Word of warning.

Hagar

A friend of mine rented a BMW 530D last weekend.

He had only driven it a few clicks when he got a puncture. He get's out to change the wheel and lo and behold no spare wheel. The car is equipped with run-flat tyres he's told when he rings the rental company. So he drives on a bit keeping below the recommended speed to find a garage to get it fixed. The wheel breaks up in the meantime so he pulls off the road at the nearest safe spot. As he's pulling off there's a difference in height between the road surface and the hard shoulder. He hears a distinct crunch as the underside of the car scrapes the edge of the road surface. The car is towed away and he gets home. Next thing he knows his Mastercard has been debited with €6667.90

It seems the shocks, arms, internal front wing etc have been damaged and need replacing. Obviously the tyre is destroyed but the alloy is also a goner. The insurance company disown responsibility because damage below the "bodyline" is not covered except in the case of an RTA. The rental company agree that aside from the underside damage the car is perfect.

Basically he's screwed unless you know better...

Over to you lads.

masseyno9

surely if the rental company told him it had run flat tyres and it was ok to drive on, then your friend is not at fault?

junkyard

I'd be inclined to take issue with BMW over the run-flat tyre thing, they're a total f*ck-up of an idea in the first place. If a run-flat tyre doesn't do what it's supposed to do then I'd like to see what BMW have to say about it and I'm sure my legal adviser would be interested too.

cantdecide

junkyard wrote: »

I'd be inclined to take issue with BMW over the run-flat tyre thing

I agree- rental company's taking the line of least resistance by hitting the punter.

I thought the extra insurance cover was just like fully comp??

€6.5k what a kick in the stones.

cantdecide

masseyno9 wrote: »

surely if the rental company told him it had run flat tyres and it was ok to drive on, then your friend is not at fault?

Could he get hold of phone records as proof???

Hagar

Sorry I forgot to mention the car has only 3,353 Km on it so I can see why they want a "showroom condition" car back.

A dash warning light comes on for the run-flat and the manual tells you to proceed at less than 50kph for less than 30km. He only did about 2km.

He paid for max insurance with something like only €200 excess.

masseyno9

Definitely sounds like something on the car didn't perform as it should have, and advice given by rental company/bmw manual was followed so its not his fault. Rental company should be hounding bmw for their costs, not the punter.

PauloMN

That is unreal, sorry for your mates trouble, he must be raging. When you see stuff like this happening, I think the best thing to do if anything goes wrong with a hire car is to demand a replacement or at least get them to send someone out.

The insurance cover issue does sound familiar to me - I seem to remember hiring a car in Germany and having to fork out extra for full cover of the vehicle.

If I was him, I'd fight it as much as possible. Surely they can do something for him, even if he's technically liable. He's being treated poorly being presented a bill like that.

Hagar

The rental company refused a replacement car as it was "only" a puncture. The put the ball into BMW's court and awaited an engineer's report which only happened this morning. I had to drive him about for 3 days as he was in limbo with the car hire. On the plus side he brought me to two excellent World Cup matches in Marseilles last week-end.

crosstownk

Just a thought, but, does your friend (or the puncture repair place) still have the damage tyre? I ask this because as the car is a rental it is quite possible that a previous renter had a puncture and replaced the tyre with a cheaper conventional one. It is unlikely that the rental company would have noticed this. Then your mate rents the car, gets a puncture, assumes (or is told) that the car has run flats when in fact it does not. Like I said - just a thought.

PauloMN

Can I ask what company is it?

Anan1

crosstownk wrote: »

Like I said - just a thought.

And a very good one. I'd follow that up.

Hagar

If the mods have no objection I'll name them, but until I get the nod I don't want to put anyone in the frame.

@crosstownhawk Good point. I'll ask. BTW although there was no spare the security lock nut was in the boot.

VeVeX

Being told that the car had run flats is one thing being an idiot and continuing to drive a brand new car while the wheel and tyre falls apart is another. Common sense should have prevailed. The OP's friend should be liable for what ever damage was caused due to his obvious stupidity.

crosstownk

Hagar wrote: »

If the mods have no objection I'll name them, but until I get the nod I don't want to put anyone in the frame.

