Purco Fleet Services, Inc.

TIME \@ "dddd, MMMM dd, yyyy" Friday, November 27,
Revdex.com Complaint Department
RevDex.com of
Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint Case #: ***
Renter: *** ***
PurCo Claim Number:
***
Damage Incident With: National Car Rental, Belgrade, MT
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email
dated November 23rd, 2015, about the above-referenced claim and appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com on behalf of PurCo Fleet
Services Inc, ("PurCo")PurCo is a risk management company which
services the vehicle rental industry.
PurCo has been assigned this damage claim from National Car Rental in Belgrade,
Montana ("Nt"), and will answer in the capacity of assignee
Mr*** rented a Chevrolet
Impala (the “Vehicle”) from National on July 19th, After Mr***
returned the Vehicle on July 20th, 2015, National employees discovered damage to
the windshield that was not present when it was rentedAt the time Mr
*** rented the Vehicle, he had the opportunity to inspect it, and notify National
of any damage that was on the vehicle before leaving the lot. He did not notify them of any damage Accordingly, the Vehicle went out undamagedWhen
Mr*** rented the Vehicle, he signed a contract holding him responsible for
any and all damage regardless of fault.
I have attached a copy of all the documents pertaining to the claim
which includes the terms and conditions for review.
I would like to take this
opportunity to explain the inspection processCar rental damages are recorded
through a series of inspections and documentation by both the renter and the
rental agencyDamages can be a large portion of rental agency costs. Therefore, the rental agency is particularly
careful to keep accurate records of all damages to their vehiclesVehicles are
inspected at the time of rental and return by several different people at
several different places to ensure accurate documentationIt is often not
convenient nor is it necessary for the renter and rental agent to inspect the
vehicle togetherPlease be assured that these vehicles are inspected with a
great deal of care.
While I regret that Mr***
has had an unfortunate experience, I cannot agree that he is not responsible for
this claim. His contractual obligations
are very clear, and the rental agency’s documentation is strong. As I noted above, based on the risk of
damages, National asks all renters to sign a contract which holds them
responsible for all loss or damage to the vehicle despite fault; loss of use
and administrative fees are included in those damages. Renters also have the opportunity to purchase
a loss damage waiver (“LDW”) for a small per day cost, through which National would
waive their responsibility for any damage that happens while they have the car
Mr*** declined the opportunity to
purchase LDW
All of that being said, we
are always open to discussing a good faith negotiated settlement of the claim
with Mr*** and/or her insurer to help bring this matter to a resolution. I will begin by offering to waive the loss of
use and administrative fee associated with the claim and settle with Mr***
for only his $deductible as a customer service gesture. If that is acceptable he can make payment by
following the instructions on the claim letter.
If he wishes to discuss this claim further he may contact us directly by
reaching the Claims Specialist assigned to this claim Tricia Andrews at
###-###-#### or me at ###-###-####; or by email if preferred.
Sincerely,
Jamie *D***
Manager
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
Enclosure

Revdex.com Complaint Department Revdex.com Serving Utah WSSalt Lake City, UT Complaint Case #: *** Renter: *** *** PurCo Claim No.: *** Damage Incident With: Hertz International, Schlieren, Switzerland Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email dated July 6, 2017, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular damage claim by assignment from Hertz Rent A Car, Schlieren, Switzerland (“Hertz”), and will answer in the capacity of assigneePurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car rental industry for nearly yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled hundreds of thousands of recovery claims for rental vehicles in all states as well as in several foreign countriesPurCo has received comparatively few complaints in the last two-plus decades, which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning their rental vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry*** *** rented a Toyota Auris (the “Vehicle”) from Hertz in March, 201, returning it on March 29, 2016. At the time of its rental, the Vehicle had no damage on it, a fact verified by the check out inspection slip that Ms*** signed. See Inspection Slip in the PurCo Claim Packet, attached as Exhibit A. Car rental damages are recorded through a series of inspections and documentation by both the renter and the rental companyDamages can be a large portion of a rental company’s costs. Therefore, rental companies are particularly careful to keep accurate records of all damages to their vehiclesVehicles are inspected at the time of rental and return by several different people at several different places to ensure accurate documentation. Please be assured that these vehicles are inspected with a great deal of care. Upon this Vehicle’s return, Hertz employees conducted an inspection and discovered that it had sustained substantial damage to the passenger side. This damage was not present at the start of Ms***’s rental. Because Ms*** had agreed, at the time of rental, to pay for all damage to the rental Vehicle, Hertz initially billed the damage to her credit card, in accordance with the rental agreement. Ms*** disputed the damage charge, and was eventually successful in obtaining a reversal of the damage charge. Ms*** obtaining a chargeback, however, did not change the fact that the Vehicle had sustained damage during her bailment during the rental period, or that such damage was her contractual responsibilityIt is important to keep in mind that the credit card chargeback and dispute was NOT a negotiated or agreed-upon resolution. Hertz has always maintained that the damage to the Vehicle is the responsibility of Ms***. Hence, Ms***’s characterization that the issue was “resolved” between her credit card company and Hertz is inaccurate, at best. The damage claim always remained open. PurCo, as Hertz’ assignee, attempted to contact Ms*** beginning in March of Instead of contacting PurCo to discuss the claim packet that we sent, however, Ms*** instead proceeded to make her complaint to the Revdex.com. Notably, Ms*** has never provided any reason or rationale for disputing the damage claim, aside from instructing her credit card company to reverse an international charge. An honest assessment of this situation would not be complete without the assumption that a credit card company is generally going to side with its cardholders, especially on international charges. That is what happened in this instance. With no substantive reason for not paying the damage, Ms*** simply relies upon the characterization that the claim was closed as “resolved” by all parties. As noted above, this was simply not trueMs*** makes much of the complaints against PurCo. What Ms*** fails to understand is that PurCo has processed and recovered more than 400,damage claims, the vast majority of which without complaint and without incident over its history. The number of claims that result in complaints is infinitesimally small (i.eroughly such complaint in every claims)Nevertheless, even though PurCo feels that this rental car damage claim is valid, and that Ms*** has the contractual obligation to pay this damage claim, we have decided to close it. Neither PurCo nor Hertz will be contacting Ms*** further with regard to this claimI trust this will resolve your concerns. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 801-794-Best regards, Tony S*** Associate General Counsel PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(801) 794-tony.s@purco.com Admitted in Utah and Nevada

