OldGuyTraveler

I recently rented an auto from Hertz GB in Holyhead, Wales. As I was signing all the paperwork, they handed me a brochure entitled "Thank you for choosing Hertz. Wory-free driving starts here". Buried inside were two paragraphs explaining fueling options. One option states you return the auto with a full tank or Hertz will fill it and charge you at the rate specified in the Rental Record.

The second fueling option was called FPO or Fuel Purchase Option. With this option you pay for a FULL tank of fuel and you can return it with no additional charge. On the surface this sounds good... but wait, you never return an auto with the tank completely empty. You pay for a full tank and return it with, say, 1/4 tank left. You have just gifted Hertz with the value of 1/4 tank of fuel. In my case, I used the auto very little and returned it with a near full tank; giving Hertz about 73 pounds or about $110.00 US.

Why am I complaining if I picked that option? Because I didn't really pick it. It was already written up in all the papers I signed before getting the auto. I supposed I could have gone over all the paperwork with a fine tooth comb, but nobody does, and perhaps Hertz banks on that. Especially if you get the brochure that explains this AFTER you sign.

janisj

That is becoming a common practice in lots of places - not just the UK. Even in the states one sometimes has to 'opt out' of prepaying for fuel.

Improviser

"but nobody does" Umm, no OldGuy, you didn't, others DO.

These two options are standard with many car rental companies. If you have never rented a car before they may be news to you but are not to anyone (including you now) who has rented before.

Renting a car is no different than any other contracted service you might use. It is YOUR job to do YOUR due diligence before signing a contract.

Try looking at a similar situation from an outside persepective rather than something that you experienced personally.

I recently went online to book a hotel for a night. I knew what hotel I wanted and first went directly to the hotel's own website for a price. The price shown was $118.75 for a double room but when I checked 'rate details' it showed there was also taxes of $14.62 to be added bringing the total price to $133,37.

I then checked on some booking sites through Trivago and found the lowest price quoted was on Expedia at $108.63 (vs. $118.75 direct from the hotel) but when I looked at the details found there was a $10.50 charge for a second person (even though I had already indicated 2 people) and a $18.82 in taxes as well, bringing the total to $137.95 (vs. $133.37 direct from the hotel).

Clearly, both left off the taxes to show a lower price initially but Expedia also left off the charge for a second person to make their price APPEAR even lower initially. Somehow, they also seemed to have to collect more taxes as well ($18.82 vs. $14.62).

Did either site lie to me? No. Were they somewhat misleading? Yes. But it was MY responsibility to determine which was a better deal at the end of the day.

Now if I had booked with Expedia, would I be justified in later complaining I could have got the room for less booking directly with the hotel? I don't think so. I don't get to complain that someone else is responsible for MY decisions.

OldGuyTraveler

<<"but nobody does" Umm, no OldGuy, you didn't, others DO>>

If you had carefully read my post you would have noticed that I was informed of this AFTER I had signed the papers. They gave me the brouchure with the keys.

I did sign a paper on which this option was listed, but it was written in such a way as a reasonable person would assume this was an estimate of what I would pay. It even said "estimate"; but I guess that means it could go higher but never lower.

I, being a "reasonable peson", assumed that Hertz would not try to screw me... but I guessed wrong. Hertz will never get my business again, but they probably don't care.

RoamsAround

Sorry, but Hertz didn't try to "screw you". The fuel options you mentioned have been in existence for many, many years (I'm guessing they've been around for at least 15 years, maybe more) at all major car rental companies. Over the years there have been hundreds of articles in travel magazines about this very subject. And I venture to say that at least once a year you'll see a segment on those morning news/talk shows that discuss the topic when they air a segment on budget travel. IN ALL INSTANCES the experts advise not to select the FPO for the very reason you describe.

Unfortunately for you, you hadn't encountered this before and were caught off guard. We've probably all made similar mistakes once or twice and we chalk it up to lack of experience. Hopefully you've now learned from your mistake and probably won't let it happen again no matter which company you rent a car from in the future. Do what experienced renters do, decline the option and fill up the tank before you return the car. You other option is decline the FPO and return the car with less than a full tank and let the rental company fill the tank and bill you extra for the gas but be warned you'll pay the rental company a higher price per gallon than you would if you get the gas from the filling station.

Improviser

Umm, no OldGuy, you were NOT informed AFTER you signed, you signed BEFORE you read what you were signing up for. It is YOUR responsibility to KNOW what you are signing BEFORE you sign it.

It is human nature to blame others and not accept our own responsibilities. This is a classic example of that. No matter what THEY did, no one forced you to sign a contract before reading it.

They have to default to one option or the other, so they default to the one they prefer. Is that a surprise? Even if they had defaulted to return it full , what would have happened if you had not read your contract and returned it half-full? They would have filled the tank and charged you at THEIR price which as RoamsAround notes, is higher than at a filling station. No doubt you would be on here complaining that they charged you too much.

