Bill Woessner wrote:
- quote -

Send a letter to the DTG in which you describe the situation and say
that if the issue is not resolved quickly you will file complaints
with BBB, your state AG and post the info on various travel forums.

Be brief and to the point. Do not deal with local DTG offices, send
the letter to national headquaters (they are the ones who care more
about negative publicity).

If this does not work, I would send those letters (BBB, AG, a few
travel forums), pay the bill and move on.

--
Good luck.
Alex

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jul 10, 4:29*pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Whole is to be put back in the position you/they were before this
incident. You have every right to be made "whole" as they do. If you
contend the charge is frivilous (which I later discover that you do
and which it may be) then you could argue before a judge that they
have been made whole and don't deserve $87.13.

- quote -

Understandable request on your part. You may want to first find out if
they have any legal obligation to provide proof of claim. They
probably don't. More than likely the contract you signed explicitly
stated that "loss of use" didn't have to be proven, only reasonable.
from my limited reading, your insurer's request is very common and the
rental companies have learned a way around the request.

- quote -

I don't find this to be fair either, but I'm not sure you and me have
any say in the matter.


- quote -

There is likely some statistical basis for their charge and the
"reasonable" part precludes them from charging "One hundred BILLION
dollars"


- quote -

I would also be chapped in your situation. I won't blame you for any
reasonable action you take, but I think they legally "have you over a
barrell". [I'm staying away from the "lacks consideration" part]

Good luck.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jul 10, 3:23*pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:

- quote -

As could I be. I'm definitely not a legal expert and there are many
hiccups and facets of the law. This very well could be one of them. I
have had no experience with these "loss of use" claims.

I still contend that, in general, we are each liable for our own
torts. Contract law makes the OP responsible to the rental agency, and
tort law makes the woman responsible for damages to the OP. In
reality, I wouldn't waste my or the courts time over $87.13. I do
understand the frustration, however. Perhaps simply contacting the
lady and threatening to sue would be enough. Maybe she won't call his
bluff.

- quote -

I have always used a credit card, but I can't honestly remember the
last time I rented a car:-)

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Wow... lots of responses. I'll try to take them in order.

Dave Dodson wrote:
- quote -

Yes. As Elle pointed out, the contract specifies these charges.
However, it does not explain how the "loss of use" is computed (more
on this later).

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

I see I skipped this portion of the saga. I think it was in my first
draft, but I screwed something up and that message wasn't posted.
Anyway, I rented the car with a MasterCard. After Allstate shut me
down, I called MasterCard and asked what they could do. They said
they would cover the charges, but only if I obtained a copy of the
fleet utilization log. That's why I asked DTG about the log in the
first place. Unfortunately, they refused to provide it.

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

That's currently in process. And hopefully, he will settle it. I
have USAA and they're very good.

kastnna wrote:
- quote -

I agree, but who gets to decide what is "whole"? Their car was
repaired. If they lost revenue because they ran out of cars of this
class while this specific car was being repaired, then I could
understand how they suffered a loss. That's why I (and, presumably,
MasterCard) want to see the fleet utilization logs.

But that's not their argument. Their argument is that they suffered a
loss simply because they could not use that vehicle. They say that it
doesn't matter if that car would have sat in their lot all day. Well
if that's the case, how do you assign a value to that loss? If it's
not connected to lost revenue, do you just pick an arbitrary number?
Heck, why only $37.13? Why not $100 or $1000? One hundred BILLION
dollars...

That's why I feel like this is a "because we can" charge. It is not
obvious to me that DTG suffered any further loss beyond the damage to
their car. Furthermore, they refuse to produce the very document that
would illuminate this matter. That absolutely reeks. You don't get
to arbitrarily decide whether or not you've suffered a loss AND
arbitrarily assign a value to that loss. Any first year law student
would tell you that contract lacks consideration. All I'm asking is
that they demonstrate and document their loss.

Thanks again,
Bill

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Wow... lots of responses. I'll try to take them in order.

Dave Dodson wrote:
- quote -

Yes. As Elle pointed out, the contract specifies these charges.
However, it does not explain how the "loss of use" is computed (more
on this later).

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

I see I skipped this portion of the saga. I think it was in my first
draft, but I screwed something up and that message wasn't posted.
Anyway, I rented the car with a MasterCard. After Allstate shut me
down, I called MasterCard and asked what they could do. They said
they would cover the charges, but only if I obtained a copy of the
fleet utilization log. That's why I asked DTG about the log in the
first place. Unfortunately, they refused to provide it.

Will Trice wrote:
- quote -

That's currently in process. And hopefully, he will settle it. I
have USAA and they're very good.

kastnna wrote:
- quote -

I agree, but who gets to decide what is "whole"? Their car was
repaired. If they lost revenue because they ran out of cars of this
class while this specific car was being repaired, then I could
understand how they suffered a loss. That's why I (and, presumably,
MasterCard) want to see the fleet utilization logs.

