BritBoyInFL

I recently settled a Sixt claim for damage that DID occur whilst the car was parked in a garage in Manchester, England < This shows I accept liability when it's valid.

I've had to argue one case of damage reported after drop off and vehicle inspection, which Sixt eventually waived the claim.

I'm now dealing with another claim, for which I refused to accept liability on returning the vehicle, for a very, repeat VERY, small chip in the windscreen that I never saw until it was returned and only after the agent pointed it out to me. I am arguing it was pre-existing and didn't warrant reporting as damage when collecting the vehicle (even if I'd actually seen it). And yes, I know it didn't occur during my rental as it was slap bang in my vision and looked simply like a bit of dirt.

Now, here's where I'd like to make a prediction. Most of these 'questionable' claims are when the renter is using 3rd party insurance (credit cards for example). As when the renter has zero deductible insurance from Sixt, they simply don't care.

I have even seen on check-in paperwork where "NO INSURANCE" is noted on the document to alert the person checking the vehicle when being dropped off.

I'm not saying this situation is unique to Sixt, but with approximately 10+ rentals each with Sixt, Hertz and ANOther every year, I've only had problems with Sixt !

I do think this stinks and it wouldn't surprise me if an undercover investigation showed that they are instructed to take every opportunity to claim for damage when renters use 3rd party insurance or Sixt insurance that doesn't have a zero deductible.

As others have said, I now photograph and video everything before driving away.