see:
1 Like
Oh absolutely - the previous message in the text chain was him asking if I was referring to another bit of damage on his car. I’m sure he’s got a few poor souls on the hook with this scheme.
I don’t think CND would necessarily engage the mobile repair, I think they would offer to keep it in the ‘Fix Bank’, which nets both the user extra money to use on car repairs down the line and inflates CND’s cash on hand. It’s a great racket for everyone except the user.
1 Like
Interesting. I see they are a registered Aus business according to website and ABN seems to match
Any pricing should be explicit as to inclusive/non inclusive of GST. Was GST spelled out in the original invoices for hiring?
2 Likes
Car Next Door has now come back with an actual cost to fix the mark on the panel:
Apparently I’m still in the ‘dispute resolution process’, but I’m almost 100% certain they won’t do anything to help even. They seem to stick to their guns no matter what when it comes to charging money.
2 Likes
And here’s how the damage was assessed:
Just thought I would also mention that as this was my first trip with Car Next Door, I was a little wary and luckily paid extra for a reduced excess. The standard maximum excess is $2,000, while mine is $500. If I hadn’t paid for that reduced excess, I would be on the hook for the full amount they have assessed here.
3 Likes
What an absolutely disgraceful rip-off.
$764.50 and 3 days for a jiob with no parts that any self respecting panel beater would do as a cashie the same day for $100 or less.
3 Likes
Have you mentioned to CND that the owner would settle for $350 cash…outside going through CND?
This in itself sounds fishy to why the owner would accept less than the ‘official’, quoted repair cost.
It doesn’t add up and maybe your thoughts the owner is after cash may prove correct.
1 Like
@Fred123 Don’t forget all the other fees you have to pay, bringing the total cost to just short of a $1,000.
Considering I used this van for 3 hours and paid $90 for that in the first place, it’s turning out to be the most expensive rental of my life.
@phb I would imagine it’s up to the owner if they want to fix the damage and have it repaired through insurance / CND, or pocket the reduction in value to their asset by dealing directly with the liable party. I think CND is aware that deals are struck outside of insurance and don’t really care about it - to some extent I can understand this, it is the car owner’s prerogative as to how they want to be compensated for the damage to their car.
In my opinion the issue is that everyone in this scheme is massively incentivised to inflate the repair costs to get as much money as they can, whether its the car owner or Car Next Door themselves. The whole system just encourages car owners to look for as many instances as they can of ‘damage’ so that they can pull out the most money from renters. And CND is happy to go along with this as long as they are getting some of that cash put into their ‘Fix Bank’.
1 Like
Yes.
This is nothing short of a scam.
The scratch may or may not be more than superficial but to call this damage in any way “unable to use” is laughable. I’m sure that the vehicle was at all times able to be used after it was returned.
There is the risk that the $350 settles nothing. The $350 goes into the owner’s pocket and Car Next Door is still coming after you for the notional repair bill of $954.50. They are after all two different entities.
3 Likes
Well this is going off their bogus assessment that it will take 3 days to fix, so that kind of makes sense. It’s frustrating because we all know that no reasonable person would spend $1000 and 3 days getting this fixed, but CND has to pretend that somehow this is a fair way of assessing things, otherwise the whole scam falls apart.
You may have also noticed across review sites that there are more and more instances of this being reported.
You can see on Product Review how their customer rating has steadily declined as more and more people get stung.
1 Like
Reading the owners agreement, if damage occurs and CND are not advised with 42 days, the owner is then responsible for chasing the borrower for repair costs…before that it seems it goes through CND and their insurers. The car’s owner dealing with you and ‘negotiating’ a cash settlement may not be consistent with this approach. It is worth advising CND … provide copy of the car owner’s text.
I would also advise CND that something doesn’t add up with the repair quote from the owner and the cash payment…that the values are vastly different and it appears the owner is keen to encourage a cash payment in preference to going through CND…which is why cash payment is less meaning the owner happy to work the system for cash.
