unrechtmäßig erworbener Gewinn

I am submitting this complaint regarding a car rental booked through DiscoverCars.com for the period 22–26 November. The rental vehicle was supplied by Alamo (Enterprise Group) at Geneva Airport, Switzerland.

Description of the Issue

I returned the vehicle in the same condition as received and did not cause any damage during my rental period. After I returned to my home country, Alamo charged my credit card USD 470.99 for an alleged scratch on the left mirror.

They can’t present any concrete, objective, or verifiable evidence which shows that the alleged damage to the left side mirror occurred during my use of the vehicle throughout the rental period. The burden of proving that a damage occurred during the customer’s rental cannot be shifted to the consumer; this responsibility lies with the car rental company.

After several hours of travel, a customer arriving at an airport is often tired and possibly sleep-deprived. It is unreasonable to expect such a customer to perform a flawless, expert-level visual inspection of the vehicle. A customer is not a vehicle inspection specialist. Additionally, a customer may not always have a camera available, may not notice every minor detail, or may have a phone with insufficient battery. Ensuring a reliable and accurate inspection process is therefore the responsibility of the rental company, not the consumer.

The company bases its claim entirely on a check-out report that I was required to sign before I was allowed to see or inspect the vehicle in person. However, at pick-up I personally observed and photographed an existing scratch on the front bumper, which is more noticeable than the alleged scratch on the left mirror. This damage does not appear on the check-out report, i attached the photo of it. 

This clearly demonstrates that the check-out report does not accurately or completely reflect all pre-existing damage on the vehicle. As such, the reliability of this report is highly questionable.

Furthermore, I was required to sign this document without having any real opportunity to physically inspect the vehicle beforehand. A document signed under such conditions being used as conclusive evidence against a consumer is legally and ethically problematic from a consumer protection perspective.

Insurance and Actual Financial Loss

It is widely known that minor, cosmetic damages of this nature are typically covered under standard comprehensive (casco/kasko) insurance policies used by car rental companies. The company has not provided any invoice, payment receipt, or documentation showing that an actual repair was performed or that any real financial loss was incurred as a result of this alleged damage.

On the contrary, the company has stated that damages are often repaired only at the end of the fleet cycle, which strongly suggests that no immediate or actual repair cost existed at the time the charge was imposed.

Vehicle Category Issue

Although I am confident that the alleged damage did not occur during my rental, it should also be noted that I had reserved a compact vehicle (Volkswagen Golf or similar). Due to unavailability, I was instead provided with a significantly larger SUV. Larger vehicles are objectively more difficult to maneuver and park. Even if damage had occurred (which I deny), this factor results directly from the supplier’s unilateral vehicle substitution and should therefore not be attributed solely to the customer.

Disproportionate and Unfair Charge

Charging 470.99 USD for an extremely minor and purely cosmetic scratch is neither realistic nor proportionate. This amount is close to the cost of fully replacing a side mirror. This raises serious concerns that the company is not generating revenue primarily from vehicle rental services, but rather from disputed and questionable damage charges imposed on customers.

Pattern of Consumer Complaints

When reviewing independent customer complaints online, I have encountered numerous reports describing similar practices by this company, including cases where customers were charged despite having photographs of pre-existing damage. This suggests that such practices may not be isolated incidents, but rather a systematic pattern of unfair commercial behavior.

Requested Resolution

Due to:

the lack of proof that the damage occurred during my rental,
the unreliability of the check-out report,
the absence of evidence of an actual financial loss, and
the clearly disproportionate amount charged,
I formally request the refund of the amount charged to my credit card.

I respectfully submit this complaint for your review, as I believe this case raises serious consumer protection concerns regarding unfair and disproportionate commercial practices in international car rental services.

• Rückerstattung CHF 378.35.-