If you’re in the hospitality business, it is probably best that you actually provide some hospitality. If you’re screwing over your customers, it is best not to do so to the owner of one of the most significant law enforcement publications in the United States.
It is also best not to place the owner on the equivalent of a “no-fly” (or no rental) list for asserting his rights as a paying customer.
Our story takes us to Tampa, Florida, where our owner and CEO had a reserved full-size SUV from Budget Rent-A-Car to be picked up at Tampa International Airport.
After picking up the vehicle, it suffered a flat tire in a driving rainstorm in the middle of the night. Being on a tight schedule to get to their destination, the team from Law Enforcement Today (LET) changed the tire, being forced to utilize a jack that was the incorrect size for the Ford Expedition they rented.
The following day, our team drove to a repair facility to assess the vehicle to ensure it could be safely operated on a multiple-lane highway.
The first shop advised them the vehicle was in no condition to be driven at highway speeds. Seeking a second opinion, they visited another shop and were given the exact same analysis. Both garages advised our team and team that under no circumstances should the vehicle be driven, stating that all four tires were in "extremely dangerous" condition.
They stated the vehicle never should have been rented out and that if taken back on a highway, all four tires were extremely susceptible to blowing out and causing a fatal accident.
The exact words by the technician were, “We absolutely won’t touch this thing. You’ve got a guardian angel—all four of these tires should have blown out the minute you went over 40 miles per hour.” He also included the spare in his assessment.
The auto technicians claimed shock that Budget would deem the Expedition safe to rent to a customer.
After being advised the vehicle was dangerous, the LET team decided the vehicle was unsafe to drive back to the Tampa airport for an exchange. Budget’s roadside assistance was called, as well as customer service.
After spending about an hour and a half on the phone, LET was told the vehicle could be picked up. However, our team must go to another Budget location for a replacement rental.
This resolution was unacceptable to LET since they were traveling for filming with law enforcement and had important meetings to attend. The only other solution they offered was for another rental to be dropped off—however, that would take upwards of eight hours—again, unacceptable.
A proposed resolution was finally reached, with Budget agreeing to provide an Uber ride-share, with Allie, our Director of Operations, advising it would need to be comparable to the Expedition, which seated seven members of our team as well as baggage and camera gear.
She was assured this would be the case. Ninety minutes after calling customer service, the junk Expedition was picked up from the hotel. In the middle of a meeting at the time, Allie had to leave that meeting to meet the tow truck driver outside.
This brings us to the Uber pickup, where they sent a Honda Pilot to transport seven people, their luggage, and camera gear. This was insufficient and was not what was promised. This forced our team to split up and go to the airport in different Ubers, which incurred extra costs.
Upon returning to home base, Allie received a text message advising the rental (Expedition that was towed) was three days late being returned. Moreover, a charge for $800 was found on LET’s credit card statement.
Customer service was again contacted, with Allie spending over an hour on the phone. The representative could not find what the $800 charge was for but assured Allie they could “check in [our] late return.”
The representative was advised again that the rental had been towed and was not a late return. He then assured her he could not find a charge for $800.
Allie then asked to speak to a customer service supervisor, explaining that the Expedition was rented in a dangerous condition and LET staff could not use the vehicle for the duration of the trip.
In addition, she was told that several Uber charges were incurred as a result of first the defective vehicle and second the insufficient replacement vehicle. Finally, she was reminded of the safety concern with the tires on the Expedition. Documentation and photo evidence was provided.
In response, the customer service supervisor offered a whopping $100 discount for a rental car that could not be used. After several minutes of “negotiating,” all she was willing to do was a $200 discount and $50 toward the Uber, which was insufficient, to say the least.
She further advised that what was supposed to be a total rental cost of $351 was more because Budget charged LET for a “complimentary” upgrade, as well as for pre-paid gas, which was refused when the rental was booked.