To Whom it May Concern:I appreciate Ms*** rebuttal however I respectfully disagree While it would be ideal if every rental car company could explain that to every renter, it is unpractical The renter ultimately has a responsibility to make sure they inspect a car when they take possession of it regardless of what the procedures of the rental car company may be.I rented cars long before I ever worked for PurCo and I always as a consumer looked over and inspected each car I rented for my own protection If there was something I was concerned with I made sure the rental car company knew about and documented it before I ever left the location.In conclusion, we still stand by our position as outlined in our original response That being said we have decided at this time to close this claim as a customer service to Ms*** and not pursue her for this claim any further.We have sent her a letter confirming as such and I have attached a copy here as well.Let me know if there any further questions otherwise we consider this matter closed.Sincerely,Jamie D***ManagerPurCo Fleet Services, Inc

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: First off, I was greeted by an employee of Advantage Rental/EZ Car Rental in FtMyersHe looked at my inspection sheetHe said I was good to go...and started to vacuum the carSince filing my complaint a gentleman by the name of Neil F* from Advantage called me on the phoneHe said that the claim was for someone else that rented the car after my returnMrF* said he would inform Purco of the errorIn MrS***'s response he states that I returned the car after the office was closed?? I returned the car to the location as advised and was greeted by someone that claimed to be an employee of AdvantageIn closing,I want to say that I have been patiently waiting for a response and resolution it should not take a consumer to file a complaint to get a return callI feel that there is a lack of communication and deception going on here
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com Complaint Department Revdex.com of Utah South Redwood Rd #Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint Case #: *** Renter: *** *** PurCo Claim No.: *** Damage Incident With: Hertz Rent A Car, Rapid City, SD Revdex.com Complaint Department: I am in receipt of your email dated June 7, 2016, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular damage claim by assignment from Hertz Rent A Car in Rapid City, South Dakota (“Hertz”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee PurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car rental industry for more than yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled hundreds of thousands of recovery claims for rental vehicles in all statesPurCo has received comparatively few complaints in the last two-plus decades, which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning their rental vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry *** *** rented a Chevrolet Traverse (the “Vehicle”) from Hertz on June 1, 2016, returning it on June 4, 2016. At the time she rented the Vehicle, it had no damage on it. Not only was the Vehicle practically new, Hertz does not rent out damaged cars. Moreover, Ms*** signed a pre-rental inspection slip which expressly indicated “no damage” anywhere on the Vehicle. See PurCo Claim Packet, which includes a copy of the pre-rental inspection slip, attached as Exhibit A. Ms*** returned the Vehicle on June 4, 2016, having driven it approximately miles over her three-day rental. When Hertz employees inspected the Vehicle immediately after Ms*** returned it on June 4, 2016, they discovered new damage to its front fender. Exhibit A, Incident Report. Hertz documented the claim and provided all claim documents to PurCo, its assignee. As Hertz’ assignee, PurCo reached out to Ms*** by phone on June 6, 2016, to discuss the claim and to facilitate recovery pursuant to the Rental AgreementMs*** immediately (and erroneously) concluded that the damage claim was a “scam” and began to complain about the rental charges in general. PurCo’s representative correctly referred Ms*** to Hertz with regard to any complaint concerning her rental charges while explaining that the damage claim was separate and apart from any rental charge dispute. As Hertz had made its assignment of the damage claim to PurCo, PurCo is the company that Ms*** needed to work with on the damage claim Ms*** makes a reference to “the insurance coverage” that she “denied” and apparently feels that she is being held responsible because she declined such coverage. This is not true. At the time of her rental, Ms*** was indeed offered, but declined to purchase, the loss damage waiver (“LDW”), by which Hertz ordinarily waives its right to hold renters responsible for any damage to their rental vehicles. The LDW is not an insurance product of any kind, but rather a contractual waiver of the right to recover damage. It does not change the fact that the damage is real and the damage claim is valid, under the Rental Agreement. Ms***’s declination of LDW is important to this claim, because without such purchase, she expressly agreed to be responsible and to pay for any and all damage to the Vehicle: “[Y]ou are responsible for any and all loss of or damage to the car resulting from any cause, including, but not limited to collision, rollover, theft, vandalism, seizure, fire, flood, hail or other acts of nature or God, regardless of fault.” Exhibit A, Rental Agreement Terms & Conditions, paragraph 4(a). The Terms & Conditions also state, “The car will remain subject to these terms and conditions until Hertz has inspected and accepted it.” Id., para We are not contending that Ms*** intentionally damaged the VehicleThe damage to the Vehicle is real, however, and all facts point to the conclusion that it occurred at some time during Ms***’s rental. Hertz (and by the assignment, PurCo) are the injured parties here. It is our chattel that has been damaged, and by the terms and conditions of the Rental Agreement that Ms*** freely signed, she is responsible, even if she had nothing to do with the damage In conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as originally submitted. We know she disagrees with the claim, but PurCo invites Ms*** to work with us and find a mutually satisfactory resolution. Our track record with regard to disputes supports the fact that we are always willing to work with renters on disputed claims. Indeed, although under no obligation to do so, PurCo has already waived its right to recover contractual loss of use on this claim, as well as halving the contractual administrative fee. PurCo reduced or waived these items as a customer service to Ms***, in a good faith effort to resolve this claim I trust this response has adequately addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at ###-###-#### Sincerely, Tony S*** Associate General Counsel PurCo Fleet Services, Inc*** Admitted in Nevada Utah admission pending