But that's not their argument. Their argument is that they suffered a
loss simply because they could not use that vehicle. They say that it
doesn't matter if that car would have sat in their lot all day. Well
if that's the case, how do you assign a value to that loss? If it's
not connected to lost revenue, do you just pick an arbitrary number?
Heck, why only $37.13? Why not $100 or $1000? One hundred BILLION
dollars...

That's why I feel like this is a "because we can" charge. It is not
obvious to me that DTG suffered any further loss beyond the damage to
their car. Furthermore, they refuse to produce the very document that
would illuminate this matter. That absolutely reeks. You don't get
to arbitrarily decide whether or not you've suffered a loss AND
arbitrarily assign a value to that loss. Any first year law student
would tell you that contract lacks consideration. All I'm asking is
that they demonstrate and document their loss.

Thanks again,
Bill

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"kastnna" <kastnna[at]auburnalum.org> wrote
- quote -

I see the "loss of use" charge by car rental companies is
much discussed on the net. What I see supports, for one,
what Will Trice said about seeing if the OP's credit card
company covers this. Also, evidently some states require car
rental companies to prove loss of use via the log the OP
mentioned; and some do not. It sounds like the OP has
already taken this avenue, and he might be able to get the
LOU charge removed. Indeed, Thrifty's collection agency
(SMT?) at times has been identified as being in the wrong on
these charges.

About seeking compensation from the woman: It is true her
conduct was at least one of the causes of the OP having to
pay $87.13. It is also true that one can always try to sue
when one is damaged and another person was at least one
cause of the damage. But, just saying now, I am not
optimistic about winning an award in small claims court.
General reading on this suggests the renter has no recourse
against the person who caused the accident. There seems to
be focus on the renter agreeing to undertake the "loss of
use" charges if an accident happens. But again, I could be
wrong. That the OP could at best only get the charge reduced
is just my impression. The fee is darned controversial,
that's for sure. A couple of sites with information on this,
including several anecdotes from other car renters in
accidents where they were not at fault:

http://www.denverpost.com/travel/ci_8625501

http://www.upgradetravelbetter.com/2...-use-get-lost/

Google for {"loss of use" Thrifty} for more reports. After
reading about this, I am thinking I will never again go
without car rental insurance.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Bill Woessner" <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b020c35-076e-45cf-84a0-d322636b6b44[at]34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

[Snippage.]

Under the law -- YOU are responsible. YOU signed
the contract w/ the rental company.

Right or wrong, it is what it is.

Your recourse is to sue the individual who hit you.
Her response is to notify the Insurance carrier. If
they deny, sue anyway. You'll win ... but at what
cost for (what?) 80 bucks. If you win, and the Insurance
carrier denies, *She* still has to pay you and her recourse
is to sue the Insurance company to get her $80 bucks back
after she's already paid you.

You really want to go through all that? For 80 bucks?

You signed the contract and agreed to the terms.
Man up and pay it.

Yeah, it's rough -- but I'd pay it off anyway and
chalk it up as a lesson learned.

On Jul 10, 12:46*pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:
- quote -

I agree completely that the OP owes the rental company and he cannot
pass of his liability to ANYONE else. He should send a check for
$87.13 to the rental company.

However, the rental car company has nothing to do with any damages
between the OP and the tortfeasor. The OP has a right to be
indemnified for torts commited against him. The OP has been "damaged"
to the tune of $87.13 directly due to acts committed by the
tortfeasor. He has a right to be indemnified by her. He should ask
(and if deemed necessary, sue) for the $87.13 from her.

It would be the same if she has caused him $10,000 in medical bills.
The hospital deserves to get paid for its services, the OP should be
no better or worse than before the incident, and the liable party
should be responsible for their actions.

The end result is that the rental company has been compensated for it
loss of use, the OP is no better or worse off, and the resposible
party is out $87.13. What doesn't make sense about that?

[disclaimer: me not be lawyer]

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"kastnna" <kastnna[at]auburnalum.org> wrote
- quote -

?
- quote -

"loss of use" and "a reasonable administrative fee" even if
someone else caused a collision. I do not see how the OP
could either legally or reasonably ask either the person
who hit him or her insurance company to pay these fees.

I imagine insurers actually exclude payment of the
aforementioned fees, and this is why DTG has this clause.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

You might want to post this over at misc.legal.moderated, but i think
Andrew and Elle are on the right track. The rental company deserves to
be made whole. You signed an agreement that almost assuredly made you
responsible to the rental company. However, you also suffered damages
and the responsible parties should indemnify you, too. The insurance
companies only confuse this logical progression.

