05/01/2005
What the quick brown fox jumps over is not necessarily a dog and not necessarily lazy. It's also questionable that this fox jumps over anything. Indeed, the only part of the classic typists' task that may not evoke question is that the fox--in this case, Fox Rent a Car, of Los Angeles and other locations within and outside of California--is quick, for its customers may feel more like underdogs than dogs, more trusting than lazy, and more stomped upon than jumped over.
Fox Rent a Car, according to the people who complain about it, advertises lower prices (in fact, "Lowest rates for Car Rentals!") on their website. They attract customers with such claims, but they end up collecting from unsuspecting renters more than they'd have paid for a rental from a higher-priced company.
How does Fox do this? In a number of ways, say complainants. One of the most common allegations in complaints to the Better Business Bureau has to do with damage to Fox's cars.
Don Burns, a 60-year-old Safeway clerk of Port Angeles, Washington, for example, rented a car from Fox upon the recommendation of his travel agent. At the time of his rental, he pointed out a dent in the taillight area. The attendant to whom he pointed it out, and of whom he says spoke only "rough English," marked it on a diagram of the car.
Burns used the car, returned it, returned home, and discarded his rental contract. But a month or so later, Fox informed him that he owed some $99 for the damage around the taillight. Worse, they also sent him a towing bill. "They said I didn't turn the car in and that it was in an accident and that they'd had to tow it in," he says. "This went on and on. They sent me a $2,000 bill for the towing and late fees, etc. I had thrown my evidence away, and . . . I couldn't prove anything."
Burns paid $99, under protest, but he says he felt "trapped" and "helpless" and "framed because I live so far away." Looking back, he feels the transaction was "rushed through."
Fox still insists that his rental car was returned to them by a car-moving company; Burns insists he returned it himself, then took their shuttle to the terminal. His travel agent has removed Fox from their car rental list.
Similarly, a Florida medical technologist used Fox Rent a Car last July because they offered her the best deal. She specifically asked to inspect the car and mentioned scratches she noticed to one of the mirrors. It was nothing, they told her.
When this customer returned her car, she says she was hurried out of it and directed to Fox's bus to the airport. Four months later, she received a call saying she'd damaged the car. Though she also received, this January, from Fox's collection agency, a photo showing a mirror dangling from the car and a bill for $214.77, she denies responsibility for any damage to the car. She hasn't paid, and the company says it has closed its files.
Other complaints about Fox contain a variety of allegations. For example, Allison Hunt, a 30-year-old Kentucky medical student, who found Fox on the Internet, reserved a car with them because they advertised the best price. Her complaint is, first, that Fox did not hold her reservation because her flight was more than three hours late. Because she had no car waiting for her, she had to ask a friend in Santa Monica to pick her up and let her stay overnight.
When she returned the next day to pick up a car, she found the total charges to be "far different than what I was quoted on my computer." The difference, she says, had to do with a California law concerning third party liability insurance. Since she had full coverage, she asked if she could have proof of coverage faxed to them. But "We don't have no fax machine," she was told. So she paid the extra charges to rent the car.
During the next week Hunt had a flat tire. "I called and called for customer service, and no one ever answered the phone," she says, even though "it was a weekday during normal working hours." She had to buy a new tire--"brand new and matches exactly, "she describes it"-at a cost of $88. She also paid for the tire change. Rather than ask Fox to reimburse her ("I'd had such a bad time with them earlier"), she contacted VISA, who agreed to reimburse her.
When she informed Fox about the tire replacement upon returning the car, she was assured that everything was fine. But about a month later, she received a Fox's bill for $162.72 for the tire plus a $50 administrative charge.
Fox has not yet responded to Hunt's complaint to cancel their billing and to refund what she had paid for the required California liability insurance.
Carol Tran's complaint on behalf of her parents is, first, that, as with Hunt, Fox charged more than the cost quoted online. But Fox also wanted a deposit from Cong Tran. Although they swiped Mr. Tran's debit card, they then insisted upon cash because Mr. Tran, a 58-year old Lansdale, Pennsylvania postal worker, had only a debit card, not a credit card. The Trans were given no receipt for the cash deposit because "everything is in the computer."
« Back
|