Re: Response to Case # [redacted] To: [redacted] Please see below response from Pacific Rent A Car regarding the concerns of Mr [redacted] I am also including a public response to customer to his review on *** Pacific Rent A Car has already apologized the customer regarding "IF" a rental agent mentioned an "Additional Driver Charge." We have had a few "New Hires" from other agenciesAs the "No charge for additional driver rule" was implemented recently, there is still confusion in many companies as there was no official I notice from the state when the code was changed Customer was made aware when booking his reservation online that he would need to show "Proof of Insurance" This request was in print on the customer's original reservation..Drivers must provide and maintain evidence of vehicle insurance during rental period or obtain one." Usually, when a customer shows up with no "Proof of Insurance," we go the extra mile and assist the customer by calling the Insurance Company and get a copy Other rental companies will not do thatCalifornia law states clearly that drivers must maintain financial insurance responsibility and written evidence whenever they drive- CA code ( [redacted] **- ***It is "Illegal to drive without "Proof of Insurance" in CaliforniaAs Mr [redacted] confirmed, the charge for the '(RLP" (Renter's Liability Protection) was removed and he was not charged Rental Liability Protection (RLP)- Again, we went the extra mile by violating our own compan'(s insurance policiesFront counter agent waived the RLP AFTER the customer returned and he was not chargedLegally, by doing this, we assumed liabilities during the rental periodNO rental agencies will do thatHowever, we did in an effort to provide excellence in customer service Mr [redacted] is very confused about the term "Coverage." There are many types of "Coverage" IERLP, SLI, PAl, PEC, COW, LOW, etcWhen he refers to the $per day coverage, he is referring to the COW not RlPCOW covers only the car you are rentingRental liability Protection ((RLP) covers third party and that's what CA required by law Technically, If Mr [redacted] reads the Civil Code more carefully, it states that it is possible to charge $for a COW per day if the compact car has a MSRP of over $However, all of this is irrelevant because no one at Pacific Rent A Car ever mentioned or offered the COW product to Mr [redacted] This issue here is that Mr [redacted] could not show proof of minimum liability insurance (RLP) So, his statement of ((But the point here is that they were willing, ready, and trying to charge me $a day for coverage for a ·compact, which is explicitly prohibited by California law'' is completely "Erroneous" Mr [redacted] needs to go back and reread the civil code so that he understands the differencesThe manager actually discounted the cost of the RLP to our cost just so Mr [redacted] could have coverage and not be driving illegally! Then, upon proof of Insurance, the manager removed the insurance product which is against our policy Regarding Mr [redacted] insisting that his credit card had "Coverage." Credit Cards only cover COW (Collision Damage Waiver} they do not provide the RLP (Renters Liability Protection) Again, Pacific Rent A Car is not trying to sell anyone a COW in fact the agent did not even mention it(Collision Damage Waiver covers damage to the renter's vehicle ONLY in case of an accident) Pacific Rent A Car was requesting proof of insurance in case Mr [redacted] hit another vehicle and damaged others property or hurt/killed a person(Which, he could not provide upon pick up and had to present later) 6.We obviously don't have any evidence as to what 'His Friend" was charged or not charged but, I will say that it's hard to believe that any other agency would have rented a vehicle without having a discussion regarding the various insurance products and the renters own "Proof of Insurance." We have studied the differences in fees between the original reservation and the closing contract taking into account that additional items were added upon pick up that incurred extra taxes and feesOur system is not designed to remove Insurance products after they have been added to a contractDue to the addition and removal of the insurance product from the system (Which has been programmed not to allow) the discrepancy owed to Mr [redacted] is $We will be processing this refund today in an effort of good faith to the customer In conclusion: Customer failed to provide evidence of RLP per CA lawWe offered him our product to comply with the lawThen, to exceed customers expectation, we actually waived the charge after it has been issued and used during the rental period violating company's policies Many car rental agencies like ours are in the process of updating "No Additional Drive Fee"This is a recent ruling that was NOT communicated clearlyWe apologized to the customer and he was never charged Since the front counter agent "forced" the deleting of the RLP, which the renting system software is NOT designed to do, the calculation was not accurate and customer was charged $morePlease keep in mind th~t we waived the RLP charge of $that we still have to pay the third party insurance provider We strive to provide all of our customers with the best customer service possible Over many years, we enjoyed an "A'' rating with the ***, which we worked so hard for and certainly appreciate your support Truly, [redacted] RLZ, Inc [redacted] Kettner Blvd San Diego, CA
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that the company appears to have explained the matter to my satisfaction (I was not looking for a refund, only an explanation and accountability) I am not an expert in the various state and county laws that govern the business in question Based on my perusal of the laws I felt it was engaging in unlawful (albeit not seriously harmful) activity The business claims that it was not At this point I cannot say with certainty whether or not I was mistaken in my claim that the business broke the law (Technically it did on at least one count, but the owner of the business claims that the law was not communicated clearly by the state and that it is a relatively recent one in any case, and I shall take her at her word that such is true.)
