3 ms·

Your points only make sense if rental agencies are fixing the damage. They're not. In this case they are charging someone for damage that they have no intention

Your points only make sense if rental agencies are fixing the damage. They're not. In this case they are charging someone for damage that they have no intention of remediating. Same goes for all the other scuffs and scratches that will come before and after with other renters of the vehicle. If the next counter argument is that they're recovering the eventual loss in value because of the accumulation of minor damage, then that is kind of admitting it as 'normal wear and tear'. Anything they're not actually fixing, they shouldn't be trying to charge people for.

crazygringo 1y ago
> In this case they are charging someone for damage that they have no intention of remediating. That's a fantastic point, thank you! In which case, surely there ought to be a consumer protection law against it? It feels like straight-up fraud. And this doesn't apply just to car damage, but with security deposits for apartments, etc. If you don't repair it, you don't get to charge for it. I can partially understand if Hertz is considering it to be additional depreciation on the value of the car when they eventually sell it. But even in that case, the depreciation is nowhere near the value of repair, because a buyer won't perform the repairs either. So if Hertz can charge damages that are a proportion of total damages across many renters that can be justified as resulting in a lower resell price, then OK maybe. But that would be what per-renter -- like $10 or something? So I think the point still stands then. How is this not outright fraud? Or at least some related concept that ought to be legislated?
- Freedom2 1y ago
  Isn't the free market a perfect solution for this? Don't rent from companies that refuse to fix damage and eventually they will be forced to compete or will sink. I personally only rent, when I have to, from companies to at least try to repair minor damage. It's clear that some put an effort in, while some (Hertz, Enterprise) do not.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    That's kind of like saying, the free market is a perfect solution for fraud -- don't do business with companies that engage in fraud. The problem is, of course, that the person being defrauded generally doesn't know about it. That's why it's a crime. How are you supposed to know if Hertz is actually going to fix the damage it charged you for or not? But my comment isn't about the companies not fixing the damage, it's about them charging for the damage and then not fixing it.
  - redserk 1y ago
    Can you specifically name a rental car company that actually performs cosmetic repairs? I’d be curious on who I should consider since the major ones clearly do not, across my experience of dozens of rentals across the US and EU.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > And this doesn't apply just to car damage, but with security deposits for apartments, etc. Friends of mine had to go to court to get back a security deposit for an apartment that they had been told was going to be completely gutted (and was) at the conclusion of their lease. The management company wanted to hold $2,000 of security for damage (which, to be clear, was there, though arguably not $2,000 worth) in things that they had demolished within 72 hours of the termination of the lease, and things that they had told them would be demolished.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Exactly. Damages should never be an opportunity to make money. I'm glad the court sided with your friend -- I'm actually curious what the legal basis was, and if there is some kind of principle in the law about this already. (Or if it was just a local renting regulation.)
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      I don't know whether it would have changed if not, but I think in their lease was some comment about the security deposit being for damages and the costs of repair or replacement. "Landlord did not repair or replace as a result of the damage, and had communicated no intention to do so." This was also small claims.

crazygringo 1y ago

> In this case they are charging someone for damage that they have no intention of remediating. That's a fantastic point, thank you! In which case, surely there ought to be a consumer protection law against it? It feels like straight-up fraud. And this doesn't apply just to car damage, but with security deposits for apartments, etc. If you don't repair it, you don't get to charge for it. I can partially understand if Hertz is considering it to be additional depreciation on the value of the car when they eventually sell it. But even in that case, the depreciation is nowhere near the value of repair, because a buyer won't perform the repairs either. So if Hertz can charge damages that are a proportion of total damages across many renters that can be justified as resulting in a lower resell price, then OK maybe. But that would be what per-renter -- like $10 or something? So I think the point still stands then. How is this not outright fraud? Or at least some related concept that ought to be legislated?

Freedom2 1y ago
Isn't the free market a perfect solution for this? Don't rent from companies that refuse to fix damage and eventually they will be forced to compete or will sink. I personally only rent, when I have to, from companies to at least try to repair minor damage. It's clear that some put an effort in, while some (Hertz, Enterprise) do not.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  That's kind of like saying, the free market is a perfect solution for fraud -- don't do business with companies that engage in fraud. The problem is, of course, that the person being defrauded generally doesn't know about it. That's why it's a crime. How are you supposed to know if Hertz is actually going to fix the damage it charged you for or not? But my comment isn't about the companies not fixing the damage, it's about them charging for the damage and then not fixing it.
- redserk 1y ago
  Can you specifically name a rental car company that actually performs cosmetic repairs? I’d be curious on who I should consider since the major ones clearly do not, across my experience of dozens of rentals across the US and EU.
FireBeyond 1y ago
> And this doesn't apply just to car damage, but with security deposits for apartments, etc. Friends of mine had to go to court to get back a security deposit for an apartment that they had been told was going to be completely gutted (and was) at the conclusion of their lease. The management company wanted to hold $2,000 of security for damage (which, to be clear, was there, though arguably not $2,000 worth) in things that they had demolished within 72 hours of the termination of the lease, and things that they had told them would be demolished.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Exactly. Damages should never be an opportunity to make money. I'm glad the court sided with your friend -- I'm actually curious what the legal basis was, and if there is some kind of principle in the law about this already. (Or if it was just a local renting regulation.)
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    I don't know whether it would have changed if not, but I think in their lease was some comment about the security deposit being for damages and the costs of repair or replacement. "Landlord did not repair or replace as a result of the damage, and had communicated no intention to do so." This was also small claims.