GUWonder

Some car rental business' practices may not necessarily be legally immunized for engaging in practices that defy justice -- even when the business may try to claim a rental agreement as protection to overcharge.

Going after multiple rental customers for the same damage previously claimed by the rental car company may come across as unlawful, fraudulent activity even if the rental agreement doesn't preclude the rental car company from engaging in such "throw mud and see what sticks" approach.

seawolf

Where is the proof that is being practiced?

Redwood839 mentioned rim damage was noticed at pickup but wasn't reported (so that it gets updated in vehicle condition report) and now Sixt is hitting him up for damage. Business as usual in Europe based on my prior car rental with Sixt/Hertz/Enterprise.

Nowhere do I read Sixt hitting up another renter for the same damage nor Sixt hitting up Redwood839 for damage already recorded at pickup.

GUWonder

See post #87. Whether it's deliberate or not, such collection attempts (for prior driver's damages) still may not be legally enforceable. And the damage report -- in writing or verbally -- done by the reps for collection purposes may be a form of proof that it has been and is being practiced.

TWA884

There are numerous reports and complaints of similar incidents in the Sixt - Any Questions? thread.

seawolf

Two questions. 1.) How do you know Sixt collected from another renter? and 2.) Did Sixt send you a damage claim for scruff marks?

I monitor that thread as well. Don't recall seeing any reports where the same damage was charged to more than one renter. Definitely nothing that can be considered as proof as the best "evidence", in my opinion, is essentially speculation by poster or another FT member.

All I recall are reading posts reporting about getting charged for damage where renter claim they didn't (or wasn't aware they) cause. My favorite one is where poster returns vehicle after hours in pristine condition only to receive damage claim afterwards without realizing even if the car was in pristine condition when they drop the keys off in the drop box, they are still responsible for any damage until Sixt checks in the car the next business day.

TWA884

IIRC, in your opinion, Sixt is never wrong.

My recollection is that many of those complaints are for charges for pre-existing damage.

In any event, I have a Sixt Platinum card, via a status match, and was quite happy with my past rentals; however, having read of all these negative experiences, I now take my business elsewhere unless Sixt is substantially cheaper.

GUWonder

I was speaking of collection attempts for pre-existing damage; those are not the same thing as collected. I had access to submitted invoices for the same rental location for the same vehicle license plate on different occasions. Upon vehicle return, the involved renters were told about needing to pay for roof scruffs that were noted (even photographed and filmed) by the involved renters before initially driving off -- even as the vehicle check-out agents (one of whom was there on the different occasions) said it was all ok. Upon return of the vehicle, the vehicle check-in agents changed their story until the camera footage was presented. If a case was pursued to see if more future renters of the same vehicle were hit up for pre-existing roof scruff damage collection attempts, I wouldn't be surprised.

The scruffs were so minor that they couldn't be seen easily in a relatively dark garage; but these phone flashlights work well enough. I had some advance warning that Sixt may be doing something like this, but the prior notice of rooftop scruffs were just a very lucky repeat catch by the renters.

How bad were the scruffs on the roof? Barely noticeable unless looking at the roof from the right angles. I doubt that even my finger nails would be able to feel them.

I'm Sixt Platinum too and have had mostly decent experiences with them; but I know their practices in this regard -- at least in the US -- leave room for improvement and invite some due criticism.

cestmoi123

When renting in Europe (from Sixt or any other provider), I use a simple rule: if there's anything on the car that differs from the condition I'd expect when purchasing a new car, then I mark that on the damage form.

US and European standards are dramatically different.

GUWonder

I rent cars nearly as much in the US as in Europe, and I've had no more issues with (prior driver's) car rental damage claims in Europe than in the US -- at least when I'm using Hertz and Avis.

I use Europcar and Sixt about the same amount as each other in Europe, and I've faced no more frequent issues with either one of these two in this regard.