I should point out that I was never offered an apology for being told that there would be an additional charge for additional drivers, something the owner claims I was offered It doesn't matter to me, as I wasn't looking for an apology, but I just want to let that be known for the record
In conclusion I shall have to take the business owner at her word Other reviewers online have had good experiences with the place, so perhaps my own negative experience was due to a certain misunderstanding I am satisfied that the owner made an effort to address my grievances, and that in itself indicates a certain degree of will to run the business properly
Regards,
*** ***
Re: Response to Case #[redacted]
To: [redacted]
Please see below response from Pacific Rent A Car regarding the concerns of Mr.
[redacted]. I am also including a public response to customer to his review on [redacted].
1. Pacific Rent A Car has already apologized the customer regarding "IF" a rental...
agent
mentioned an "Additional Driver Charge." We have had a few "New Hires" from
other agencies. As the "No charge for additional driver rule" was implemented
recently, there is still confusion in many companies as there was no official I notice
from the state when the code was changed.
2. Customer was made aware when booking his reservation online that he would need
to show "Proof of Insurance" This request was in print on the customer's original
reservation. ..Drivers must provide and maintain evidence of vehicle insurance
during rental period or obtain one." Usually, when a customer shows up with no
"Proof of Insurance," we go the extra mile and assist the customer by calling the
Insurance Company and get a copy.
Other rental companies will not do that. California law states clearly that drivers must maintain
financial insurance responsibility and written evidence whenever they drive- CA code ([redacted]-
[redacted]. It is "Illegal to drive without "Proof of Insurance" in California. As Mr. [redacted] confirmed, the
charge for the '(RLP" (Renter's Liability Protection) was removed and he was not charged.
3. Rental Liability Protection (RLP)- Again, we went the extra mile by violating our own
compan'(s insurance policies. Front counter agent waived the RLP AFTER the
customer returned and he was not charged. Legally, by doing this, we assumed
liabilities during the rental period. NO rental agencies will do that. However, we did
in an effort to provide excellence in customer service.
Mr. [redacted] is very confused about the term "Coverage." There are many types of
"Coverage" IE. RLP, SLI, PAl, PEC, COW, LOW, etc. When he refers to the $15 per day
coverage, he is referring to the COW not RlP. COW covers only the car you are
renting. Rental liability Protection ((RLP) covers third party and that's what CA
required by law.
4. Technically, If Mr. [redacted] reads the Civil Code more carefully, it states that it is
possible to charge $15 for a COW per day if the compact car has a MSRP of over
$19001. However, all of this is irrelevant because no one at Pacific Rent A Car ever
mentioned or offered the COW product to Mr. [redacted]. This issue here is that Mr.
[redacted] could not show proof of minimum liability insurance (RLP).
So, his statement of ((But the point here is that they were willing, ready, and trying to
charge me $15 a day for coverage for a ·compact, which is explicitly prohibited by
California law'' is completely "Erroneous" Mr. [redacted] needs to go back and reread
the civil code so that he understands the differences. The manager actually
discounted the cost of the RLP to our cost just so Mr. [redacted] could have coverage
and not be driving illegally! Then, upon proof of Insurance, the manager removed the
insurance product which is against our policy.
