Wow. Talk about rubbing salt into wounds

[mdnzz]

While it can be understandable from a business point of view, surely public relations go a long way??

Or maybe not these days.

http://tinyurl.com/9xl8ke

[vtec]

Not even for public relations would have thought that the company could man up and realise that the people who rented the car are now dead. What a bloody wanker.

Seems the car is more important, the final paragraph should read "Authorities may wait for the ice to melt before they retrieve [the car keys]".

[Storm]

Sign of the times, right there

[Trumpess]

OMG ... thats so wrong!
Thats such the wrong time to be so demanding!

I would tell the f**cker to get bent and Id pay the bill when it suited me given the circumstances!

Good on the copper for stepping in and giving him a reality check!

What a tosser, and heavens forbid these circumstances dont happen to him!
Youd know who would cry foul if it did.

[mdnzz]

Not even for public relations would have thought that the company could man up and realise that the people who rented the car are now dead. What a bloody wanker.".

Agree although they are touting the line that the guy with the keys was not a nominated driver, WTF who cares, he may have had the only jip up pockets and carried them coz of safety concerns.
Who knows, but yes it does suck bigtime

[disenfranchised]

They shouldn't have to pay at all...unless they countersigned the rental agreement as guarantors I doubt the business can legally charge them for anything.

The amount is ridiculous too....they didn't have to tow the car all the way to wellington. They could have found a student/backpacker, couriered them a set of keys and got them to drive it back...you see offers for that all the time (free car rental for returning it to base)

Or it should be covered by the companies insurance policy.
The company assumes a level of risk with every rental, and should be insured against that (or be willing to take the gamble any pay excess expenses themselves)...just because the car wasn't damaged in this circumstance, it shoudl still be covered.

[bull]

Seems harsh but business is business, but in saying that this surely is a case for the company insurance to cover the recovery costs.

[prettybillie]

Seems harsh but business is business, but in saying that this surely is a case for the company insurance to cover the recovery costs.

I agree that business is business and also that the company should have the insurance for these types of things. It is really bad taste though

[Ixion]

Isn't capitalism a wonderful thing?

What surprised me in that article were the comments from people slagging off the local copper for trying to sort it out. Sometimes seems the cops can't win, try to help people and y' get told to stick to dishing out tickets.

[MisterD]

Will I get flamed like this poor bloke trying to run a business, if I nominate the deceased for a Darwin award?

Why should this bloke have to suck up costs due to someone else's f-ing stupidity?

[Trumpess]

... but in saying that this surely is a case for the company insurance to cover the recovery costs.

Exactly .... that is if he is insured this this type of incident. One can only presume. Maybe his excess is too high? Who knows, but compassion goes a long way.

[Trumpess]

Will I get flamed like this poor bloke trying to run a business, if I nominate the deceased for a Darwin award?

Why should this bloke have to suck up costs due to someone else's f-ing stupidity?

I can understand both sides of the story, but his outburst has given him bad publicity

[Tank]

Will I get flamed like this poor bloke trying to run a business, if I nominate the deceased for a Darwin award?

Why should this bloke have to suck up costs due to someone else's f-ing stupidity?

You are right - he shouldn't have to suck up the funds.

However sometimes you have to look at the situation and make a call.

At this point being named on the front page of the NZ Herald, in a manner that makes them look money grabbing and uncaring isn't going to help their company long term. In fact such bad publicity could be the death knell for them.

They should have taken the hit (their fault or not) - it would have been the smarter thing to do.

Edit: The Herald makes it clear its the decision of the Directors of the company - not some front desk person who made this call.

[nodrog:Me]

wow thats pretty cold alright

[klingon]

You are right - he shouldn't have to suck up the funds.

However sometimes you have to look at the situation and make a call.

At this point being named on the front page of the NZ Herald, in a manner that makes them look money grabbing and uncaring isn't going to help their company long term. In fact such bad publicity could be the death knell for them.

They should have taken the hit (their fault or not) - it would have been the smarter thing to do.

Edit: The Herald makes it clear its the decision of the Directors of the company - not some front desk person who made this call.

I totally agree. Whether they are legally correct in their decision makes little difference to the effect of public opinion. It would have been pretty easy to anticipate that this decision would generate negative publicity for the company which ultimately may cost them more than the cost of towing the car.

By the way, my understanding is that a third person - the cousin of the deceased - was the person who hired the car and the only approved driver. So it's unlikely insurance would cover this situation. But it does make me wonder why news reports are saying the parents are being billed.