The Hertz from this article is a company you should never do business with, unless you like getting falsely accused of a felony, arrested, and imprisoned for no reason:
I personally use other companies when I rent a car... but I'm also paranoid about the kind of nonsense described in the article, so I just buy the damage coverage when I rent the car. It means renting a car is far more expensive than it should be, but it saved my bacon the last time I rented when someone dinged the paint.
It's funny that the AI bogeyman is used in the article to make this new tech seem scarier. The problem is the general practice of trying to milk you for money over regular wear and tear.
The ultimate goal is to intimidate renters into purchasing as much insurance (Collision Damage Waiver, Liability, etc.) as possible, effectively doubling the cost of a daily rental.
If you are renting a car abroad then check your travel insurance as it may cover any excesses. The one I just bought for the UK covers up to $5000 excess so exceeds the CDW. Of course I always do a once around the car with the phone before and after rental which I am sure everyone does these days
Classic MBA scam. Hertz dont own the cars outright, they borrow money to pay for them. So they have an interest in driving down the value of the cars so they can refinance at lower costs. Then, on the income side, they'll be gouging customers for fees to cover damage (or take out curiously expensive damage insurance). It's a continual shakedown and I imagine there were high fives all around when the Finance intern came up with the idea.
Of course, Hertz has been a dumpster fire of a business for the last five years. Burning billions on electric vehicles, torching the share price, switching CEOs, not to mention falsely accsuing customers of theft. Maybe best to stay away from them for a bit.
This is being framed all dystopian, but I'm not so pessimistic.
The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training inspects the car when you check it out, and then you get a former drill sergeant when you check it back in. The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
An act of civil disobedience that I absolutely wouldn't condone might be causing significant damage in the parking lot before you get to the outbound scanner, or after you pass through the inbound scanner.
The past two times I rented a car, I later received a bill from the rental company for supposedly unpaid tolls (plus fees) that I had most definitely paid.
Renting a car with any liability exposure is a recipe for frustration. As far as I'm concerned, these scans mean that one will be billed if they legally can be. Regardless of actually accruing damage.
This will obviously settle down into something reasonable over time, it’s as bad as it will be right now. Renting cars is a competitive business and to the extent it isn’t (mostly via the chokepoint of airport parking garage leases), that's always been true.
(Of course, NYT writing an article and people being mad is part of that settling to reasonableness process)
always take the loss damage waiver when renting a car. While your insurance may cover repairs it most likely doesn't cover loss-of-use for the rental company. This means you may be liable for paying to keep the car rented while its being repaired.
How does that hold up? If I return the car, the attendant inspects it, and I go home... then later I receive a bill about a scratch that the attendant didn't point out and that I cannot possibly inspect on the car... why would I possibly pay up? How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
It would make a lot more sense to scan the car immediately when I return it, point out the damage, and bill me right there. I don't think that is what they do though? Is the scanner in another location?
> How could anyone litigate if I disagree and the car has been rented again?
The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
> An employee reviews the report only if a customer flags an issue after receiving the bill. She added that fewer than 3 percent of vehicles scanned by the A.I. system show any billable damage.
> They were charged $195: $80 for the damage and $115 in fees, including those incurred “as a result of processing” the damage claim and the “cost to detect and estimate the damage” that occurred during the rental. Hertz offered to reduce the charge to $130 if they paid within one day.
Yea, that's just a scam. Charging fees for charging fees.
I had the automatic insurance and got a flat ten miles outside of anchorage. Before cell phones. No way was I getting out of the car as it was dark and I was worried about things like a large moose. I drove the car back with a very smoking rim and happily turned the car in.
Then 20 yrs later, I rented from hertz a car with balding tires with the steel belts showing thru the worn tires. I did not catch that, as the garage I reviewed the car was DARK. Unfortunately, my destination did not have a nearby Hertz location. My mother in law entered the picture and after several “may I speak to your supervisor” we escalated pretty high and the next day, a flatbed truck showed up with a car for me and they took the other away.
This should lower rental rates by encouraging more careful driving and reducing vehicle damage. Fewer repairs mean lower overall costs, which everyone would otherwise pay through higher rates.
22 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 47.1 ms ] threadhttps://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1140998674/hertz-false-accusa...
I personally use other companies when I rent a car... but I'm also paranoid about the kind of nonsense described in the article, so I just buy the damage coverage when I rent the car. It means renting a car is far more expensive than it should be, but it saved my bacon the last time I rented when someone dinged the paint.
It's funny that the AI bogeyman is used in the article to make this new tech seem scarier. The problem is the general practice of trying to milk you for money over regular wear and tear.
Of course, Hertz has been a dumpster fire of a business for the last five years. Burning billions on electric vehicles, torching the share price, switching CEOs, not to mention falsely accsuing customers of theft. Maybe best to stay away from them for a bit.
The current process is ridiculous - a random teenager in a vest with 15 minutes of training inspects the car when you check it out, and then you get a former drill sergeant when you check it back in. The current process is no less fair and Hertz is no less evil - but in this case its at least impartial and the scans are transparently available.
How would they handle that?
Renting a car with any liability exposure is a recipe for frustration. As far as I'm concerned, these scans mean that one will be billed if they legally can be. Regardless of actually accruing damage.
(Of course, NYT writing an article and people being mad is part of that settling to reasonableness process)
Remember when they were a prestige brand?
It would make a lot more sense to scan the car immediately when I return it, point out the damage, and bill me right there. I don't think that is what they do though? Is the scanner in another location?
The scans are evidence. Whether the are sufficient evidence to overcome whatever counterevidence you can provide (the civil standard of proof for liability being a preponderance of the evidence, not the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability) is a matter that would be decided at trial (or, more likely, arbitration.)
> They were charged $195: $80 for the damage and $115 in fees, including those incurred “as a result of processing” the damage claim and the “cost to detect and estimate the damage” that occurred during the rental. Hertz offered to reduce the charge to $130 if they paid within one day.
Yea, that's just a scam. Charging fees for charging fees.
Then 20 yrs later, I rented from hertz a car with balding tires with the steel belts showing thru the worn tires. I did not catch that, as the garage I reviewed the car was DARK. Unfortunately, my destination did not have a nearby Hertz location. My mother in law entered the picture and after several “may I speak to your supervisor” we escalated pretty high and the next day, a flatbed truck showed up with a car for me and they took the other away.