So either way, you would be blaming THEM for YOUR mistake of not reading the contract.

I have no sympathy for anyone who agrees to any contract and then complains when something that is in the contract is applied.

Another example is all the people who got stuck when the volcano erupted in Iceland spewing ash into the air and disrupting air travel from Europe in 2011. Many complained that their travel insurance did not pay for their cancelled/delayed flight costs, extra hotel nights, etc.. But ALL of them ignored the fact that their travel insurance policy did not cover delays or cancellations due to acts of nature.

Bottom line OldGuy. YOU are responsible for doing YOUR due diligence.

Phil

I also recently rented a car from Hertz in England. I noticed the FPO box being checked on the rental agreement and asked the agent what this did imply before signing the document and was given an explanation.

So far no problem and no scam by the rental company.

BUT:
When I asked the agent to reissue the agreement without FPO, she initially refused to comply. She claimed that I would be refunded the FPO charge if I turned the car in with a full tank. When I remarked that the agreement stated that there would be NO refund, she asked me to sign the agreement, as the queue was growing longer.

Eventually she reissued the agreement after I stood my ground. Now this seems to be an attempt at a scam or whatever you would like to call it.

So my peace of advice: It simply is the renter's responsibility to know, what he actually is about to sign. Read the paper before signing, ask about anything less than clear and stand your ground without being bullied by the agent.

Phil.

crellston

I do have a certain amount of sympathy oldguy. Of course everyone should read any contract before signing, or at least the key features document that is usually to be found somewhere in all the paperwork. Car rental companies do go out of there way to make things complicated and to disguise the true cost of their rentals. Fuel charges is one way, CDW and insurance costs and excesses, another.

I recently rented cars in Spain where there seemed to be as many different variations on how to pay for fuel as there were rental companies all had one thing in common however, which was the exorbitant price they charged for fuel either for prepayment or upon refuelling. It is simply an attempt to make them seem more competitive. It is the same with insurance where the excess amounts with the "free" insurance makes it virtually worthless. A way of avoiding excessive insurance charges is to purchase an annual car rental insurance policy which is way cheaper.

I am in the process of trying to rent a car in Argentina where the situation re fuel is similar but not quite such a rip off.

Whilst it is of course sensible to read and understand the contract, these are made so complex as to put many people off. Caveat Emptor may well apply but there is also a huge raft of consumer legislation both in the UK ( The Office of Fair Trading) which aims to protect the consumer from unfair and misleading contract terms and conditions. Even if a condition is explicit, if it is important and is not shown prominently enough, consumers do have some recourse Reporting companies to the OFT is a relatively simple procedure and the more complaints they receive, the more likely it is that things will change. Airlines had to pay a fortune in compensation over dodgy fuel surcharge practices a few years ago when the OFT and other agencies intervened.

The bottom line is that whilst the customer has a duty to read the contract, the hire company also has an arguably greater duty to ensure that the contract is understandable and not misleading in any way.

Improviser

I agree both parties have an obligation to be open crellston. But there is a limit to how far one party can go. A rental company, an airline, an insurance company provides all the information in the contract. They must by law. What is not reasonable to expect is that they then hold your hand and read each sentence to you and explain it. In effect, that is what people complaining about any of these kinds of issues are suggesting. 'I didn't read it, and they didn't tell me about it'. But the complainer's emphasis is all on the 'they didn't tell me' part of that.

I can't sympathize. Look at the hotel example I gave above. Mis-leading? Perhaps but the information was quite clear when I read the 'rate details'. I don't see any way around the obligation of the customer to know what they are agreeing to.

In any case, it is a mute point. What is, is and the only real question is what should an individual do about it. As I see it they have two choices. Do nothing and pay accordingly or do their due diligence and pay accordingly. I prefer to do my due diligence and pay less than OldGuy.

The lesson this post provides is just that. Caveat emptor.

crellston

Clearly you are missing my point, intentionally or otherwise I care not

I am not suggesting that "they then hold your hand and read each sentence to you and explain it" nor are the OFT and other legislators, merely that the companies, whether car rental, airlines, hotels or any others abide by the legal and moral duty to provide fair and open disclosure. The law is there to protect the average consumer. Clearly you need no assistance in that direction yourself as you always seem to get it right but that is not always the case for many people.

I get it you don't sympathise, I doubt that OldGuy will lose any sleep. I am bored now so I am off to book a rental car...

ShelliDawn

I rented a car in New Orleans from Enterprise a couple weeks back and was given the option to return the car refueled or return it and take the fuel purchase option. The options were explained before I signed the agreement and the price of the gas on the fuel purchase option was actually less than the price at the pumps. I took the purchase option.

I can't recall ever renting from Hertz, but I know a few years ago renting from Budget, I was presented with both options, clearly explained, before signing anything.