I know that most rental companies make the renter responsible for tyre damage. Not even Super CDI will cover tyres with some rental companies. I was a bit surprised a few weeks back in Belgium to find that in addition to Super CDI, I had to take out separate glass cover at €3 per day. :mad:

Anan1

You know, my mother has a 320d with run-flats. She's had two punctures, and in both cases the tyre looked completely normal. When your friend looked at the tyre, was it clearly flat? If so, it's not a run-flat tyre.

milltown

crosstownk wrote: »

Just a thought, but, does your friend (or the puncture repair place) still have the damage tyre? I ask this because as the car is a rental it is quite possible that a previous renter had a puncture and replaced the tyre with a cheaper conventional one. It is unlikely that the rental company would have noticed this. Then your mate rents the car, gets a puncture, assumes (or is told) that the car has run flats when in fact it does not. Like I said - just a thought.

Exactly what I thought when I read about the wheel damage.

Hagar

The side wall was shredded. Totally.

crosstownk

Anan1 wrote: »

You know, my mother has a 320d with run-flats. She's had two punctures, and in both cases the tyre looked completely normal.

And so it should..............

The Run Flat Tyre is a revolutionary new concept in the tyre industry. The main advantage of which is to be able to continue to work at pressures which would render an ordinary tyre unusable. The tyre utilizes self supporting technology which means it is able to support the weight of the vehicle it has been specified for.

More here.

crosstownk

Hagar wrote: »

The side wall was shredded. Totally.

You need to get that shredded tyre and see what type of tyre it was.

Hagar

VeVeX wrote: »

Being told that the car had run flats is one thing being an idiot and continuing to drive a brand new car while the wheel and tyre falls apart is another. Common sense should have prevailed. The OP's friend should be liable for what ever damage was caused due to his obvious stupidity.

A bit harsh my friend, as long as he drove reasonably sedately within the manufacturer's instructions he should have been ok.

Anan1

Hagar wrote: »

The side wall was shredded. Totally.

Right. I have the impression that the sidewall on a RFT is the thick end of an inch thick. It's certainly strong enough to support the weight of the car without any air in it. Was the tyre flat? As in, flat to look at. I don't suppose your friend took any pics?

crosstownk

VeVeX wrote: »

Being told that the car had run flats is one thing being an idiot and continuing to drive a brand new car while the wheel and tyre falls apart is another. Common sense should have prevailed. The OP's friend should be liable for what ever damage was caused due to his obvious stupidity.

I don't quite agree with you. See here.....

VeVeX

Hagar wrote: »

A bit harsh my friend, as long as he drove reasonably sedately within the manufacturer's instructions he should have been ok.

Maybe. But I think its a bit rich expecting the rental company to fork out for the 6K damage that your mate did because he drove on a tyre that clearly was not a run flat. Fair enough they mislead him but he should have had the cop on that something wasn't right. Anyone who's drove on a flat tyre can tell you the noise it makes. Surely driving at 50Kmph there would have been a terrible racket. To drive on it so long that it destroyed an alloy my friend is stupidity.

VeVeX

crosstownk wrote: »

I don't quite agree with you. See here.....

What exactly am I to look at there?

Hagar

I have pics of the damage to the car but they don't really show the tyre as nobody considered it to be suspect. I don't see €6k + damage do you? Sorry about the pic size, I can't get the thumbnail thing to work.

cormie

Would he not have had to authorise the transaction on the card before they stung him? They can't just take 6K like that, can they :eek:

Anan1

Is that the shredded tyre, or was it replaced before the pics were taken?

crosstownk

VeVeX wrote: »

What exactly am I to look at there?

The tyre is designed to 'run flat'. Hagars mate was told as much by the rental company.....................

Hagar wrote:

The car is equipped with run-flat tyres he's told when he rings the rental company.

Do you think it was reasonable that the guy checked to see if the tyres were indeed run flats despite what the rental company told him. I don't.

However, the important thing at this stage is that Hagar's mate determines whether or not the tyre was indeed a run flat.

10-10-20

VeVeX wrote: »

Fair enough they mislead him but he should have had the cop on that something wasn't right. Anyone who's drove on a flat tyre can tell you the noise it makes. Surely driving at 50Kmph there would have been a terrible racket. To drive on it so long that it destroyed an alloy my friend is stupidity.