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: They have never contacted meIf they have records of them calling out then it is an internal system that never reached the Verizon Wireless networkVerizon Wireless is sending me a notarized copy of the phone records to further show that not only did Tyler C*** not call the day the rental was returned, he NEVER called in the months multiple times as he claims! Not one call from this area code to my number has never gone through, not one! I made a good faith offer to settle this by having this removed from my creditHere is the reason: #- I have never been contacted, not once, by Purco Fleet Services until I called them after they put a collections on my credit on 2-4-That is the only indication I have ever received, everI responded right away as I would have if I had been notified right after I rented the carMy credit card requires notification within days of renting the car to provide coverage and you did not send notification in time to get this coverageAgain, my mailing address is readily available in every database out there, including the credit report you damaged by not doing your due diligence#- It would have been easier for me to just settle, let my insurance pay for any damage and my credit card company pay for any deductible. #- Even though the damage was already there (rock chip) it was still damaged when I returned itNot my fault certainly but easier to just use my insurance to get this coveredNot worth my time to fight until they failed to contact me and now act like I should have read their minds? when it was so simple to handle this like any other claims that are filed by the hundreds every day, by many other companies, handled in the correct way, and are figured out and settled. Tyler C*** made it clear that the damage to my credit would not be removed unless management approved itSo because of the negligence of Purco Fleet Services by failing to adequately provide me the knowledge of any damage, damage reports from prior rental showing no rock chip was spotted (it was there but missed), damage report from after my rental, who/how many estimates, and a breakout of any and all damages- I was completely blind sided by a collection agency filing a falsified collections on my credit report which is a clear violation of FCRAThis is also notice that the date on the collections is also wrong (CR shows 8-1-instead of 8-18-15) So now there is no option but for me to involve every state agency including the attorney general of Washington, Revdex.com and the CFPB- I will not give in to any company that uses this kind of business model to bully and intimidate by using the CRA's as their way to try to force settle an overinflated damage estimateThe money involved is not a lot and that is not the motive of my appeal, it is the fact that you went about collecting this in such a horrible and unethical mannerAnd certainly against the FCRAThe fine print listed in a contract cannot and does not supercede state and federal laws regardingEven in the worst case scenario a windshield for this vehicle is no where near the value that they are coming up withUsing our local dealer I was quoted a price of $to replace the windshield on this vehicle and that a job like this is about a hour jobThat is day loss of use and by using the Avis website the cost of a day rental for this vehicle is $plus taxSo right away we are about half price and the only reason, the only reason I figured the value of this is to show that that not only did Purco lie about contacting me, they also lied about the value of a windshield and loss of use for this vehicle.
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com Complaint Department
Revdex.com of Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint
Case #: ***
Renter: ***
***
PurCo Claim
No.: ***
Damage
Incident With: Alamo Rent A Car,
Wichita, KS
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email dated February 22, 2016,
concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular damage claim
by assignment from Alamo Rent A Car, Wichita, KS (“Alamo”), and will answer in
the capacity of assignee
PurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car
rental industry for more than yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled over
350,recovery claims for rental vehicles in all statesPurCo has
received comparatively few complaints in the last two decades, which is
particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be
responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning their rental
vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry
Our documentation shows that *** *** rented a Chevrolet
Cruze (the “Vehicle”) from Alamo on September 24, 2015. There was no pre-existing damage on the
Vehicle at the time Mr*** rented it.
Mr*** was offered, but declined to purchase, the loss damage
waiver (“LDW”), by which renters are not held responsible for damage to their
rental vehicles
Mr*** returned the Vehicle on September 27, 2015. The Vehicle had sustained a flat tire during
the course of its rental. Mere minutes after
Mr*** returned the Vehicle and before it was moved, Alamo employees
discovered that the Vehicle had also sustained damage to its front bumper. This damage was not present at the time of
Mr***’s rental. Pursuant to the
assignment, PurCo handled the resulting damage claim
Mr*** contends that PurCo “claim[ed]” he damaged the
Vehicle. This is not true. The damage to the Vehicle is real, but
neither Alamo nor PurCo has ever accused Mr*** of “causing” such
damage. All anyone knows is that the
Vehicle left the Alamo lot with no damage, but was returned with damage. How, when or why the Vehicle became damaged
during the course of Mr***’s rental is irrelevant. When he rented the Vehicle, Mr*** agreed
accept responsibility “for damage to, loss or theft of, the Vehicle …
regardless of fault or negligence of Renter or any other person or act of
God.” Rental Agreement Terms and
Conditions, Paragraph 6, “Damage to, Loss or Theft of, Vehicle, Optional
Accessories and Related Costs, attached as a part of Exhibit A. Mr*** also agreed
to be responsible for loss of use and administrative fees resulting from such
damage. Id.
Accordingly, it does not matter if Mr*** “caused” the
damage or if it happened some other way, even if it was beyond Mr***’s
control. The Vehicle was inspected
within minutes of its return. See
Exhibit A, Damage Report Form, time stamped after 12:pm on September 27,
2015. Mr*** had returned the
Vehicle at approximately 12:pm on September 27, 2015. Alamo discovered the damage before the
Vehicle was moved. Id. Such damage is Mr***’s responsibility.
As noted above, Mr*** had the opportunity to purchase
LDW, which would have absolved him of all responsibility for the damage and resulting
loss of use and administrative fees. Mr
*** declined to purchase LDW, which he was free to do. This meant, however, that he would be
responsible for the damage, as provided in the rental agreement
Mr*** states that he made a complaint to Alamo’s
corporate office, and that he won’t comply with his contractual responsibility
to pay the damage claim unless and until Alamo corporate responds to his
complaint. Mr***’s complaint is
irrelevant, however, for at least two reasons.
One, the Alamo location in Witchita, KS is an independent licensee, over
which Alamo’s corporate office has very limited control. More important is the fact that Alamo made an
assignment of this damage claim to PurCo.
PurCo is the owner of the claim, and has all decision making power. See Notice of Assignment, attached as Exhibit B
Finally, Mr*** has also made several inaccurate
remarks about the procedure of this claim.
First, PurCo is not an “agent” of Alamo, or anyone else. PurCo takes damage claims by assignment and
is the owner of this claim. PurCo does
not “collect” debts owed to another.
PurCo handles damage claims that belong to PurCo, not any other person
or company. Neither was Mr***’s
obligation to pay PurCo for the damage pursuant to the rental agreement a
“debt” that was in “default.” Accordingly,
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply to PurCo. See PurCo Fleet Services, Incv
Koenig, P.3d (ColoApp., 2010), aff’d sub nom Koenig vPurco Fleet Servs., Inc., P.3d
(Colo., 2012)
Mr***’s citation to the Uniform Debt Management
Services Act has no bearing on this matter, either, as it does not concern a
“debt,” as described above, and because PurCo does not engage in “debt
counseling” with renters, or any other person.
That law is wholly irrelevant to this matter.
In conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as submitted. PurCo invites Mr*** to work with PurCo
and find a resolution to this damage claim.
I trust this will resolve your concerns.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at
###-###-####
Sincerely,
Tony S***
Associate General Counsel
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
***@purco.com
Admitted in Nevada
Utah admission pending