5. Regarding Mr. [redacted] insisting that his credit card had "Coverage." Credit Cards
only cover COW (Collision Damage Waiver} they do not provide the RLP (Renters
Liability Protection) Again, Pacific Rent A Car is not trying to sell anyone a COW in
fact the agent did not even mention it. (Collision Damage Waiver covers damage to
the renter's vehicle ONLY in case of an accident) Pacific Rent A Car was requesting
proof of insurance in case Mr. [redacted] hit another vehicle and damaged others
property or hurt/killed a person. (Which, he could not provide upon pick up and had
to present later)
6.We obviously don't have any evidence as to what 'His Friend" was charged or not
charged but, I will say that it's hard to believe that any other agency would have
rented a vehicle without having a discussion regarding the various insurance
products and the renters own "Proof of Insurance."
7. We have studied the differences in fees between the original reservation and the
closing contract taking into account that additional items were added upon pick up
that incurred extra taxes and fees. Our system is not designed to remove Insurance
products after they have been added to a contract. Due to the addition and removal
of the insurance product from the system (Which has been programmed not to allow)
the discrepancy owed to Mr. [redacted] is $4.86. We will be processing this
refund today in an effort of good faith to the customer.
In conclusion:
1. Customer failed to provide evidence of RLP per CA law. We offered him our product
to comply with the law. Then, to exceed customers expectation, we actually waived
the charge after it has been issued and used during the rental period violating
company's policies.
2. Many car rental agencies like ours are in the process of updating "No Additional
Drive Fee". This is a recent ruling that was NOT communicated clearly. We
apologized to the customer and he was never charged.
3. Since the front counter agent "forced" the deleting of the RLP, which the renting
system software is NOT designed to do, the calculation was not accurate and
customer was charged $4.86 more. Please keep in mind th~t we waived the RLP
charge of $9.99 that we still have to pay the third party insurance provider.
We strive to provide all of our customers with the best customer service possible.
Over many years, we enjoyed an "A'' rating with the [redacted], which we worked so hard
for and certainly appreciate your support.
Truly,
[redacted]
RLZ, Inc
[redacted]
2100 Kettner Blvd
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Response to Case # [redacted] To: [redacted] Please see below response from Pacific Rent A Car regarding the concerns of Mr [redacted] I am also including a public response to customer to his review on *** Pacific Rent A Car has already apologized the customer regarding "IF" a rental agent mentioned an "Additional Driver Charge." We have had a few "New Hires" from other agenciesAs the "No charge for additional driver rule" was implemented recently, there is still confusion in many companies as there was no official I notice from the state when the code was changed Customer was made aware when booking his reservation online that he would need to show "Proof of Insurance" This request was in print on the customer's original reservation..Drivers must provide and maintain evidence of vehicle insurance during rental period or obtain one." Usually, when a customer shows up with no "Proof of Insurance," we go the extra mile and assist the customer by calling the Insurance Company and get a copy Other rental companies will not do thatCalifornia law states clearly that drivers must maintain financial insurance responsibility and written evidence whenever they drive- CA code ( [redacted] **- ***It is "Illegal to drive without "Proof of Insurance" in CaliforniaAs Mr [redacted] confirmed, the charge for the '(RLP" (Renter's Liability Protection) was removed and he was not charged Rental Liability Protection (RLP)- Again, we went the extra mile by violating our own compan'(s insurance policiesFront counter agent waived the RLP AFTER the customer returned and he was not chargedLegally, by doing this, we assumed liabilities during the rental periodNO rental agencies will do thatHowever, we did in an effort to provide excellence in customer service Mr [redacted] is very confused about the term "Coverage." There are many types of "Coverage" IERLP, SLI, PAl, PEC, COW, LOW, etcWhen he refers to the $per day coverage, he is referring to the COW not RlPCOW covers only the car you are rentingRental liability Protection ((RLP) covers third party and that's what CA required by law Technically, If Mr [redacted] reads the Civil Code more carefully, it states that it is possible to charge $for a COW per day if the compact car has a MSRP of over $However, all of this is irrelevant because no one at Pacific Rent A Car ever mentioned or offered the COW product to Mr [redacted] This issue here is that Mr [redacted] could not show proof of minimum liability insurance (RLP) So, his statement of ((But the point here is that they were willing, ready, and trying to charge me $a day for coverage for a ·compact, which is explicitly prohibited by California law'' is completely "Erroneous" Mr [redacted] needs to go back and reread the civil code so that he understands the differencesThe manager actually discounted the cost of the RLP to our cost just so Mr [redacted] could have coverage and not be driving illegally! Then, upon proof of Insurance, the manager removed the insurance product which is against our policy Regarding Mr [redacted] insisting that his credit card had "Coverage." Credit Cards only cover COW (Collision Damage Waiver} they do not provide the RLP (Renters Liability Protection) Again, Pacific Rent A Car is not trying to sell anyone a COW in fact the agent did not even mention it(Collision Damage Waiver covers damage to the renter's vehicle ONLY in case of an accident) Pacific Rent A Car was requesting proof of insurance in case Mr [redacted] hit another vehicle and damaged others property or hurt/killed a person(Which, he could not provide upon pick up and had to present later) 6.We obviously don't have any evidence as to what 'His Friend" was charged or not charged but, I will say that it's hard to believe that any other agency would have rented a vehicle without having a discussion regarding the various insurance products and the renters own "Proof of Insurance." We have studied the differences in fees between the original reservation and the closing contract taking into account that additional items were added upon pick up that incurred extra taxes and feesOur system is not designed to remove Insurance products after they have been added to a contractDue to the addition and removal of the insurance product from the system (Which has been programmed not to allow) the discrepancy owed to Mr [redacted] is $We will be processing this refund today in an effort of good faith to the customer In conclusion: Customer failed to provide evidence of RLP per CA lawWe offered him our product to comply with the lawThen, to exceed customers expectation, we actually waived the charge after it has been issued and used during the rental period violating company's policies Many car rental agencies like ours are in the process of updating "No Additional Drive Fee"This is a recent ruling that was NOT communicated clearlyWe apologized to the customer and he was never charged Since the front counter agent "forced" the deleting of the RLP, which the renting system software is NOT designed to do, the calculation was not accurate and customer was charged $morePlease keep in mind th~t we waived the RLP charge of $that we still have to pay the third party insurance provider We strive to provide all of our customers with the best customer service possible Over many years, we enjoyed an "A'' rating with the ***, which we worked so hard for and certainly appreciate your support Truly, [redacted] RLZ, Inc [redacted] Kettner Blvd San Diego, CA
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that the company appears to have explained the matter to my satisfaction (I was not looking for a refund, only an explanation and accountability) I am not an expert in the various state and county laws that govern the business in question Based on my perusal of the laws I felt it was engaging in unlawful (albeit not seriously harmful) activity The business claims that it was not At this point I cannot say with certainty whether or not I was mistaken in my claim that the business broke the law (Technically it did on at least one count, but the owner of the business claims that the law was not communicated clearly by the state and that it is a relatively recent one in any case, and I shall take her at her word that such is true.)
I should point out that I was never offered an apology for being told that there would be an additional charge for additional drivers, something the owner claims I was offered It doesn't matter to me, as I wasn't looking for an apology, but I just want to let that be known for the record
In conclusion I shall have to take the business owner at her word Other reviewers online have had good experiences with the place, so perhaps my own negative experience was due to a certain misunderstanding I am satisfied that the owner made an effort to address my grievances, and that in itself indicates a certain degree of will to run the business properly
Regards,
*** ***
Re: Response to Case #[redacted]
To: [redacted]
Please see below response from Pacific Rent A Car regarding the concerns of Mr.
[redacted]. I am also including a public response to customer to his review on [redacted].
1. Pacific Rent A Car has already apologized the customer regarding "IF" a rental...
agent
mentioned an "Additional Driver Charge." We have had a few "New Hires" from
other agencies. As the "No charge for additional driver rule" was implemented
recently, there is still confusion in many companies as there was no official I notice
from the state when the code was changed.
2. Customer was made aware when booking his reservation online that he would need
to show "Proof of Insurance" This request was in print on the customer's original
reservation. ..Drivers must provide and maintain evidence of vehicle insurance
during rental period or obtain one." Usually, when a customer shows up with no
"Proof of Insurance," we go the extra mile and assist the customer by calling the
Insurance Company and get a copy.
