I got an e-mail this evening that said the terms and conditions were changing to bring Avis more in line with current practices in the rental car industry. These new changes take effect on August 1st. They highlighted some of the changes, but one in particular caught my eye:

Paragraph 4, Return of the Car has been revised to prohibit returns when a location is closed and also tells you how you may obtain an extension of a rental and what doing so involves.

I looked into the details and if I understand it correctly you can still return the car when they are closed, but the renter is now responsible for anything that happens to the car between when you return it and when the rental location opens. Has anyone else seen the new terms and conditions and if so, am I understanding the new policy correctly? Thanks.

I think you interpreted that correctly.

Was the wording change regarding LDW and the policy of billing for damage/loss significant?

I'm guessing nothing here was done for our convenience or benefit.

There is one item added for our "convenience," but I bet you there's an administrative charge if you use it.

Also, terms and conditions can be seen here: http://www.avis.com/AvisWeb/JSP/glob...ermsMiddle.jsp

Extra drivers from same employer now only permitted if rental is done via employer's corporate account.

The worst of the changes is the following (Hertz started it first).

Note that most insurances (other than their LDW) will not cover the above if they arbitrarily decide to "sell" the car instead of repairing it for whatever ridiculous price they want to regardless of the extent of the damage. Most likely this will not stand in court but you will have to go to court and fight it out. NY and IL have better attorney generals that are consumer friendly.

This is just a way to scare the people into buying their LDW.

But one could get into a significant financial burden, if for example, your parked car was damaged by a hit and run. It is much easier for Avis to wholesale it at a cheap price than to go through the process of getting it repaired.

I don't like it a bit.

It's a combination of intimidation, to force you to buy overpriced, unecessary insurance, which they almost never have to pay out on (for one thing, between premium credit card perks and your own policy, the coverage is usually there, anyway), and stealth price increases. By telling you that you cannot drop cars off hours without complications, and in the same breath, letting you know how painless it is to extend the rental, they are figuring you will opt for the latter, to avoid problems, and push yourself into another day. It's the automotive version of long distance companies who round up to the next minute, even if you are only a second or two into it. Screw them.

Like using corporate AWD?

Actually, Venk,Deelmakur, I like this change. Its very specific and informs the customer exactly what will happen. But I can understand why people are worried about it.

For one, Paragraph 9 deals with prohibited use of the car. essentially, if you buy LDW or not, if you violate the contract, your responsible for damages.

Second, fare market value of the car is not "new" price, its the sale price of the car at wholesale. I can go into a long littany of why they are doing this, but the short answer is "if they fix it and sell it, it costs more to you and avis than selling it as is and using the running average of similar vehicles sold at market to pay the difference". After years of study on the issue, the average cost to the consumer under the new scenario is $500 less than to repair. Scary thought, but true.

In the hit and run scenario, the damage to the car must exceed the turnback cap of the car before they wont fix it. Avis through the car manufacturers are allowed x number of damage, depending on which program the car comes from. If a car receives a big hit more than x by contract, they wont fix it, sell it as is, take the difference from the industry average at wholesale for that car with that mileage in that city.

A good rule of thumb, the accident damage (at cost) would need to be greater than 1/5th the cost of the car new. So a 20,000 car (malibu) would need to take a hit greater than 3300 before they would sell "as is" and not repair it.

So in essence, it would need to be a pretty damn big hit and run. Second, it would be your credit card or personal insurance's job to argue final remittance cost. If you are renting a car and have absolutely zero insurance umbrella, you are taking a big risk anyway. If your own personal car at home doesnt have insurance, then you are taking the same risk at home, worse if you have no liability because most cars have some basic liability attached to it already.

I believe the car must be paid by corporate credit card or corporate Avis billing account number. But I havent received specific instruction on this.

My location loses money on LDW. We pay more out on damages than we collect.

Yes, you are correct. This is covering a loophole in wording. People have been known to return cars after hours when they know they have damage and when contacted about it claim it wasnt there when they returned it.

This paragraph makes it clear that until the car is inspected or checked in by an avis employee, the car is still your responsibility. Anyone who thinks this is a bad clause would need to cite an example for me to think otherwise. To me its common sense. Return the car outside posted hours, its just like parking the car on the street overnight. You take your chances.