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com Complaint Department
Revdex.com of
Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE:
Complaint
Case #: ***
Renter: *** ***
PurCo Claim No.: ***
Damage Incident With: Budget
Rent A Car, Springfield, MO
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am
in receipt of your email dated February 24, 2016, concerning the
above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the
Revdex.com on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this damage claim by complete
assignment from the Budget Rent A Car licensee located in Springfield, Missouri
(“Budget”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee
PurCo
is a risk management company that has serviced the car rental industry for more
than yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled over 390,recovery claims for
rental vehicles in all statesPurCo has received comparatively few
complaints in the last two decades, which is particularly notable given the
fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage or other
outstanding obligations concerning their rental vehiclesWe are very proud of
our record and reputation in the industry
I
have had the opportunity to review this file.
Our documentation shows that *** *** rented a Mitsubishi
Lancer (the “Vehicle”) from Budget from July to August 2, 2015. At the time Ms*** rented the Vehicle, she
had the opportunity to inspect it, and she signed an inspection slip whereon she
did not note any pre-existing damage. A
copy of the signed inspection slip was provided to Ms*** with our claim
packet, and it is also attached hereto.
This signed inspection slip is a representation by Ms*** that there
was no damage on the Vehicle at the time she rented it. Ms*** also signed a rental agreement,
wherein she agreed, among other things, to be responsible “for all loss of or damage to the car regardless of cause, or who, or
what caused it…”
Shortly
after Ms*** returned the Vehicle on August 2, 2015, new damage to the passenger
side of the vehicle was discovered. This
new damage was fully documented by a Budget employee the very same day the
Vehicle was returned.
I
would like to take this opportunity to explain the inspection processCar
rental damages are recorded through a series of inspections and documentation
by both the renter and the rental agencyDamages can be a large portion of
rental agency costs Therefore, the rental
agency is particularly careful to keep accurate records of all damages to their
vehiclesVehicles are inspected at the time of rental and return by several
different people at several different places to ensure accurate documentation
It is often not convenient nor is it necessary for the renter and rental agent
to inspect the vehicle togetherPlease be assured that these vehicles are
inspected with a great deal of care
It
should be noted that Ms*** also had the opportunity to purchase the Loss
Damage Waiver (“LDW”) which would have covered this loss. She opted to not pay for the LDW, as was her
right. The consequence of that decision,
however, is that the responsibility for the damage to this Vehicle falls to her. While I regret that Ms*** had an
unfortunate experience, she is, however, responsible for the amount of this damage
claim. Ms***’s contractual
obligations are very clear, despite her dispute
In
conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as submitted. Ms*** is responsible for the full damage
claim amount, pursuant to the rental agreement.
Of course, we are willing to negotiate and resolve this claim with her
or her insurer, and we are always open to discussing good faith negotiated
settlements of claims with renters. Ms***
or her insurer can do so by reaching out to the Claims Specialist assigned to
this claim: Anjan L***, at ###-###-#### or to me, at ###-###-####.
Sincerely,
Tony S***
Associate General Counsel
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
***@purco.com

TIME \@ "dddd, MMMM dd, yyyy" Tuesday, December 08,
Revdex.com Complaint Department
RevDex.com of
Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint Case #: ***
Renter: *** ***
PurCo Claim Number:
***
Damage Incident With: Hertz System Licensee, Columbus, OH
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email
dated November 28, 2015, about the above-referenced claim and appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the Revdex.com on behalf of PurCo Fleet
Services Inc, ("PurCo")PurCo is a risk management company which
services the vehicle rental industry.
PurCo has been assigned this damage claim from Hertz Car Rental in Columbus,
Ohio ("Hertz"), and will answer in the capacity of assignee
Ms*** rented a Toyota
Camry (the “Vehicle”) from Hertz on May 22, When Ms*** returned the
Vehicle on May 25, 2015, after driving miles, Hertz employees immediately discovered
damage to the rear bumper and rear passenger-side door that was not present
when Ms*** rented it. Ms***
completed an incident report at the time of return, yet contends that the
damage pre-dated her rental of the Vehicle.
At the time Ms*** rented
the Vehicle, she had the opportunity to inspect it, and to notify Hertz of any
damage that was on the vehicle before leaving the lot. Indeed, all renters are instructed by a conspicuous
notice at the counter (a copy of which I have included in the documentation) to
inspect the vehicle and note any damage.
Ms*** did not notify Hertz of any damage at the time she rented the
Vehicle. In fact, she admitted that she
did not inspect the vehicle when she rented it Accordingly, it cannot be disputed that the Vehicle
went out undamaged Moreover, when Ms***
rented the Vehicle, she signed a rental agreement which holds her responsible
for any and all damage, regardless of fault.
I have attached a copy of all the documents pertaining to the claim
which includes the terms and conditions for review.
I would like to take this
opportunity to explain the inspection processCar rental damages are recorded
through a series of inspections and documentation by both the renter and the
rental agencyDamages can be a large portion of rental agency costs. Therefore, the rental agency is particularly
careful to keep accurate records of all damages to their vehiclesVehicles are
inspected at the time of rental and return by several different people at
several different places to ensure accurate documentationIt is often not
convenient nor is it necessary for the renter and rental agent to inspect the
vehicle together Please be assured that
these vehicles are inspected with a great deal of care. In any event, the rental agreement that Ms
*** signed places responsibility for the damage upon her, as the renter, and
she was on notice of her duty to inspect the Vehicle and note any pre-existing
damage.
While I regret that Ms***
has had an unfortunate experience, I cannot agree that she is not responsible for
this claim. Her contractual obligations
are very clear, and the rental agency’s documentation is strong. As I noted above, based on the risk of
damages, Hertz asks all renters to sign a contract which holds them responsible
for all loss or damage to the vehicle despite fault; loss of use and
administrative fees are included in those damages. Renters also have the opportunity to purchase
a loss damage waiver (“LDW”) for a small per day cost, through which Hertz would
waive their responsibility for any damage that happens while they have the car
Ms*** declined the opportunity to
purchase LDW
All of that being said, we
are always open to discussing a good faith negotiated settlement of the claim
with Ms*** to help bring this matter to a resolution. I will begin by offering to waive the loss of
use and administrative fee associated with the claim and settle with Ms***
for only the cost of repair of $*** as a customer service gesture. If that is acceptable she can make payment by
following the instructions on the claim letter.
If she wishes to discuss this claim further she may contact us directly
by reaching the Claims Specialist assigned to this claim Keith N*** at
###-###-#### or me at ###-###-####; or by email if preferred.
Sincerely,
Jamie *D***
Manager
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
Enclosure