Other rental companies will not do that. California law states clearly that drivers must maintain
financial insurance responsibility and written evidence whenever they drive- CA code ([redacted]-
[redacted]. It is "Illegal to drive without "Proof of Insurance" in California. As Mr. [redacted] confirmed, the
charge for the '(RLP" (Renter's Liability Protection) was removed and he was not charged.
3. Rental Liability Protection (RLP)- Again, we went the extra mile by violating our own
compan'(s insurance policies. Front counter agent waived the RLP AFTER the
customer returned and he was not charged. Legally, by doing this, we assumed
liabilities during the rental period. NO rental agencies will do that. However, we did
in an effort to provide excellence in customer service.
Mr. [redacted] is very confused about the term "Coverage." There are many types of
"Coverage" IE. RLP, SLI, PAl, PEC, COW, LOW, etc. When he refers to the $15 per day
coverage, he is referring to the COW not RlP. COW covers only the car you are
renting. Rental liability Protection ((RLP) covers third party and that's what CA
required by law.
4. Technically, If Mr. [redacted] reads the Civil Code more carefully, it states that it is
possible to charge $15 for a COW per day if the compact car has a MSRP of over
$19001. However, all of this is irrelevant because no one at Pacific Rent A Car ever
mentioned or offered the COW product to Mr. [redacted]. This issue here is that Mr.
[redacted] could not show proof of minimum liability insurance (RLP).
So, his statement of ((But the point here is that they were willing, ready, and trying to
charge me $15 a day for coverage for a ·compact, which is explicitly prohibited by
California law'' is completely "Erroneous" Mr. [redacted] needs to go back and reread
the civil code so that he understands the differences. The manager actually
discounted the cost of the RLP to our cost just so Mr. [redacted] could have coverage
and not be driving illegally! Then, upon proof of Insurance, the manager removed the
insurance product which is against our policy.
5. Regarding Mr. [redacted] insisting that his credit card had "Coverage." Credit Cards
only cover COW (Collision Damage Waiver} they do not provide the RLP (Renters
Liability Protection) Again, Pacific Rent A Car is not trying to sell anyone a COW in
fact the agent did not even mention it. (Collision Damage Waiver covers damage to
the renter's vehicle ONLY in case of an accident) Pacific Rent A Car was requesting
proof of insurance in case Mr. [redacted] hit another vehicle and damaged others
property or hurt/killed a person. (Which, he could not provide upon pick up and had
to present later)
6.We obviously don't have any evidence as to what 'His Friend" was charged or not
charged but, I will say that it's hard to believe that any other agency would have
rented a vehicle without having a discussion regarding the various insurance
products and the renters own "Proof of Insurance."
7. We have studied the differences in fees between the original reservation and the
closing contract taking into account that additional items were added upon pick up
that incurred extra taxes and fees. Our system is not designed to remove Insurance
products after they have been added to a contract. Due to the addition and removal
of the insurance product from the system (Which has been programmed not to allow)
the discrepancy owed to Mr. [redacted] is $4.86. We will be processing this
refund today in an effort of good faith to the customer.
In conclusion:
1. Customer failed to provide evidence of RLP per CA law. We offered him our product
to comply with the law. Then, to exceed customers expectation, we actually waived
the charge after it has been issued and used during the rental period violating
company's policies.
2. Many car rental agencies like ours are in the process of updating "No Additional
Drive Fee". This is a recent ruling that was NOT communicated clearly. We
apologized to the customer and he was never charged.
3. Since the front counter agent "forced" the deleting of the RLP, which the renting
system software is NOT designed to do, the calculation was not accurate and
customer was charged $4.86 more. Please keep in mind th~t we waived the RLP
charge of $9.99 that we still have to pay the third party insurance provider.
We strive to provide all of our customers with the best customer service possible.
Over many years, we enjoyed an "A'' rating with the [redacted], which we worked so hard
for and certainly appreciate your support.
Truly,
[redacted]
RLZ, Inc
[redacted]
2100 Kettner Blvd
San Diego, CA 92101