As an Avis franchisee (?) I can see why you would like it.
The above is correct but not the whole story. If you do not have LDW, you are responsible period. If you have LDW then if you break para 9, then you are responsible. It is not having the LDW part that is worrisome because of the new option they have to just sell it than repair it.

Misleading. If a car gets damaged, then the customer (or his insurance company) picks up the tab of the repair. Earlier, they didn't pick up the tab of the reduced value of selling the car. In your comparison, you are comparing the total cost of repair and sell to just sell before repair. This is an advantage to Avis but not the the customer (or his insurance company).

Since Avis has the complete control of how much they sell it at and recovering the difference from the consumer, they have no incentive to sell it at a decent price as opposed to having an arrangement with a wholesaler to get it cheap (Avis doesn't lose by doing this, the customer gets shafted). Why would they do it, because there are any number of wholesalers willing to get damaged cars cheap and provide other favors to Avis.

Most insurance companies will not pay for such arbitrary differences.

Just because you say it? There is nothing in the language that prevents them from selling a car that has minor bumper scratch to a wholesaler cheap and then recovering the difference from the customer. Why do it? any number of reasons. Late model car... gas guzzler.. not profitable to rent, etc. This would be a scam. If they really wanted to sell it only when the repair costs are more expensive they could have used the same language they used for IL and NY where the AG would be on them quick if they tried to pull such a thing.

This is assuming the car is as rentable after fixing it. Nothing in the language prevents them from selling ("in sole discretion') even if the damge is smaller. This would be preferred if the car was at the end of its rental service life, or it was a car that had gne out of fashion or was a lemon with service probems etc. If the intent was to take the lesser of the price difference and the repair cost from the consumer, then the exception for IL and NY would be the norm not exceptions. Since they have worded it for differently for all other states, I have to assume that they reserve the right to sell it even if it would have been cheaper to repair it. This is a scam.
Not true. The credit card's agreement with the cardholder is to cover damages to the car and "to make it whole" not provide umbrella indemnity for any arbitrary way in which AVIS computes the damages. The credit card will simply pay for the repair estimates as per their agreement with the cardholder. if the cardholder has agreed to a different term with AVIS to pay them more than the reapir costs, the card company won't need to fight it with AVIS, they will simply limit their liability to the repair estimates for the car and leave the cardholder stuck with stupid rule he agreed to. Credit cards will be OK with the language used for IL and NY. Everywhere else, the customer faces a risk.

The above is correct but not the whole story. If you do not have LDW, you are responsible period. If you have LDW then if you break para 9, then you are responsible. It is not having the LDW part that is worrisome because of the new option they have to just sell it than repair it.

Currently, before the rule change, if you dont have LDW, you are responsible period as well. Currently, before rule change, if you have LDW and you break para 9, you are still responsible.

Yes it is true that the new option would allow for a sale rather than repair. My reason for liking this statement has nothing to do with my status at Avis. Under the previous agreement, it had less about the procedure for remittance. The new agreement lays it out in advance, and gives customers knowledge of what they are up against.

Misleading. If a car gets damaged, then the customer (or his insurance company) picks up the tab of the repair. Earlier, they didn't pick up the tab of the reduced value of selling the car. In your comparison, you are comparing the total cost of repair and sell to just sell before repair. This is an advantage to Avis but not the the customer (or his insurance company).

I dont necessarily agree that this is an advantage to avis other than less hassle in dealing with repairs on cars.

Since Avis has the complete control of how much they sell it at and recovering the difference from the consumer, they have no incentive to sell it at a decent price as opposed to having an arrangement with a wholesaler to get it cheap (Avis doesn't lose by doing this, the customer gets shafted). Why would they do it, because there are any number of wholesalers willing to get damaged cars cheap and provide other favors to Avis.


This is where bieng an insider gives me an insight that you and the rest of the public is not privy to. Avis has NEVER just settled for any old price on selling cars. Already avis does sell cars as salvage and does not repair them. In fact, every rental car company does that. They sell each car individually at auction, never at bulk. People who seem to think that Avis will not try harder to get top dollar for its cars because of this new clause simply are not in my position to see what happens in the process. Its an opinion and I will let people have that opinion.
Most insurance companies will not pay for such arbitrary differences.