Based on what seems to be the chain of responsibility you should pay
the bill to honor your agreement with the rental company. Then you
should go after the person that hit you because she also has a
responsibility to "make you whole". Whether insurance companies
eventually become involved will depend upon the actions of the parties
involved.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Bill Woessner" <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote
- quote -

http://www.thrifty.com/about/generalpolicies.aspx :

Loss or Damage to the [Dollar or Thrifty] Vehicle: The
renter and any additional drivers are absolutely liable for
any loss or damage to the rental vehicle, even if someone
else caused it or the cause is unknown, whether due to...
collision... or any other cause, subject to limitations
imposed by the law where the vehicle is rented. This
liability will not exceed the full value of the vehicle,
plus:
[snip for brevity]
-- Loss of use;
-- A reasonable administrative fee;

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"Bill Woessner" <woessner[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b020c35-076e-45cf-84a0-d322636b6b44[at]34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

I think this was your first mistake. I would guess that the contract you
signed with the rental company said that you are responsible to them for any
damage to the car, regardless of cause. When the other driver hit you, I
would imagine that she became responsible to you for any liability caused as
a result of her doing so.

So instead of sending the bill to her insurance company, I think you should
have sent the bill to her and let her dicker with her insurer.

But you didn't -- you sent the bill to her insurer, thereby allowing them to
insert themselves in what should have been a negotiation between you and the
other driver.

- quote -

I suppose there are lots of laws that cover situations such as this. But
looking at it from a moral viewpoint, I have to say that the situation is
clear: You agreed to pay the rental company in the event that the car was
damaged. If these charges are determined legitimately, you owe them. So I
think you should do one of two things:

1) Pay them, and then collect them from the other driver.

2) Dispute them, in court if need be, on the basis that you think
they're illegitimate.

Your suggested alternative

3) Dispute the charges, on the basis that Allstate (a party who has no
obligations to you or to the rental company) doesn't like them.

doesn't sound right to me.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jul 9, 6:14 pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

NY Times travel section had article about this a few months ago.
Mentioned rental companies were inventing all kinds of new fees
that credit card insurance and personal automobile insurance
wont cover. No answer to this other than some state attorney
generals are looking into it. Other segments of the travel industry
are doin the same - the "list price" of a airline ticket or hotle room
is often far below the billed price.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jul 9, 5:14*pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


Couple of points: 1. Ask your own auto insurance agent for some
advice. 2. Have a lawyer friend draft a letter requesting specific
information to support their contention.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Similar thing happened to me but I got hit with something like $1600 for
loss of use. I assume that you didn't take the rental insurance, but
did you pay with a credit card? A lot of credit cards have rental car
insurance that will cover loss of use.

If not, I think the negative event stays on your credit report for 7 years?


-Will

william dot trice at ngc dot com

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Jul 9, 7:14*pm, Bill Woessner <woess...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

This kind of thing would really bug me, too, and, like you, I'd be
inclined to be as unresponsive as they are. Is there anything at all
about these charges in your rental contract? If not, I'd write them
and ask them to explain their right to recover these amounts from you,
and refuse to pay until they produced a satisfactory explanation. If
they ding your credit report, you can always add your statement to
your report explaining that they could not justify the charges under
your rental contract, but that you are willing to pay them if they can
do so.

Dave

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

This is a long story so I'm just going to hit the important points.
Two months ago, I rented a car in Houston. A woman hit me. She was
at fault and her insurnace company (Allstate) paid to repair the
rental. I thought that was the end of the story.

But a month ago, I got a bill from the rental car company (DTG). They
wanted $37.13 for "loss of use" and $50 for "administration". I
assumed they had simply mailed the bill to the wrong place. So I
faxed it over to Allstate. After nearly a month of trying to get the
adjuster to return my calls, I finally spoke with his supervisor who
was able to get him to call me. He told me it simply is not their
policy to pay these charges, even when their driver incurred them.

So I called over to DTG and explained the situation to them. I asked
them to send the bill to Allstate and/or the other driver. They
refused. I asked them to waive the fees. They refused. I asked them
to produce the fleet utilization log so I could see that they had
actually suffered a loss, rather than just making it up. They refused
(claiming the logs are company confidental, like they contain trade
secrets or something). Finally, I asked what would happen if I simply
didn't pay the bill. They said they would send it to collections and
it would show up in my credit report.

Now I feel a very strange dichotomy about this. One the one hand,
I've reached a point in my life where $87.13 is just no big deal.
However, I feel like I'm being charged with a "just because" fee and
I'm absolutely outraged by it. I REALLY don't want to pay this bill.
I would rather pay a lawyer $500 per hour to fight this than send DTG
the $87.13. In fact, I'm prepared to ignore this bill, even it means
my otherwise spotless credit will be damaged.

So here's the FP question. What kind of damage am I looking at here?
As I said, my credit is spotless (800+). Are we talking about a 10
point drop? A 100 point drop? And how long will it take to go away?
I just took out my last mortgage for the forseeable future. I pay for
my cars with cash. I sometimes apply for new credit cards to get
signup bonuses or better rewards. But I'm relative satisfied with my
current two cards so I have no NEED to do that.

In summary, my credit is excellent and I don't think I'm going to need
new credit any time soon. So if the hit to my credit score is going
to be small or the damage will go away relatively quickly, I'm going
to seriously consider taking the hit. But if it's going to be
catastropic, I'll swallow my pride and send them the check.

I appreciate any advice you can offer, either on the FP front or
fighting DTG.

Thanks in advance,
Bill

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.