Alamo/National Car Rental

Review: I made an Alamo, car rental reservation via [redacted] (confirmation number [redacted], and made on the [redacted] web page, not transferred to Alamo), for a rate of $52.20/day plus tax, but in the end I was charged $75 /day plus tax. For a total of 4 days, in the end I payed almost $100 more than the original quoted price. Original quote was ~$249, I payed ~$342.

I brought this up at the time of pick-up and drop-off and the told me the original reservation is for a rate of $75/day although I showed them the email confirmation saying $52.20/day.

After dropping off the car, I called Alamo (both the head office and the Missoula ) and they clearly said that reservation [redacted] shows up in their records for $75 / day. Why is it that I was quoted at $52.20 / day? The only reason I chose Alamo was because of the price. Otherwise I could have got a [redacted] car for the same price where I'm a gold member.

The reservation was for 4 nights, July 3rd - July 7th. Because of a canceled flight, I only picked up the car on July 4th. But I did call Alamo to mention we will be late and also they confirmed they are holding the car for us on the exact same reservation and rate.

I also contacted [redacted] and they said that because of late pick-up I was probably charged the daily rate, but Alamo clearly said that $75 is the negotiated rate they received from [redacted].

Who am I supposed to believe in this case? I made the reservation 5 months in advance in order to get a good rate and it proved that the rate negotiated was either not submitted to Alamo or Alamo did not honor it although I called them and informed them of he late pick-up.Desired Settlement: I'd like a ~$100 refund which is the difference between the negotiated rate and what I actually paid.

Business

Response:

We have nothing on our end showing he was quoted a rate of $52.50/day. [redacted].com is who booked the reservation and in the system the rate it was booked at is $75.00/day.

This was the estimated charge on his rental agreement that was printed out for him and he signed. He agreed to the contract at the price and this price is what is on his reservation. I have included a screen print of his reservation, his estimated charges screen and his signed rental contract....signed contract is cheaper than reserved estimated charges and actual charges because of his day late picking up and his extra 5 hour (extra day) keep .

Because he was one day late picking up his car, this would make his rental contract one day cheaper. They changed his scheduled return time per his request to 1:00 p.m. (his pick up time, as rentals run in 24 hour periods) making this a straight 3 day rental and 1 day cheaper.

However, when he returned, he did not return at 1:00p.m., but 5 hours later at 6:13. This added the extra day and brought his rental back to a straight 4 day rental at $75.00/day plus taxes, fees, child seat charges etc. None of this effects the reserved rate of $75/day, the changes are strictly based on his late pick up and late return.

If the rate he reserved is higher than he was quoted by [redacted], then he needs to take that up with [redacted] as they are the ones who booked his reservation

We used the reservation he had at the rate they booked him for. Had we not used his reservation and rebooked him, his rate would have been through the roof as it was 4th of July weekend and a one way rental Missoula to Kalispell. Probably looking at around $125.00/day

We did not set his rate, [redacted] did, we did not book his reservation, [redacted] did. We simply used the reservation he had and rented him a vehicle.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received, your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Revdex.com,

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

Review: I rented a 2013 Kia Sorento from this company's Glacier International Airport location in Kalispell, MT for the period of January 17th-21st, 2013. The car was returned in good condition with no noticable damage as indicated on my inspection slip. On February 11th, 2013 I recieved a notice that a damage claim was being pursued against me in the amount of $365.82 for a rock chip on the front windshield of the car. After discovering that my personal auto insurance would not cover the amount since it was below my deductible, I followed up with this company's claim handler (PurCo Fleet Services, Inc; Spanish Fork, UT) and requested additional documentation regarding the damage. They provided me with prior inspection slips from former renters indicating no damage, an internal damage incident report, a generic flyer regarding glass damage, and a loss of use property right definition. When I informed them I wish to contest the claim due to insufficient evidence of damage, they informed me they could reduce the "loss of use" charges from 2 days to 1 day, but all other damages were valid and pursuable. I then requested photo evidence of the damage to evaluate the extent of it, and they informed me they had no such documentation and did not require it. I then sent them an email formally contesting the damages based upon the grounds of insufficient evidence and exorbinant charges. When researching a standard rock chip repair cost and completion time, I found quotes from the same repair company allegedly used by the claimant for $89 with a 30 minute repair time. The claimant is pursuing $165.00 in repairs with two days loss of use at an additional $150.82, and an administrative fee of $50.00. These charges appear predatory in nature, and without sufficient evidence of the damage, I feel this claim is woefully unjustified and seeks to recover amounts far above any alleged damage suffered by the claimant.Desired Settlement: I would like this claim against me to be dropped.

Business

Response:

Closed claim as customer service. It was a valid claim and if he gets damage on future rental vehicle even if its just another r/c we will pursue if all documents are in order as they were this time. Montana law does not require us to take pictures and the glass must be replaced not repaired as these vehicles are taken to repurchase auctions at the end of their contracts and the manufacture (ford toyota, etc) buys them back but only if they are in the same condition we purchased them in. Matching tires, clean glass, limited body damage, etc. we had to replace this glass @ 156.00 the claim was valid again it was closed 6/24 as a customer service and parco will send out a closed letter/

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 9587993, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,