Mind you, this was not LET’s first rodeo with Budget. LET frequently travels for business and has used Budget countless times. Upon checking Budget’s Facebook page, it was also discovered that the company seems to have a problem renting vehicles with unsafe tires or otherwise treacherous condition.
After reaching out to Budget’s customer service, LET received a “cookie cutter” apology letter containing all the usual platitudes, such as, “Any difficulties or problems encountered by a customer are a concern to us, and we apologize most sincerely for any inconvenience you may have been caused. We can certainly understand your frustration. Please be assured that our experience was not typical of Budget usual high standards and that a report to the responsible manager has been submitted to prevent any recurrence.”
That was it. No offer to make the situation right. No offer of a free rental. Nothing.
The story then goes from bad to worse. The week of September 11, LET’s owner was contacted by a collection agency, Viking Client Services, advising of a collection action for $370.11, presumably for the car rental in Tampa that was never consummated. After some questioning, the collector admitted he worked for Budget, not an independent collection agency.
The situation was explained in detail to the “collector,” who was told that American Express had ruled in LET’s favor regarding the chargeback against Budget.
LET was advised that Budget’s rental contract does not permit chargebacks through credit card companies, which is good to know for our readers who rent cars through Budget (a subsidiary of Avis, by the way).
Not happy enough to attempt to screw over LET on the rental of a dangerous vehicle that was returned, our owner made a reservation through Avis for a rental in St. Louis, where he was scheduled to film an event with wounded police officers.
Avis allowed him to reserve the vehicle online. Upon attempting to pick up the vehicle, he was told that Budget and Avis had “blacklisted” him, and he was no longer permitted to rent a car through either company.
This forced LET to rent a vehicle under the name of another employee. Avis then added the "mandatory" collision damage waiver totaling $155.96, even though it was declined at pickup. Moreover, our founder's original rental was just over $800 for a much bigger vehicle. The LET employee was charged $1185.92 for a Toyota Highlander.
In other words, if you rent from Budget/Avis, watch your charges. If this is how a large corporation like Budget Avis treats a well-respected publication such as Law Enforcement Today, imagine how they will treat you.
It is also best not to place the owner on the equivalent of a “no-fly” (or no rental) list for asserting his rights as a paying customer.
Our story takes us to Tampa, Florida, where our owner and CEO had a reserved full-size SUV from Budget Rent-A-Car to be picked up at Tampa International Airport.
After picking up the vehicle, it suffered a flat tire in a driving rainstorm in the middle of the night. Being on a tight schedule to get to their destination, the team from Law Enforcement Today (LET) changed the tire, being forced to utilize a jack that was the incorrect size for the Ford Expedition they rented.
The following day, our team drove to a repair facility to assess the vehicle to ensure it could be safely operated on a multiple-lane highway.
The first shop advised them the vehicle was in no condition to be driven at highway speeds. Seeking a second opinion, they visited another shop and were given the exact same analysis. Both garages advised our team and team that under no circumstances should the vehicle be driven, stating that all four tires were in "extremely dangerous" condition.
They stated the vehicle never should have been rented out and that if taken back on a highway, all four tires were extremely susceptible to blowing out and causing a fatal accident.
The exact words by the technician were, “We absolutely won’t touch this thing. You’ve got a guardian angel—all four of these tires should have blown out the minute you went over 40 miles per hour.” He also included the spare in his assessment.
The auto technicians claimed shock that Budget would deem the Expedition safe to rent to a customer.
After being advised the vehicle was dangerous, the LET team decided the vehicle was unsafe to drive back to the Tampa airport for an exchange. Budget’s roadside assistance was called, as well as customer service.
After spending about an hour and a half on the phone, LET was told the vehicle could be picked up. However, our team must go to another Budget location for a replacement rental.
This resolution was unacceptable to LET since they were traveling for filming with law enforcement and had important meetings to attend. The only other solution they offered was for another rental to be dropped off—however, that would take upwards of eight hours—again, unacceptable.
