Car Next Door

They are using uber platform and trying to rent a car from uber car share and not approved my application. BUT I want to know why?Uber telling they sent me a which I haven't received?They are customer friendly?

More than 6 weeks following the booking of a CND car rental in Manly West, my wife received an email from this company falsely claiming that the car she rented was damaged during her rental period. This despite receiving a thumbs up review from the owner, claiming no damage to the car, either via private or public feedback.

CND justifies their email with the following:
A) Owners have 42 days to report any damage to vehicles;
EVEN THOUGH, car rental/sharing providers must ensure they comply with national unfair contract terms laws. These laws are part of the ACL.
Unfair contract terms laws protect consumers against contract terms that:
• would cause a significant imbalance in their rights and obligations under a contract
• are not reasonably necessary to protect the business
• would cause detriment (financial or otherwise) to a consumer.

B) According to CDN, my wife has uploaded photos that incriminated herself, which, apart from being false, is complete nonsense. I personally believe that CND added photos posterior to the rental period, in order to stitch her up for damages caused by someone else, or for existing damage. This is an old vehicle with loads of dents and other structural damage.

Nobody, neither the owner, nor car next door, reported any issues to her until 6 WEEKS AFTER she returned the vehicle. This 2002 car is an older model, which was already covered in dents and scratches.

As this is an owner handover listing, it is clear that this owner has failed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to fulfil his obligations to be present, at check-out, in order to inspect the vehicle and collect the keys.

Under the ACL, when one returns a car, one has the right to:
• take photographs that show the vehicle's condition
• be present when the owner inspects it.

The owner did not make any report of damage, nor did he make any reference to any damage to me or in his review (privately or publicly). I am certain that if there was any damage he would have made that claim back then (6 weeks ago, not now) or, at the very least, on the day the car was returned.

The vehicle had a flat battery at the very start of the rental period, which the owner had to replace, otherwise, the vehicle couldn't have been driven away. My wife was also charged for Km's for following the owner, at his "request", to Super Cheap, in order to have the battery replaced. This despite the fact that she had told him that RACQ was on its way to the location where the car was parked.

CND neglects the fact that, under the ACL, a consumer can claim compensation for any consequential loss arising from a failure to meet one or more of the consumer guarantees.

This is the same owner that's also claimed that my wife left chicken poo in his boot of the vehicle, despite the fact that no animals were inside the vehicle. We have no pets or any other animals under our care.

The owner (a Frenchman with a strong French accent) was trying also to make xenophobic comments about my accent, in spite of him having a strong French accent.

We will only deal with CND and the owner of this vehicle in a court of law. That way, both parties can present their side of the argument, under oath, and in front of a magistrate. I am still waiting for CDN to take this matter to court, following months of futile threats.