Two points -
1. It would appear that he was mislead.
2. What was he supposed to do? Phone the hire company and ask for a man with a run flat to compare noises...?

The €6.5k of damage lies at the feet of the hire car company as from what has been posted previously, they appear to have given him incorrect information. I know that in my line of business we would have made good the damage at our expense if the customer had been given incorrect information like this.

If they were run-flats, then the OP needs to get an engineer's report as suggested previously.

10-10-20

Jasus H - the photos just came down...
That lower one is kerb damage and the middle one is panel damage which came upwards from the arch - that suggests to me that there is something amiss here... both stories don't really match up...

colm_mcm

Do all BMW's without spare wheels come with run flats? I know the MINI doesn't have a spare but doesn't get run flats either.

Hagar

Those pictures were taken "as is". That was the tyre in question.
Bear in mind I'm in France, that's the kerbside tyre.

You sign an open ender credit card chit when you hire. Normally it covers late return, fuel top up or even parking and speeding tickets. But they can put anything they like on it it seems. My friend is in a bit of a pickle as he uses the card for business hires etc and now it's maxed out and he can't even use it in Tescos.

crosstownk

Anan1 wrote: »

Is that the shredded tyre, or was it replaced before the pics were taken?

Given that Hagar posted earlier that the tyre was totally shredded, I doubt that that's the tyre that led to the damage. The tyre in the pic doesn't appear to be totally shredded to me.

EDIT - Just seen your post above, Hagar - I'm surprised that that's tyre in question. It doesn't appear totally shredded and I don't see a whole lot of sidewall damage consistent with driving flat. Something is not adding up..............

VeVeX

crosstownk wrote: »

The tyre is designed to 'run flat'. Hagars mate was told as much by the rental company.....................



Do you think it was reasonable that the guy checked to see if the tyres were indeed run flats despite what the rental company told him. I don't.

However, the important thing at this stage is that Hagar's mate determines whether or not the tyre was indeed a run flat.

My whole point is that you would know without having to read the sidewall of the tyre wheather its a run flat or not.

Its simple -

The tyre visually flat, shredding the tyre & wheel = NOT A RUN FLAT

The Dash indicator is on but all tyres visually look inflated = RUN FLAT

Regardless of what he was told by the rental company this is the scenario.

Anan1

crosstownk wrote: »

Given that Hagar posted earlier that the tyre was totally shredded, I doubt that that's the tyre that led to the damage. The tyre in the pic doesn't appear to be totally shredded to me.

He did say the sidewall, not the tyre. You are in all probability correct. That said, i'm sure you'll agree that it's better to be sure.;)

Hagar

As I said there was a slight drop, maybe 3 inches, from the road surface to the rough hard shoulder. I drove off it later in my heap-o-shyte TM Citroen ZX Estate with a full boot and came to no harm. His car was without the benefit of the thickness of an inflated tyre so it dropped off the edge un-sprung so to speak.

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote: »

Do all BMW's without spare wheels come with run flats?

AFAIK - Yes.

Anan1

Hagar wrote: »

His car was without the benefit of the thickness of an inflated tyre so it dropped off the edge un-sprung so to speak.

Are you sure? As has been said by others, this is the crux of the matter. If the tyre was flat, it wasn't a run-flat.

crosstownk

VeVeX wrote: »

My whole point is that you would know without having to read the sidewall of the tyre wheather its a run flat or not.

Its simple -

The tyre visually flat, shredding the tyre & wheel = NOT A RUN FLAT

The Dash indicator is on but all tyres visually look inflated = RUN FLAT

Regardless of what he was told by the rental company this is the scenario.

I do take your point and personally, I would know the difference but you're assuming that renter would have some knowledge of run flats vs conventional. This cannot be expected, especially given the instructions from the rental company.

Seth Brundle

VeVeX wrote: »

Maybe. But I think its a bit rich expecting the rental company to fork out for the 6K damage that your mate did because he drove on a tyre that clearly was not a run flat. Fair enough they mislead him but he should have had the cop on that something wasn't right. Anyone who's drove on a flat tyre can tell you the noise it makes. Surely driving at 50Kmph there would have been a terrible racket. To drive on it so long that it destroyed an alloy my friend is stupidity.