A proposed resolution was finally reached, with Budget agreeing to provide an Uber ride-share, with Allie, our Director of Operations, advising it would need to be comparable to the Expedition, which seated seven members of our team as well as baggage and camera gear.
She was assured this would be the case. Ninety minutes after calling customer service, the junk Expedition was picked up from the hotel. In the middle of a meeting at the time, Allie had to leave that meeting to meet the tow truck driver outside.
This brings us to the Uber pickup, where they sent a Honda Pilot to transport seven people, their luggage, and camera gear. This was insufficient and was not what was promised. This forced our team to split up and go to the airport in different Ubers, which incurred extra costs.
Upon returning to home base, Allie received a text message advising the rental (Expedition that was towed) was three days late being returned. Moreover, a charge for $800 was found on LET’s credit card statement.
Customer service was again contacted, with Allie spending over an hour on the phone. The representative could not find what the $800 charge was for but assured Allie they could “check in [our] late return.”
The representative was advised again that the rental had been towed and was not a late return. He then assured her he could not find a charge for $800.
Allie then asked to speak to a customer service supervisor, explaining that the Expedition was rented in a dangerous condition and LET staff could not use the vehicle for the duration of the trip.
In addition, she was told that several Uber charges were incurred as a result of first the defective vehicle and second the insufficient replacement vehicle. Finally, she was reminded of the safety concern with the tires on the Expedition. Documentation and photo evidence was provided.
In response, the customer service supervisor offered a whopping $100 discount for a rental car that could not be used. After several minutes of “negotiating,” all she was willing to do was a $200 discount and $50 toward the Uber, which was insufficient, to say the least.
She further advised that what was supposed to be a total rental cost of $351 was more because Budget charged LET for a “complimentary” upgrade, as well as for pre-paid gas, which was refused when the rental was booked.
Mind you, this was not LET’s first rodeo with Budget. LET frequently travels for business and has used Budget countless times. Upon checking Budget’s Facebook page, it was also discovered that the company seems to have a problem renting vehicles with unsafe tires or otherwise treacherous condition.
After reaching out to Budget’s customer service, LET received a “cookie cutter” apology letter containing all the usual platitudes, such as, “Any difficulties or problems encountered by a customer are a concern to us, and we apologize most sincerely for any inconvenience you may have been caused. We can certainly understand your frustration. Please be assured that our experience was not typical of Budget usual high standards and that a report to the responsible manager has been submitted to prevent any recurrence.”
That was it. No offer to make the situation right. No offer of a free rental. Nothing.
The story then goes from bad to worse. The week of September 11, LET’s owner was contacted by a collection agency, Viking Client Services, advising of a collection action for $370.11, presumably for the car rental in Tampa that was never consummated. After some questioning, the collector admitted he worked for Budget, not an independent collection agency.
The situation was explained in detail to the “collector,” who was told that American Express had ruled in LET’s favor regarding the chargeback against Budget.
LET was advised that Budget’s rental contract does not permit chargebacks through credit card companies, which is good to know for our readers who rent cars through Budget (a subsidiary of Avis, by the way).
Not happy enough to attempt to screw over LET on the rental of a dangerous vehicle that was returned, our owner made a reservation through Avis for a rental in St. Louis, where he was scheduled to film an event with wounded police officers.
Avis allowed him to reserve the vehicle online. Upon attempting to pick up the vehicle, he was told that Budget and Avis had “blacklisted” him, and he was no longer permitted to rent a car through either company.
This forced LET to rent a vehicle under the name of another employee. Avis then added the "mandatory" collision damage waiver totaling $155.96, even though it was declined at pickup. Moreover, our founder's original rental was just over $800 for a much bigger vehicle. The LET employee was charged $1185.92 for a Toyota Highlander.
In other words, if you rent from Budget/Avis, watch your charges. If this is how a large corporation like Budget Avis treats a well-respected publication such as Law Enforcement Today, imagine how they will treat you.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments