Refuelling receipt - BNE airport. Scam or ripoff?
 

I’ve been Hertz Gold for about 20 years. Rent 10+ times a year so I’m familiar with the process.

26 December - one day rental at Brisbane airport - $50.
I did about 80km (50 miles) and re-filled the car with $10 of fuel just before the airport. Paid cash. The gauge showed full.

Dropping the car off at Brisbane airport the agent (Lisa) asked for the fuel receipt. I paid cash and had no receipt.
Lisa then charged me another $50 for fuel pointing to the line in the agreement.
“should I decide to return the vehicle full of fuel I will present a refuelling receipt if driven less than $120km”.

To be clear, the gauge showed full. The distance I travelled was clear. I have ever seen or heard of this line before.
The usual practice is to check the fuel level and charge the cost to re-fill.

1. How long has this scam been running? Double the rental revenue. I've rented from Hertz BNE airport this year, done <100km and didn’t get this.
2. What’s the calculation? I was told 25c/km. Then $3.80 litre. Neither add to $50 and the staff were clueless “Dunno, can’t change the computer”.

Sorry to hear about this. Looks like I should be asking for a receipt when do my refills should I rent next time I go to Australia.

Hertz in Korea (well it's not really a Hertz, but a partner) actually has a separate digital display that shows how much fuel was used and what the the current tank level is); I found that kind of neat seeing I knew exactly how much I started out with and that was recorded on my rental agreement. They actually gave me a refund for (1) returning earlier than originally scheduled, (2) returning with more gas than I started with.

Avis does this too for less than 75 miles

Hertz has been doing this for many months in Australia

It is made very clear on the RA of this requirement and is not a scam. It isn't hidden in small print but is in large type in bold on the RA

With petrol at approx $1.50 a litre , 6.6 litres would not be enough to cover the fuel used in many vehicles for 80Km

It is normal practice to ask for a receipt for short rentals and I find I get asked about 75% of the time

The fuel cost is mentioned on the RA and they do do it as an estimation on KM driven and a cost per Km. There is also Airport Surcharge ( which is pretty high ) and GST applied

If you check your invoice, you should be able to see the amount actually charged for fuel

Ah, so if it's in big enough lettering, it's not a scam.

If I ate at a sandwich place every day for a year, and then they put on their credit card receipt that you sign, "$100 charge if you don't eat your entire sandwich within our shop", then it's okay?

It's a silly rule, that of course has little basis in fairness. Many US locations have similar things, but I don't think anywhere near $50.

Also I want to point out, I don't find this surprising at all.

In Japan, I rented a Toyota Aqua. It's suppose get like 40 km/L which is pretty ridiculous. I drove all the way from Narita to Tokyo and back, including driving in the city for two days and the fuel indicator didn't even go down one notch! I did fill up the car before the return and they did not ask for a receipt, but it goes to show with more and more cars becoming fuel efficient, they do need a method to make sure customers pay for gas before returning the cars for very short rentals.

If you take out the vehicle with a rental agreement stating that you will bring a receipt should you refuel it yourself on a rental of < 125KM, then I cannot see how it is even vaguely a scam

Your analogy is v flawed since this is an agreement made BEFORE taking the car and not at time of payment at end.

The cost is not $50 as such but based on the KM driven and a c per Km charge plus any airport location charges on top.

The scam was people renting vehicles for v short trips and then not actually refuelling on return yet the fuel guage showing full. The solution to this was to start requiring proof of purchase for fuel on short trips

Actually, you're quite wrong,

The scam is, if people are doing that, then they should, of course try to fill the tank on each and every car returned. Instead, they're too lazy, and want to get more revenue off of each rental.

If you don't believe that this is mostly an extra revenue grab, you're naive. Especially since the OP has rented at this location before, and such a charge was not in effect.

The fact that even the location couldn't tell him the real cost, if it was per K, or per liter, etc, makes it even more of a scam.

In your opinion. I have sources which I class as being far more reliable on this which I will trust over you

I do lots of rentals in Australia and have whenever I have refuelled the vehicle have not ended up with this charge. It is VERY clear on the rental agreement and came about due to people not filling up and then trying to argue after being charged that the charge is invalid

Who is going to wait 20 minutes for the car to be taken to a petrol station , topped up , returned and confirmed that the tank actually was full?

The vehicle consumption rates are not set by the location but are the same across the country. Based on the set rate and the petrol rate on rental, the cost is determined. The petrol rate is stated on the RA

If you think the whole of Australia Hertz rental policies are a "scam" , I would suggest not renting here

$50 does sound quite fesible a charge for a large vehicle on 80 Km. .


At $3.20 a litre ( which is what I recall it being on my last rental ) plus 20% Brisbane Airport Location fees would come to $3.84 a litre, so would be approx 13 litres. this would be a consumption rating of 15.6L per 100Km which is definitely on par with some of the vehicles in Hertz AU fleet

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.601 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a "scam" and a "ripoff."

:D

Scam implies you were duped into believing you were being sold a product or service, when in fact you were not sold what you were being sold. So in this case it would be if you were rented a car and charged for it, but no car was actually rented to you.

A ripoff is being overcharged for a product or service, and this is somewhat subjective. What you may believe to be a ripoff may be perfectly satisfactory to someone else.

As Dave Noble has explained its a clear part of the rental conditions with Hertz in Australia.

The issue why its policed heavily now in Brisbane is that the closest petrol station is poorly signposted and hence many people in a rush are simply not refuelling the car when it looks close to full. Previously you would drive past it on your way to either terminal now you need to take the international terminal exit and follow the signs. This policy simply means that everyone is treated the same and with a hope the cars aren't given out not fuel of fuel.

The $3.80/ltr on the left hand side of the RA does not include the Brisbane Airport location fee of 20%.

If you need any further clarification zero savings feel free to flick me a PM.

I have no problem with being charged with fuel if I don't fill up the car. That's the deal and it's clear.

But I did fill it up and and the gauge showed that. The fuel cost $10 but Hertz are charging $50 (for an already full tank).

In your eagerness to support Hertz you are defending three unjustifiable practices
(a) "We know what the fuel gauge says but we don't believe it'.
(b) We added a sneaky sentence to the agreement about keeping a receipt, and enforce this rule intermittently.
(b) We will charge you 5x the fuel price. Amazing, even given the practices in the car rental industry.

Good responses. Here's how I see it.

1. Hertz are saying on returns "even if the fuel gauge says 'full' we don't believe that". That's the problem they're trying to solve, and hit customers for.

2. Hertz solution. Show us some evidence you added fuel recently. A receipt from somewhere, sometime recent.

3. So does a Visa receipt mean the tank is now full? Of course not. Depends when I filed up, how I drove, what the car mileage is, fuel price.

The fuel tank gauge is now assumed to be inaccurate. Except on pick up, when 'full' apparently means 'full'.
At that stage of the rental it's a completely trustworthy device.

I'm with Jaimito Cartero. This is a pure revenue grab. The result of a brainstorming session on how to screw extra $ out of the customer.

The sentence is in BOLD in large print on the rental agreement. The Australian RAs are extremely easy to read with very little extraneous information. If it was hidden away in the T&Cs then it might be reasonably viewed as sneaky , but anyone who looks at the RA can hardly miss the cost per litre for fuel ( if refuelling charge applies ) nor the requirement for the receipt

If you choose to ignore the RA, that is your fault

With the fuel guage , that is perfectly reasonable on short distance rentals. There are many peope who will try and scam the car hire companies out of fuel by relying on guages that show full for wuite a while

The cost of petrol if you choose not to refill it yourself is clearly stated on the RA and the cost is indeed about 2.8 times the cost of filling it yourself.

The receipt for petrol will show the time the petrol was purchased and the amount of fuel purchased. with that information it can reasonably be determined whether the car was refuelled close to return and whether it was filled up