How was it clearly not run flat?
Most folk I know would not know how to identify a run flat. My wife (thankfully) has nbever had a flat tyre so she is not familiar with how one looks, sounds or feels. When told by the rental company that they are runflats that driving is still possible what are they to think? Any change in driving noise would more than likely be attributed to these new fangled tyres.
I don't think its fair to continue saying that the friend is stupid*.

crosstownk wrote: »

However, the important thing at this stage is that Hagar's mate determines whether or not the tyre was indeed a run flat.

I don't even think its relevant. The company confirmed they are RFTs. The owners manual would state that they are RFTs. What is someone to do? Call out the AA to confirm that they are indeed RFTs?
Still a solicitor will provide better advice than a few fellas sitting at home on the interweb!


* take that as a warning!

Anan1

From looking at the photos, I reckon the following is clear:

They were run-flat tyres.

The drop from the road to the hard shoulder was a lot more than 3 inches.

crosstownk

kbannon wrote: »

I don't even think its relevant. The company confirmed they are RFTs. The owners manual would state that they are RFTs. What is someone to do? Call out the AA to confirm that they are indeed RFTs?
Still a solicitor will provide better advice than a few fellas sitting at home on the interweb!

My point earlier in the thread was that it is possible that a previous renter had puncture and replaced the tyre (as tyres are not covered by rental insurance). This previous renter could have opted for the cheaper option of a conventional tyre rather that a run flat.

@Hagar - surely there was insurance on the rental vehicle - why will this not cover the damage?

colm_mcm

Is it even possible to fit standard tyres to a car with runflats?

crosstownk wrote:

@Hagar - surely there was insurance on the rental vehicle - why will this not cover the damage?

The insurance company disown responsibility because damage below the "bodyline" is not covered except in the case of an RTA.

crosstownk

colm_mcm wrote: »

Is it even possible to fit standard tyres to a car with runflats?

AFAIK it is possible - not 100% sure though.

colm_mcm wrote:

The insurance company disown responsibility because damage below the "bodyline" is not covered except in the case of an RTA.

I wasn't aware of this and I've read more than a few rental agreements I'll ask a few questions about this though - I don't want to get stung at a later date!

Hagar

My friend took out maximum "walk away" insurance, the guy is an actuary and not short of a few shekels. You would have to know him, his is so careful it's boring.

Since the thread started I've emailed him and advised him to request further inspection of the offending tyre. Thanks for the help guys, I know he's not poor but I hate to see him ripped off.

@ Anan1 as I said I drove off the same drop and suffered no ill effects and tbh I buy the cheapest tyres possible, ( €40 per corner) as I'm on a tight motoring budget. The wife's Merc get all the funding. :rolleyes:

Hagar

crosstownk wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this and I've read more than a few rental agreements.

This was my primary purpose in posting. I hire for time to time and I never knew this. It's a bit frightening really.

BrianD3

Just out of interest what would have happened if he had suspended/cancelled his credit card immediately after the damage occured.

I have suspended my card a few times after I misplaced it.

galwaytt

colm_mcm wrote: »

The insurance company disown responsibility because damage below the "bodyline" is not covered except in the case of an RTA.

not you Colm, but any co trying that on is a crock of ****e. You either have insurance, or not. That's like saying that cracks on the inside of the windscreen are not covered but those from the outside.........are. Madness.

I'd also insist on a full engineer's report on the car, including photograph's, and production of all the damaged items. To state that a lower suspension arm gets written off by driving off the road surface is complete bull****. That arm resides above the bodywork, so everything ahead and behind it would have been shredded.

Personally, I'd question the garage who are strong arming the rental co, looks like they know a soft touch when they see it.

The sill damage is weird, though.

junkyard

colm_mcm wrote: »

Do all BMW's without spare wheels come with run flats? I know the MINI doesn't have a spare but doesn't get run flats either.

My M5 doesn't have a spare wheel and it doesn't have runflats either and it never did.
Looking at the photo's there there seems to be some serious structural damage and I could see that amounting to a small fortune on a car like this. I have to say that there seems to have been a bigger incident than your friend is admitting to.

Hagar

I know this guy, the furthest it would go is that he pulled off the road too quickly. Even at that I think the garage are taking liberties because he is abroad.