NON- COMPLIANCE ON STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

For the first time I rented a vehicle from Bidvest JS28637L01. When I took up the agreement, both Glass and Tyre waivers were in the agreement, so I wasn’t given an option as to whether I was to opt in / out, they were on the agreement and I was happy. I concluded the waivers were compulsory with Bidvest. Monday the 09 December 2019, I needed a bigger car thus reserved with Hatfield branch. On collection, I was stupid. I signed the agreement on assumption. I thought the waivers were auto locked into the agreement like the first time. The waivers weren’t mentioned at all. In my travel, I got to a T-Junction and as I waited for clearance, a truck sped past and left me with a chip on the glass. I wasn’t worried as I thought I was covered. Long story short short, I wasn’t covered: 1. Both consultants did not ask me if I want in or out of the waivers. 2. Bidvest’s SOP clearly states the client must be given the options to either opt in or out. 3. Mmapitsa Mekwa says she “assumed” I knew Bidvest’s operations since The Hatfield branch was my second rental. Having said this, in light of the fact that I cancelled my reservation with Bidvest this morning for another service provider, you willing to lose a possible regular client over a chip?