This may be in your favour as it shows there may be other intentions of the owner…
2 Likes
It may be co incidence but I clicked on 5 random users that gave 5 star reviews, all had a total of 1 review(s) submitted.
4 Likes
I was just about to post their reviews on Product Review but you had beaten me to it.
The recent 1-star reviews are most unflattering, including those from vehicle owners.
“Hotel? Trivago”
“Car Next Door. Shonky?”
1 Like
Another quick update - CND has tried to charge my card $500 (their policy is to charge first even if you are in the dispute resolution process, and refund later if they choose to).
Since I didn’t have enough to cover it, the charge didn’t go through.
I mentioned to them that I had lost 50% of my pay due to the coronavirus slowdown, their only suggestion so far has been to get a loan.
It’s ironic, the reason I rented the van was to pick up some second hand baby items (wife is pregnant and we’re trying to save money) - now I’ll likely end up paying even more than just purchasing new stuff.
I also used another van owned by the same car owner about a week after this whole incident apparently happened - didn’t bother paying for the reduced excess that time since I thought there were no issues, but very worrying that I’m now potentially on the hook for another $2,000 at the whim of this owner and CND.
@phb That’s a good idea - I have sent CND the text messages from the owner, will see what their response is.
@Fred123 I asked CND how the assessor could possibly tell whether it’s a scratch or a scuff mark, and what type of repair it would require, from just a photo. They told me I would have to take it up with the assessor, so now waiting on a call back from them after leaving a voicemail.
4 Likes
Apparently they were able to professionally assess the condition of the interior, exterior, brakes, steering, tyres all from that photo, yet not the odo reading 
nothing suspicious here at all …
Also of interest that they list themselves as the repairer - I wonder if they broker the repair and take a cut?
Their website is ‘interesting’ - apparently they have a “deep pragmatic understanding” and “rich vehicle-based data records” to complement their “over 100 years of senior management experience” … yes I’m a cynic 
It would be interesting to do a company traceback …
6 Likes
I would bet that they do.
And what is to say that the photo is for that particular vehicle or just a file photo from their “rich vehicle-based data records”?
2 Likes
Oh boy, here comes the juiciest update of all.
After searching around the neighbourhood, I managed to spot the van and record this evidence of what $1,000 of damage looks like - spoiler alert, it’s just a dirt mark that can be rubbed off with your finger:
Here’s a close up picture of what Car Next Door has referred to as ‘damage’, a ‘scrape’ and a ‘scratch’. Unfortunately for them it’s none of these:
When I requested close up photos proving it was a scratch they kept denying that there was any doubt about the nature of the damage.
And a fantastic assessment from their partners in the scam - 3 days and $1000 to rub some dirt off a car doesn’t seem like a really good assessment to me.
Perhaps CarNextDoor should rebrand to ScammerNextDoor?
@CarNextDoor_Official Care to comment on why you’re scamming people during a pandemic?
8 Likes
It seems like you may have sufficient evidence to go to the ACCC/Fair Trading with a formal complaint.
5 Likes
True, although there are some other interesting sources of background on the face of the business all available on the web.
The value in the business is supposedly in expanding the customer base. Right?
Low-hanging fruit
The vast majority of this latest funding round will be used on customer acquisition, and for continuing to develop the product, “which, in a lot of ways, is linked to customer acquisition’,’ Davies says.
“The better the product, the more people use it, who go on to tell their friends.”
Not sure if there is a gap in recent customer experiences? Telling your friends might be just what the business does not need?
A second observation from what the business is promoting longer term. It is a business model that is replacing the debt or capital of a large car hire business such as Avis, with investment by private vehicle owners.
How sustainable might this be if it relies on limited part time supply? Or are owners offering their vehicles up full time or for the majority of daylight hours over a year?
Is there another issue not mentioned? IE for the ATO, gst, and taxable income; and for states the higher registration costs of a vehicle used primarily for business or trade? Shifting income through excessive insurance costs, doubtful repairer estimates and damage or income loss compensation might also need guidance? Tax minimisation vs …
2 Likes
These grubs should be charged with fraud.
2 Likes
