We’re aware of Hulio’s dispute and claim, and have been following the thread on this forum as well as his statements across other social media and review platforms. We have not been replying in the forum as there has been an extensive investigation being conducted by our damage team involving both Hulio and the owner of the van he borrowed, and we don’t think it is fair to let the decision be influenced by the party who is able to apply the most pressure in social media. While we understand that Hulio sees the case as clear-cut and a ‘scam’, the reality of the dispute is more complex. The Owner has presented a very different version of the story to us.
The first point to address is that we are a platform operator, not a car hire company. As the intermediary between people who share their car and the people who borrow them, our role is to assist with the resolution of disputes where an owner has claimed that their car has been damaged by a borrower. We have consumers of our services on both sides of the transaction, and our role is to try to ensure that both are treated fairly.
In this case, both the Owner and Borrower have submitted multiple photos, videos and written submissions to us in support of their claims - Hulio claiming that the damage that he was charged for was simply a smudge that could be wiped off, and the Owner claiming that it was damage to the paintwork that could not be removed by cleaning. Hulio has been very active in promoting his view of the situation, and a selection of the evidence, on social media and review platforms, while the Owner has been communicating directly with us. The information that Hulio has posted in this forum is a selection from a much larger body of correspondence related to this case.
In the end, we decided against the Owner and in Hulio’s favour, based on all of the evidence that was available to us after the investigation. However, the Owner still maintains that he has been wronged by this decision and is still asking us to charge Hulio for the damage.
We initially provided Hulio with all of the evidence that we considered to be sufficient proof of the Owner’s claim. This included a description of the damage, the details of the trip that it related to, photos of the damage, as well as photos of the vehicle from immediately prior to his trip, and an explanation of (and links to) the contractual provisions that are the basis for the charge. As far as our team member was aware, we had provided all of the information and supporting documents that would be needed to show that the charge was legitimate.
Because our service works on the basis of regular people’s cars being made available for unattended pick-up and drop-off, we rely on photo evidence of all damage claims.
To avoid any perception that we are biased toward either party in a dispute about damage, we use a third party loss assessor to review the photos. This assessment is the process that we have in place for ensuring that evidence of damage is verifiable - we have a professional motor damage claims assessor review and assess it in accordance with their expertise and experience.
In this case, after Hulio claimed that the damage could be just a smudge of dirt, we followed up by asking the Owner to have the vehicle professionally cleaned and re-submit photos. The Owner of the vehicle said that they had cleaned the area before submitting their original photos; and he also submitted cleaning receipts and further photos and videos to us to show that he had since had the car professionally cleaned and that the damage is still visible and affects the paintwork. The vehicle owner strongly denies Hulio’s claim that the damage was ‘a smudge of dirt that was easily wiped off’. The Owner submitted photos and videos taken in different lighting after Hulio’s ‘rubbing off’ videos, showing the scratch still present although less pronounced.
In the end, after considering the arguments and evidence submitted by both parties, we decided in Hulio’s favour and against the Owner. However, we think it’s important to note that the Owner still feels - and is continuing to argue to us - that they were the wronged party in this dispute, and that Hulio has damaged his car and is now not paying for that damage.
Hulio says our process for challenging damage claims is heavily titled in our own favour, that we had already made a decision and any attempt to challenge it was brushed off.
We’re the liaison between the Owner and Borrower so in the case of a damage dispute we are not making decisions in our own favour, but rather in favour of one or the other parties to the dispute.
In fact, by finding in favour of the Owner, we incur a substantial loss, because we can only charge the borrower for a capped amount (in Hulio’s case, $500) whereas we have to pay the Owner for the full repair cost as assessed by the independent assessor, plus their incidental costs such as travelling to and from the repairer (which in this case totalled $810). So we lost $310 by finding Hulio responsible for the damage, whereas if we simply told the Owner that the Borrower was not responsible, we would have incurred no cost. In this case, and in all others like it, it would be in our own best interest not to find the Borrower responsible for damage. However, it is our responsibility to the people who share their cars through the platform to enforce the rules of the community, as expressed in the member agreement and damage policy, and to charge Borrowers who are found to be responsible for damaging an Owner’s car.
We strongly disagree with Hulio’s assertion that his attempts to challenge the decision were brushed off. After receiving his arguments and videos, we escalated the matter to a team leader and then a senior manager as per our internal dispute resolution process. We presented Hulio’s arguments and videos to the Owner and offered him an opportunity to respond, which he did with further videos, photos and arguments that directly countered Hulio’s position. We then spent further time discussing the case, asking for additional evidence and reviewing it.
Finally, Hulio notes that his experience was like dealing with a typical legacy corporation with overseas call centres, endless fobbing off and runarounds.
We disagree with Hulio’s view that he was subject to ‘endless fobbing off and runarounds’. The timeline of the correspondence was as follows:
20.04: we sent Hulio the notice of the damage, photos, assessors’ report and notification of the charge.
21.04: the case manager called Hulio to discuss. He requested further photos, which were sent that day.
22.04: Hulio requested that the case be escalated.
23-27:04: The case was escalated, we passed Hulio’s complaint on to the Owner and waited for the Owner’s response. During this time Hulio sent multiple emails and made numerous requests by phone and web chat asking for updates and a resolution. We advised that the case had been escalated and was under review. This period may be what Hulio perceived to be ‘fob offs and runarounds’.
27:04: A senior manager replied to Hulio to say that we had passed the videos on to the Owner and that we would be in touch once we had the Owner’s response, and that we were reviewing all of the evidence including that which he had provided, but in the meantime we were upholding the damage charge.
05:05: After receiving the Owner’s evidence and arguments, and reviewing the entire case, the senior manager decided in Hulio’s favour and advised him that he would not be charged for the damage.
This was not a simple black and white case, although it may appear to be so from the way Hulio has presented his side. There were strong arguments and convincing evidence presented by both sides. We think it’s crucial to afford procedural fairness to both the Borrower and the Owner where there is a dispute, and this process takes time.
In addition, like many businesses, we are working with significantly reduced staffing due to the effects of COVID-19. We have customer service teams based in both Sydney and in Manilla. Our Manilla team had to be relocated due to the lockdowns in force there and are now working from home, sometimes with limited internet access. While we’re doing everything we can to maintain service levels in the face of this massive disruption, overall our turnaround times are slower than usual. The team member who was handling Hulio’s case originally was away from work due to illness for a period, which resulted in some further delay. We are sorry that this has meant a slower turnaround and resolution for Hulio and the Owner in this case.
