VIP parking Heathrow returns my car with substantial damage.

Guest's Comment

Written on: 26/11/2011

This customer made completely unfounded and spurious claims about us which have no foundation whatsoever. Having claimed 8 DAYS AFTER TAKING THEIR CAR FROM US that we had damaged its windows (as with any company claims have to be made at the time of collection), we politely advised that damage to glass in vehicles is, in any event, not covered in the contract. We heard no more for nearly a month until on 2 September (the day after a Watchdog programme about a company abusing customers’ vehicles) we received an email which claimed that “my car was not kept in 'safe in secure' parking and that at some point it was taken to a site or garage where someone decided to do some welding next to it! As such I am accusing your company of gross negligence and your get out clause does not apply. Moreover, when we dropped the car off, at no point was your contract clause of 'no liability' pointed out to us”.
....Moreover, I watched a programme with respect to similar off airport parking abuse on BBC Watchdog last night and will be sending the details of my case to them. I will also be referring the matter to a contact at Trading Standards. Let me make it clear that if your company does not settle this matter, I fully intend to seek compensation through the small claims system.
The “contract clause” referred to was agreed by them when they made their booking. These allegations were so serious we felt that in order to defend our position, we should invite their representative whether it be Watchdog, Trading Standards, their solicitor, etc. to visit our premises to see that we were a completely reputable company and that these allegations were completely without foundation.
As we keep a daily log of all vehicles in our compound, and where they are situated, we could prove categorically that their vehicle had been in one place in our compound throughout its time with us but they did not want to know and our offer of meeting their representative was declined. They the accused us of not cooperating with the investigation.
After continuing to submit the most threatening and abusive of emails to us, they then had the audacity to claim that WE were being aggressive when we defended our position. Their threats were so outrageous that we had no choice than to firmly advise the customer that such allegations were libellous. They made openly false claims about the legalities of the matter in a clear attempt to pressurise us into paying their unfounded claim.
Only by reading the full emails we exchanged can any reasonable person gain a full appreciation of the real nature of their claims and behaviour and that they are indefensible and completely without foundation.