Revdex.com Complaint Department
Revdex.com of
Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint
Case #: ***
Renter: *** ***
PurCo Claim No.: ***
Damage Incident With: Dollar
Rent A Car, Salt Lake City, UT
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email
dated October 18, 2015, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate
the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular
damage claim by complete assignment from Dollar Rent A Car, Salt Lake City, UT
(“Dollar”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee
PurCo is a risk management company
that has serviced the car rental industry for more than yearsIn that time,
PurCo has handled over 350,recovery claims for rental vehicles in all
statesPurCo has received comparatively few complaints in the last years,
which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they
should be responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning
their rental vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the
industry
I have had the opportunity to
review this file. At issue here is
*** ***’s contention that she should not be held responsible for
certain contractual obligations clearly outlined in her rental agreement with
Dollar. Vital to a complete
understanding of this claim is the fact that Ms*** agreed to be “absolutely
liable … for any loss of or damage to the Vehicle, even if someone else caused
it or the cause is unknown…” Rental
Agreement Terms and Conditions, Paragraph 4, “Damage or Loss.” This responsibility was clearly set forth in
the rental agreement that Ms*** executed when she took her rental car off
the Dollar lot
Our documentation shows that
Ms*** rented a Hyundai Elantra (the “Vehicle”) from Dollar on August
18, 2015. At the time she rented the
Vehicle, Ms*** took the opportunity to inspect it. By her own acknowledgment, she discovered no
pre-existing damage. In fact, she
initialed a “check-out” inspection slip, whereon no damage was indicated. This constitutes an affirmative
representation by Ms*** that there was no damage at the time she rented
the Vehicle
I understand that Ms***
has raised the issue of poor lighting in the lot at the time of her rental. However, that alone, even if true, would not
relieve her of her contractual responsibility to either note pre-existing
damage or be responsible for such damageAs noted above, Ms*** acknowledges
conducting an inspection of the Vehicle at the time she rented it and that she
found no damage. This is because there
was, in fact, no damage on the Vehicle at the time Ms*** rented it. A scratch like this would be easy to see,
regardless of lighting. Moreover, a pre-existing
scratch of this size and location would have been noted and repaired before Ms
*** rented this Vehicle. We know
this because PurCo handles each and every rental car damage claim from this
Dollar location. We have conducted a
search in our system, and aside from a rock chip in the Vehicle’s windshield in
July (long before Ms***’s rental and unrelated to this claim in any way),
there have been no additional damage incidents regarding this Vehicle.
We must be very clear: neither
Dollar nor PurCo has ever accused Ms
*** of causing the damage to the Vehicle.
It is a fact that damage sometimes happens to rental cars. Much of the time, the damage is not due to
the renter’s mistreatment of the rental car.
In this case, no one knows when the damage happened. However, what we do know is that Ms***
made a representation that the Vehicle had no damage on it at the time she
rented it, but the damage was found upon the Vehicle’s return. While unfortunate, the rental agreement’s
terms and conditions clearly place responsibility for such damage on the
renter, Ms***
It should be noted that Ms
*** also had the opportunity to purchase the Loss Damage Waiver (“LDW”)
which would have covered this loss. She
opted to not pay for the LDW, as was her right.
Please see the rental agreement in the attached documents. The consequence of that decision, however, is
that the responsibility for the damage to this Vehicle falls to her. While I regret that Ms*** had an
unfortunate experience, she is, however, responsible for the amount of this damage
claim. Ms*** contractual
obligations are very clear, despite her dispute
In conclusion, PurCo stands
by the claim as submitted. We have
always been open to discussing a good faith negotiated settlement of claims
with renters, and we are with Ms***, as well, to bring this matter to a
resolution. To date, however, Ms***’s
position is to pay nothing. PurCo invites Ms*** to work with us and
find a resolution to this damage claim.
She can do so by reaching the Claims Specialist assigned to this claim: ***
Hansen, at ###-###-#### or me, at ###-###-####.
She may also reach me by email if preferred.
Sincerely,
Tony S***
Associate General Counsel
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
***@purco.com
Admitted in Nevada
Utah admission pending

Revdex.com of Utah South Redwood Rd #Salt Lake City, UT RE: Complaint Case #: *** Renter: *** *** PurCo
Claim Number: *** Damage Incident With: Avis System Licensee, Cedar Rapids, IA Complaint Department: I am in receipt of your correspondence dated June 6th, 2016, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular damage claim by complete assignment from Avis Rent a Car located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (“Avis”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee PurCo is a risk management firm that has serviced the car rental industry for more than yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled over 395,damage recovery claims for rental vehicles in all statesPurCo has received very few complaints in the last two decades, which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage to their rental vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry Ms*** rented a Chevrolet Cruze from Avis in Cedar Rapids on April 9, and returned it on April 13, 2016. The day she returned the vehicle, and before it was moved from its return spot, Avis employees inspected it and discovered new damage that did not pre-date this rental. This fact was also confirmed by the check out slip presented to Ms*** prior to her leaving the Avis lotDuring her rental period Ms*** drove the vehicle a total of miles. It is much more likely that this damage occurred while in their possession rather than the short time it was parked on the Avis lot after it was returned. Car rental damages are recorded through a series of inspections and documentation by both the renter and the rental agencyDamages can be a large portion of rental agency costs; therefore, the agency is particularly careful in keeping accurate records of all damages to their vehiclesVehicles are inspected at the time of rental and return by several different people at several different places to ensure accurate documentationIt is often not convenient nor necessary for the renter and rental agent to inspect the vehicle togetherPlease be assured that these vehicles are inspected with a great deal of care While I regret that Ms*** has had an unfortunate experience, I cannot agree that she is not responsible for this damage claim. The contractual obligations are very clear, and the rental agency’s documentation is strong. Based on the risk of damages the rental agency asks the renter to sign a contract which holds them responsible for all loss or damage to the vehicle despite fault. The renter also has the opportunity to purchase a loss damage waiver for a small per day cost that would waive their responsibility for any damage that happens while they have the car, Ms*** declined that opportunity As Ms*** stated in her complaint, she filed a claim with her Visa credit card member benefits, which provides some protection to card holders when it comes to rental car damage claims. What Ms*** fails to realize, however, is that in most cases, Visa provides secondary coverage to a renter’s personal insurance policy. In those cases (such as this one) Visa ordinarily only covers up to the renter’s deductible which in this particular case is $500.00. Visa also offers a negotiated settlement toward the loss of use and the administrative fee. In this case, PurCo agreed to accept Visa’s offer to settle those aspects of the claim. The damage was $so the $difference was the cost of repairs less her deductible. In these cases the renter then is presented the option to pay the difference themselves or submit it to their personal insurer to see if they will pay the difference. This is exactly how we presented it to Ms***This is how PurCo has presented it on thousands of claims over more than years. This is no scam In conclusion, we have decided as a customer service to Ms*** to go ahead and accept the offer from Visa and close the claim accordingly. While we the feel the claim is valid and the way it was presented is accurate, we will not pursue her for the remaining $any further in regards to this claim. If you or Ms*** have any further questions feel free to call me directly at ###-###-#### or by email if preferred, otherwise upon receipt of the payment from Visa we will consider this matter closed Sincerely, Jamie SD*** Manager PurCo Fleet Services, Inc***