I use Sixt less in the US than I use Sixt in Europe or Hertz and Avis in the US or in Europe; and yet I've faced more issues with Sixt in the US on such matters than with Sixt in Europe.

Perhaps the way Sixt trains employees in the US and the way Sixt employees in the US perform their job is part of the issue in this regard. Absent evidence showing kickbacks of sort, I wouldn't want to entertain the idea of Sixt employees' income/material benefit getting revised upward in line with their employer/branch seeing increased damage-related claims made and/or collected as a proportion of the unit's total revenue. There are certainly different approaches by region and/or supplier, but I'm not sure that explains all of it.

seawolf

Au contraire - See my post #3 and #7. Sixt is wrong.
Sixt failure in letting a car with summer tires out during winter. Post #7.

As indicated on past thread, absent evidence, accusations based solely on FT reports are probably questionable as they are one-sided to begin with and does not provide the complete story.

I've had 20+ rentals with Sixt in past 2 years and only had two damage claim. One was entirely my fault as I had hit the parked vehicle and second is the link above where Sixt took my word that I did not cause the rim damage and dropped the claim.

The rim damage could have went either way. The only facts are Sixt has a vehicle with a damaged rim. On one hand, I could not prove the damage was pre-existing. On the other hand, Sixt could not prove there was no rim damage at picked up either. If they were this “profit-at-all-cost” company as suggested, then they would have continued to insist I caused it or pursue a settlement. Instead they drop their claim completely. Thus my earlier comment in this thread; report damages and get them documented at pickup. It will save you hassles at return.

Is it possible Sixt has pursue this rim damage on renters before me and after me? Possible but absent proof, we have to presume that is not the case. Then again we have to assume the local gas station is dispensing petrol at stated octane as well until proven otherwise.

Sixt should be held legally responsible with such evidence.

AngryCustomer

I hired a van from Sixt for 1 day only on the 1st Sep from an office in Barr, Switzerland.

I drove the van from the office to my home loaded the van and then took the load to a friends garage and off loaded. I then took the van back to the office. I was told at the reception that they would check over the van ( at my request) I received an email with the closing amounts to be charged and a thank you for your custom. All good so far!

Today, however I received an email from their claims department saying I need to fill out an accident form and that a 10cm dent and paint damage has been found and that I must be responsible for the damage.
I was shocked to say the least! I gave the claims department a call to ask how such a mistake had happened as I have not caused any damage to the vehicle! (My wife was following the entire time I had the van and can testify to this)
There response "it must be you as we have not rented it to anybody else "
I was furious to say the least!


This seems to be a regular con by Sixt and should not be aloud!

I have escalated this claim, but have a feeling this will not be resolved easily!

msingh91

I have just returned my rental car to sixt in london uk. i was told there is a scratch 3-5 centermeters long on the front bumper. It is so small i didnt notice it when i took the car from sixt at begining of the rental i know for a fact i did not cause the damage however i have been told sixt will hold my £250 deposit and the damage team will contact me. i needed that money to live on untill i get paid on the 07/10/16 can some one advise me what to do as i need that money released for day to day essentials. this has stressed me out this was the first time i rented a car from sixt and probably the last.

RTW1

Nothing to do but inspect the car better the next time you rent.... you cannot force them to hand over your deposit, disputes is why there is one.

seawolf

You have to inspect at pickup in Europe.

You know you didn't cause the scratch. However do you know for sure that while you were away from the vehicle (eg parked), a 3rd party didn't cause the scratch?

Damages that occur while you are renting the vehicle regardless of who caused it is still your responsibility. Only way to protect yourself from Sixt's (allegedly) fraudulent damage claims is to inspect at pickup as well as return.

codfishcandy

I think you have to do that not only in Europe, but everywhere you rent a car. Companies don't do this to win a buck per se, but people make errors, and forms aren't always filled out to the last letter. Better yet, take pictures of the condition you received the car in. Consider it your due diligence.

Another way to protect yourself from fraudulent damage claims is by going for the complete insurance package with zero excess of course