Actually I am curious to see this myself. I will yield until real world examples come to light. But I will offer up that many rental car companies already have agreeements with Avis on remittance of damages on situations like this, meaning damages greater than the previously-mentioned cap. It happens in the background. Some agreements require that Avis provide best effort in recovery of damages from salvage before payment could be made. Many of the figures for avis' sell is from Insurance standards given to them by the companies. I don't at least right now, see much change in wording/recovery other than the test cases you are citing in your argument

Just because you say it? There is nothing in the language that prevents them from selling a car that has minor bumper scratch to a wholesaler cheap and then recovering the difference from the customer. Why do it? any number of reasons. Late model car... gas guzzler.. not profitable to rent, etc. This would be a scam. If they really wanted to sell it only when the repair costs are more expensive they could have used the same language they used for IL and NY where the AG would be on them quick if they tried to pull such a thing.

Well, avis doesnt sell direct to wholesalers. Avis sells at auto auctions at open market. If a car that I rented had a bumper scratch and Avis decided to "sell" it for that, Id like my chances. At wholesale, a bumper scratch would NEVER reduce selling price more than repair price. I have been to more than my share of auctions and I do believe wholeheartedly that more than naught there would be no difference under this scenario.

This is assuming the car is as rentable after fixing it. Nothing in the language prevents them from selling ("in sole discretion') even if the damge is smaller. This would be preferred if the car was at the end of its rental service life, or it was a car that had gne out of fashion or was a lemon with service probems etc. If the intent was to take the lesser of the price difference and the repair cost from the consumer, then the exception for IL and NY would be the norm not exceptions. Since they have worded it for differently for all other states, I have to assume that they reserve the right to sell it even if it would have been cheaper to repair it. This is a scam.

Your making the assumption that Avis would act in such a manner to begin with. Remember the biggest money grub that ever happened to Avis was Cendant. Cendant will be no more shortly and Avis will be a separate entity free of the Cendant Structure.

I should dig up the Turnback Program for you. Avis at ANY time can give a car back to the manufacturer for more money than they can EVER get at auction, even with customer payment. It is to Avis's best interest to have the car returned to the manufacturer, or "turned back."

Not true. The credit card's agreement with the cardholder is to cover damages to the car and "to make it whole" not provide umbrella indemnity for any arbitrary way in which AVIS computes the damages. The credit card will simply pay for the repair estimates as per their agreement with the cardholder. if the cardholder has agreed to a different term with AVIS to pay them more than the reapir costs, the card company won't need to fight it with AVIS, they will simply limit their liability to the repair estimates for the car and leave the cardholder stuck with stupid rule he agreed to. Credit cards will be OK with the language used for IL and NY. Everywhere else, the customer faces a risk.

Once again, im taking a wait and see attitude on this. you raise valid points. But I still dont see this as a demon of a change to the rental agreement.

In addition to all the customer unfriendly changes that have been discussed above--and as a frequent Avis renter they are indeed customer unfriendly--did anyone notice that they now require reservations 24 hours in advance?

Is that so that they can detail the car to my exact standards, stock the on- board mini fridge with my favorite beverages and pre set the radio stations with my favorite stations and adjust the seats, mirrors and interior temperatures to best suit my posture?

I see no reason for this provision. Are they trying to discourage last minute (< 24 hour) reservations or walk-ins? There have been plenty of times I've required a car with less than 24 hour notice, including when there have been extensive air travel delays.

These changes, particularly the ones concerning the bahksheesh LDW changes have set me looking for a different program.

in my opinion, the purpose of this statement...

5. Reservation

You agree that you must make a reservation for each rental at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled time of rental; and must inform the reservation agent, or if made electronically, indicate that this will be a Preferred Service rental.

is not to discourage last minute business, but to reduce complaints from customers who book preferred cars from the terminals and expect their preferred car to be there and ready, keys in iginition, name on board, by the time they get to the rental area. Avis employee practice is to pull new manifests every hour and that has not changed. You should still be able to book preferred rentals with less than 24 hours notice, but the clause is ment to state that the contract may not be ready upon arrival if the reservation is not booked with 24 hour notice.

From the operations side, a bit of overkill, but I see their intent.