Revdex.com Complaint Department
Revdex.com of Utah
South Redwood Rd #
Salt Lake City, UT
RE: Complaint
Case #: ***
Renter: *** ***
PurCo Claim
No.: ***
Damage
Incident With: Avis Rent A Car,
Kalispell, MT
Revdex.com Complaint Department:
I am in receipt of your email dated March 5, 2016,
concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc(“PurCo”). PurCo received this particular damage claim
by assignment from Avis Rent A Car, Kalispell, MT (“Avis”), and will answer in
the capacity of assignee
PurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car
rental industry for more than yearsIn that time, PurCo has handled hundreds
of thousands of recovery claims for rental vehicles in all statesPurCo has
received comparatively few complaints in the last two-plus decades, which is
particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be
responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning their rental
vehiclesWe are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry
*** *** rented a Mazda CX-(the “Vehicle”)
from Avis on January 9, 2016. There was
no pre-existing damage on the Vehicle at the time Ms*** rented it. See PurCo Claim Packet, which includes
a copy of the Rental Agreement, attached as Exhibit AMs*** was offered, but declined to purchase, the
loss damage waiver (“LDW”), by which Avis ordinarily waives its right to hold
renters responsible for any damage to their rental vehicles. Id
Ms***’s declination of LDW is important, because when
she rented the Vehicle, she agreed to be “responsible; and [to] pay us for all
loss of or damage to the car regardless of cause, or who, or what caused it… As
part of our loss, you’ll also pay for loss of use of the car, without regard to
our fleet utilization, plus an administrative fee…” Exhibit A, Rental Agreement
Terms & Conditions, paraBy declining LDW, Ms*** agreed to be
responsible and to pay for any and all damage to the Vehicle
Ms*** returned the Vehicle on January 16, 2016, having
driven it miles over the course of days.
Exhibit A, Rental AgreementWhen Avis employees went to clean the
Vehicle shortly after its return, they discovered an indication that the blind
spot monitoring or backup sensor monitoring system (“BSM”) was not functioning
properlyId., Incident ReportThis was the first time anyone at Avis had
realized there was an issue with the BSM systemBecause there was a question
as to whether this damage could be covered under warranty, Avis personnel prudently
took the Vehicle to a Mazda dealership, in good faith. The dealership found that the BSM system had somehow
become misaligned, which required the removal and installation of the rear
bumper and calibration of the BSM systemImportantly, however, the Mazda
dealership concluded that the damage to the BSM system was not a “warranty issue.” See Dealer’s Shop Invoice in Exhibit
AIn other words, the rear part of the Vehicle must have sustained some sort
of impact or other damage event that caused it to misalign
Ms*** argues that, because the bumper was not marked
or overtly damaged, there could not have been any kind of damage event. She also contends that she noticed the BSM
indicator flash during the course of her rentalThe conclusion by the
dealership that did the repairs easily supports the fact that some damage event
occurred while the Vehicle was in possession of Ms***Also, even if the
BSM light was flashing during Ms***’s rental, all this proves is that
something caused it to flashMs*** has not argued, and cannot now argue,
that the BSM system was damage that pre-dated her rentalIf this had been the
case, she would have had to inform Avis immediately upon noticing it, which she
did not doAt the end of the day, this is damage for which Ms***, as the
renter, agreed to be responsible
As noted above, Ms*** had the opportunity to purchase
LDW, which would have absolved her of all responsibility for the damage and
resulting loss of use and administrative fees.
Ms*** declined to purchase LDW, which she was free to do. This meant, however, that she would be
responsible for the damage, as provided in the rental agreement
This is not “a fabricated claim.” Ms*** has presented
noting to support such an allegation beyond supposition and her own opinionThe
damage to the BSM system is real and undisputableIt was repairedIt is
common for a repair shop to make conclusions as to the cause of damageIn this
case, the BSM module had been knocked out of alignmentIt is likely that some
event took place during Ms***’s rental, and very likely without her
knowledge, that caused the damageCertainly,
the documents on this claim support the fact that such damage occurred during
Ms***’s rental
In conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as submitted. PurCo invites Ms*** to work with us and
find a resolution to this damage claim.
I trust this will resolve your concerns.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at
###-###-####
Sincerely,
Tony S***
Associate General Counsel
PurCo Fleet Services, Inc
***@purco.com
Admitted in Nevada
Utah admission pending

Revdex.com:
After contacting Visa Card Claims, and having them adjust the percent back on the claim, a new offer was submitted to PurCo that includes the I hope PurCo is satisfied with the adjusted offer and can now close thisNow that we have submitted the new offer with the disputed amount included I am confident that PurCo will sign and submit this back to Visa Card ClaimsTherefore I am closing this at this time with no further comment
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Firstly, Dollar talked with my credit card company and its’ insurance company on phone for more than half hourAfter their conversation, the officer just told me that I was qualified for the car rental without even telling me anything elseIn another word, Dollar should make it clear that what was included in my credit card insurance and take the responsibilitySecondly, Amex paid the repairment fee because they are conscientious and trustworthy companyAnd they trust what I reported to themPlease check the EXHIBIT Purco provided, if such dent and scratches is “minor damage”, the car is perfect now! The value of the car go up and down when Purco wantFinally, such a famous company denied its rude behaviors and be proud of his unable to read Chinese make me be ashamed of talking with themI believe as a responsible member of such a famous company should learn to make it clear that what is reflected in the pictureIf he want, he could contact with the email provider to find out what happen during that timeOtherwise, he just to play tricks on us.
Sincerely,
*** ***

I'd like to thank MrD*** for his responseHis letter spells out what I already stated and for that reason, I do not believe I should be held responsible for damagesHe asserts that it cannot be disputed that the vehicle did not go out "undamaged"...it is my belief that it also cannot be disputed that the vehicle may have been rented to me "damaged"As the consumer, I should have been told "verbally" that it was my sole responsibility to inspect the vehicle prior to taking it off the lotIf I had been made aware of this, I would have certainly inspected itI should not be held responsible for the employee not notifying me that the vehicle needed to be inspected by me and a form completedI am being held responsible for something that was never communicated to meI rent vehicles at least twice per year and prior to this incident, I've always had a company employee do a complete inspection of the vehicle prior to me leaving with itJust like they made me aware that the gas tank needed to be full upon return, I should have been made aware that I needed to inspect the vehicleIt is poor customer service to hold the consumer responsible for something for which they were not made awareWith that said, I am asking that this issue be expunged and resolved with NO monetary exchangeThere is a certain amount of responsibility that falls on the business, and this is one of themConsumers should not be held responsible for a company policy that is not shared with themIn summary, if I had been told by the employee that HERTZ now requires the consumer to perform the inspection (by themselves) and for a form to be completed prior to the car leaving the lot, I would have most certainly accommodated that requestI did not inspect the vehicle because I was not told that it was my responsibility to do soBecause I was not told of this company policy, I should not be held responsible for "damages" that I am not sure occurred while I was renting the vehicleAgain, I am asking that this issue be resolved with NO monetary responsibility/payment from me as the consumerHolding me responsible for a policy, that was not disclosed to me, is unfair to me as a consumer
Respectfully submitted,
*** ***
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com Complaint Department Revdex.com of Utah 5763 South Redwood Rd #22 Salt Lake City, UT  84123  ...

RE:                                      �...⇄ Complaint Case #:  [redacted]             Renter:                                    [redacted]             PurCo Claim No.:                   [redacted]             Damage Incident With:          Avis Car Rental, Gwinn, MI   Revdex.com Complaint Department:   I am in receipt of your email dated October 23, 2016, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. (“PurCo”).  PurCo received this particular damage claim by assignment from Sonju Enterprises, Avis System Licensee at Sawyer International Airport in Gwinn, MI (“Avis”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee.   PurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car rental industry for more than 22 years. In that time, PurCo has handled hundreds of thousands of recovery claims for rental vehicles in all 50 states. PurCo has received comparatively few complaints in the last two-plus decades, which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning vehicles they rent. We are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry.   [redacted] rented a 2016 Kia Sorrento (the “Vehicle”) from Avis on May 14, 2016, returning it on May 17, 2016.  At the time of Mr. [redacted]’s rental, the Vehicle did not have any damage.  This fact is demonstrated by the pre-rental inspection slip for the Vehicle, which was completed and signed by Mr. [redacted] prior to him taking the car off the Avis lot.  A copy of the pre-rental inspection slip is attached hereto in Exhibit A.  This constitutes a representation that the Vehicle had no damage on it at the time of Mr. [redacted]’s rental.    Mr. [redacted] returned the Vehicle at approximately 4:21 a.m. – a time this Avis location was closed.  As soon as Avis could conduct an inspection of the Vehicle after opening for the day on May 17, 2016, Avis employees discovered damage to the Vehicle’s windshield.  This was new damage.  The Vehicle had not moved between the time Mr. [redacted] returned it and the damage was discovered.  It was inspected in the return spot.   Pursuant to the Rental Agreement that he executed when he rented the Vehicle, Mr. [redacted] agreed to be responsible for all damage, regardless of fault: “[Y]ou are responsible; and you will pay us for all loss of or damage to the car regardless of cause, or who, or what caused it.  If the car is damaged, you will pay our estimated repair cost … As part of our loss, you’ll also pay for loss of use of the car, without regard to our fleet utilization, plus an administrative fee…”  See Exhibit A, Rental Agreement, paragraph 8.   Also at the time of his rental, Mr. [redacted] was offered, but declined to purchase, the loss damage waiver (“LDW”), a contractual option by which Avis ordinarily waives its right to hold renters responsible for any damage to their rental vehicles.  Mr. [redacted]’s declination of LDW is important, because without LDW, he agreed to be responsible and to pay for any and all damage to the Vehicle.  Rental Agreement Terms and Conditions, para. 8, supra.   Mr. [redacted] appears to contend that he should not be held responsible for the damage if he did not “cause” it.  However, nothing Mr. [redacted] has presented serves to contradict his contractual responsibility to pay for the damaged windshield, regardless of fault.  See Rental Agreement Terms and Conditions, para. 8.  Indeed, pursuant to the Rental Agreement’s Terms and Conditions, Mr. [redacted] would also be responsible for any and all damage to the Vehicle that occurred after he dropped it off before hours.  See Rental Agreement Terms and Conditions, para. 3: “If you [return the car at a time when we are closed], your responsibility for damage to or loss of the car will continue … until the return location reopens and [Avis] retake[s] actual possession of the car.” Because he did not purchase the LDW and because the damage clearly occurred, at some point during his rental and before Avis was able to take possession of the Vehicle, he is responsible for the damage and obligated to pay for the repairs, loss of use and administrative fee, per the Terms and Conditions.   Mr. [redacted] next takes issue with the mileage listed on the Safelite invoice.  The Safelite invoice is in error, most likely a typographical error.  Obviously, Avis had no part in listing the mileage on the Safelite invoice as “[redacted].”  This is an incorrect figure.  Let us be very clear – the Vehicle was not driven 8,525 miles in the nine days after Mr. [redacted]’s rental concluded on May 17, 2016.  It is incredible that Mr. [redacted] even suggests this.  In actuality, the Vehicle’s subsequent history shows a much different – and normal – mileage: 15,505. See the Vehicle’s Unit History, attached to this Response as Exhibit B.   Mr. [redacted] contends there was no loss of use of the Vehicle, arguing that it was driven 8,500 miles after his rental.  First, by this argument, Mr. [redacted] severely misunderstands and misrepresents loss of use.  Loss of use has nothing to do with how a car may be used, but is to compensate the owner of damaged chattel for the time it cannot be used when it is in the shop.  Because the Vehicle was damaged, it had to go into the shop for repairs.  An owner cannot use his/her car while it is in the shop due to repairs.  This loss of use is compensable in every state, and certainly in Michigan, where Mr. [redacted] rented the Vehicle.  Further, as discussed above, the Vehicle was not, in fact, driven for 8,500 miles between Mr. [redacted]’s rental and when the windshield was repaired.  Exhibit B.    Mr. [redacted] argues that he was entitled to inspect the damage prior to repair.  He is wrong.  He has no such right; he is not the Vehicle’s owner.  Some states do impose upon rental car companies the duty to let a renter inspect the rental car. Michigan is not one of those states.  Mr. [redacted] has pointed to no authority to support his contention in this case, however.   In conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as originally submitted.  PurCo insisted that Mr. [redacted] pay for the damage because he agreed to do so.  The damage claim is valid and the damage is Mr. [redacted]’s responsibility, pursuant to the Rental Agreement he signed.  As always, PurCo has always been willing to negotiate the claim and find a mutually satisfactory resolution.   Our track record with regard to disputes supports the fact that we are always willing to work with renters on disputed claims.  In this case, however, PurCo has re-assigned this claim back to the Avis licensee for further action, whether such action be legal proceedings or collections.  Accordingly, PurCo will not be taking any further action on this claim, leaving it to Avis to sue Mr. [redacted] or refer it to collections.  PurCo reserves all rights.   I trust this will resolve your concerns.  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 801-794-6243.   Sincerely,   Tony S[redacted] Associate General Counsel PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. [redacted] Admitted in Nevada Utah admission pending

Complaint: [redacted]
While I appreciate the time it took Purco to compose its response, I still reject their answer as I insist that the damage was done AFTER I returned the car to Alamo and therefore the contractual language in the Alamo contract is moot.  I have never wavered from this position.  In my previous conversations with Purco, I told them that when the car was checked in at the airport, the lot attendant and I were standing at the left front bumper of the car.  This was in the airport garage.  There was no damage noticed by either the lot attendant or me and we were both only a couple of feet from the bumper that was allegedly scraped during my rental period. The exhibit attached to Purco's Revdex.com response noted the damage was noticed "in the lot" not at the garage, AFTER I had turned the car in.In addition Mr. S[redacted]'s response "invites" me to work with Purco and find a resolution to this problem.  I have sent three emails to Purco's Lorene S[redacted] in the last two weeks with no response.  Frankly, I thought that lack of response indicated Purco was no longer pursuing this claim.  There seems to be a disconnect between Purco's legal department and the front line personnel.I might add that on a personal note I am NOT trying to dodge paying this claim for monetary reasons as Purco's response implies.  Money is not the issue here.  Rather lack of communication and any form of reasonable business approach by Purco is the reason for my frustration and this complaint to the Revdex.com.

To Whom it May Concern,We have reviewed this claim and made the decision to close it as a customer service.Our Associate General Counsel, Tony S[redacted], has spoken to Mr. [redacted] regarding this and has followed up with him via email to confirm as such.Please let me know if there are any further...

questions otherwise we consider this matter resolved and closed.Sincerely,Jamie D[redacted]ManagerPurCo Fleet Services, Inc.###-###-#### - Phone###-###-#### - Fax[redacted]@purco.com www.purco.com

Revdex.com Complaint Department Revdex.com of Utah 5763 South Redwood Rd #22 Salt Lake City, UT  84123  ...

RE:                                      �...⇄ Complaint Case #:  [redacted]             Renter:                                    [redacted]             Complainant:                           [redacted]              PurCo Claim No.:                   [redacted]             Damage Incident With:          Rent-A-Wreck of Philadelphia, Essington, PA   Revdex.com Complaint Department:   I am in receipt of your email dated September 27, 2016, concerning the above-referenced claim.  I will address the issues Mr. [redacted] raises.   Mr. [redacted] continues to take issue with the mileage figure of 60,922 that is listed on the Incident Report.  First, this argument ignores the photographic evidence PurCo presented in our response.  In fact, Mr. [redacted] fails to address the photographs at all.  These photos clearly show that, at the time [redacted] took the Vehicle out on July 13, 2016, the front end damage was not there.  However, upon return on July 15, 2016, the photos show the damage to the front end.  The email thread PurCo previously provided also demonstrates that the damage occurred, somehow and at some time during Ms. [redacted]’s rental.  Mr. [redacted] has failed to address this fact, as well.  Indeed, the notation of 60,922 on the Incident Report aside, Mr. [redacted] has offered no explanation to counter the stated fact that his wife took the Vehicle out with no damage at the time of rental, but returned it with damage.   Moreover, the Rent A Wreck of Philadelphia provided an explanation as to why the mileage was listed at 60,922 on the incident report.  Mr. [redacted] has simply chosen to disregard or disagree with that explanation.  It is unclear what “legal standard” Mr. [redacted] is referring to.  A witness is permitted to state facts known to him or her.  The Rent A Wreck employee made such a statement – it would be admissible in any court.   Regarding the “fraud” issue, PurCo will refer all involved to the fact that we have adjusted any error, if indeed there was an error.  There is no “fraud.”  We have made the adjustment, in good faith, and corrected any issue, if there was one.  In fact, PurCo’s track record for dealing with disputes demonstrates that we would be willing to entertain a reasonable counteroffer from Mr. [redacted] regarding loss of use, if he and/or Ms. [redacted] were willing to come to the negotiation table.  There can be no question that loss of use is owed, however, pursuant to the Rental Agreement and Pennsylvania law.   It should be noted that Geico paid a portion of this claim (minus Ms. [redacted]’s deductible and the loss of use/administrative fees that Geico does not cover).  Geico vetted the claim and found no problems.  One wonders why Ms. [redacted] is refusing to pay obligations she agreed to, in the face of overwhelming evidence.   Lastly, the issue of who is complaining is valid.  Mr. [redacted] did not enter into the Rental Agreement – [redacted] did.  It does not matter, from a contract perspective, that they are husband and wife.  The underlying point is that it would have been more appropriate for Ms. [redacted] to have brought the complaint, rather than Mr. [redacted].    We do not fault Mr. [redacted] for not fully understanding PurCo’s status as assignee, although it was clearly explained to Ms. [redacted] in the initial claim packet Keith N[redacted] sent her on or about July 22, 2016.  To reiterate, PurCo is the legal assignee of HBF Enterprises d/b/a Rent-A-Wreck of Philadelphia.  As assignee, PurCo is entitled to “step into the shoes” of Rent-A-Wreck and pursue the claim.  This fact does not adversely affect the damage claim at all, and Mr. [redacted] has failed to present any reason why it should.   PurCo stands by the claim as originally submitted.  As we previously mentioned, PurCo is willing to negotiate the claim and find a mutually satisfactory resolution.   Such would require Mr. [redacted] and/or Ms. [redacted] to come to the table to talk, however.   I trust this will resolve any remaining concerns.  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 801-794-6243.   Sincerely,   Tony S[redacted] Associate General Counsel PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. [redacted] Admitted in Nevada Utah admission pending