I know of one rental of mine that must have cost Avis an absolute packet. About ten years ago, booked a small car for a 2 day weekend rental from Charleville airport (where we were visiting for the weekend - morning Dash 8 from Brisbane, stop at Roma, then to Charleville). Had an Avis weekend discount rate - so paid around $80 for the two days. This was all booked in advance.
To make the $80 from me:
[*=1]Avis put a Commodore on a transport from Toowoomba and shipped it to Charleville - over 600km by road
[*=1]Had a rep come out to the airport specifically to meet the flight and do the rental
[*=1]Had the same rep come back out on the Sunday to accept the return
[*=1]Sent the car back to Toowoomba on a transport
I know this was what was done, as the agent told me. Other than the two days I had the car, it was also unavailable for another 2 days while it was being shipped, and it probably consumed at least 2 hours (probably more) of the agent's time, as they had to meet the transport the day before, meet me twice, and then put the car back on the transport.
This rental must have been a huge loss - but making sure that they deliver on their promise to have availability.
I remember reading about your rental somewhere else on here (or possibly FT?). It certainly beats any of my efforts at costing them money to rent me a car! One of my best examples was a weekend rental of a Merc C200 from Hertz, which cost a total of $75 and included tolls! They inadvertently billed me for the tolls - almost $40! Not much left when you take out tolls, GST, registration! Once they've paid to clean the car, I don't think there be anything left!
Well I'm not a lawyer either but I am a program manager managing regulatory & compliance projects. One of the key issues for many companies is ensuring they get their disclosure correct (T&C's, PDS's etc) because multiple regulators have taken the view, and are increasing interested in enforcing that view, that T&C's must be a) complete and b) disclosed. Such clauses that have "implicit" condition, e.g. specifically here what are the conditions of use of a particular are a big no no and a number of such regulators have pushed back on them. Their view is strongly that it both must be explicit in the contract and must be disclosed to be enforceable. And while the appearances are that the big companies have the power the reality is they are not exempt from the law and they are well aware of this.
This is of course why these days we get swamped by PDS's, revised T&C's from banks, insurance companies, utilities etc along with the fact that when you get a rental contract the rental company is very keen to ensure you read and sign it (assuming you are not an "informed" frequent renter who is treated slightly differently). While the impression that companies want to give from their T&C's is that they hold all the cards, I just don't think that is the reality, most companies while they resent the regulation and compliance are all too aware of it and don't want to rock the boat with the regulator in enforcing condiation they feel wouldn't survive challenge and personally from my experience most companies realise that regulation is steadily increasing to address "bad corporate behaviour" and its a lower stress/cost approach to go along with regulators rather than fight.
I don't particualrly disagree with the cautious approach but actually think this is relatively low risk, aside from all else, aside from actually asking you for your credit card upfront (which does fit in with disclosure regime, you ask to see the card as part of disclosing you must meet certain conditions for this rate) how would the actually know you dont have a Platimum Card. It would be a breach of the Privact Act for AMEX to disclose this to them!
Whilst I am not a lawyer, I do deal with contract documentation and PDS', etc. every day and I have a little understanding of legislation and contracts.
I agree that regulators are taking a tough stance (and have been for some time) regarding unfair clauses and poor disclosure. I also mentioned more than once that contracts cannot take away your statutory rights. However, I'm of the opinion that we've had that sort of regulatory regime in place for so long now, that there would be very few contracts in place with large companies like big name car rental companies and banks, insurance companies, etc., that would contain clauses that are outside the law and would be unenforceable.
I have mentioned more than once that the risk is low, but I think it is still there. I agree that it would be a breach of the privacy act for Amex to disclose that you hold an Amex Plat Card, but as I and others have mentioned, the onus will be on the renter to prove they were eligible to use the CDP (i.e. in the case we're discussing, hold an Amex Plat Charge Card), rather than Hertz to prove they weren't.
At the end of the day, they have an authority to debit your credit card and it is then up to you to dispute it - that's where they are in the biggest position of power.
I think the wording cancel the rental agreement is probably not quite correct, since clearly the terms and condition under which Hertz could act only take affect because you have such an agreement and have indicated you agree with it. Bit of a catch 22 really. What is being suggested is of course that your insurance will become invalid. In itself not strictly technically correct as the LDW is not in fact insurance in the normal legal terms (or at least the car rental companies dont call it insurance in their T&C's), its a waiver that they wont chase you for money's above the excess.
Having said this, one of the reasons I was asking a poster if they were a lawyer (so I wasn't just questioning their advice) was that my understanding is that basic CDW MUST form part of a rental car agreement under Australian Law and hence as per their T&C's ((a) Except to the extent otherwise implied by law) they can't exclude, much as they might want to.
Oh and PS. To AdMEL, contracts are not synonymous with Law and not complying with a contract is not synonymous with breaking the law, i.e. illegal.
Agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. In fact, in Australia, you need an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) to sell insurance and car rental companies don't have one. The regulation and training involved mean that it would be too costly. I suspect it would be similar everywhere else in the world too.
With regard to your second paragraph, it was also my understanding that rental cars in Australia must be comprehensively 'insured' (i.e. CDW must be included) by Law, but despite much searching (as I mentioned above, I do have some experience with legislation), I cannot find the relevant legislation. If you know where to find, I'd be most interested. However, that does not mean that they are not within their rights to cancel the waiver if you breach the agreement, as the damage waiver is provided on the basis you do not breach the agreement, which using a CDP without entitlement could be argued as a breach.
With regard to your last paragraph, no worries, my mistake.
You are making the assumption that because I used the wrong CDP my rental agreement is null and void.
I dont think so. What if I typed in the wrong CDP and I wss not entitled to use it? The rental company did not check whether I was entitled to use CDP at time of rental. They cant now turn around and say tough luck you are not covered.
The minimum insurance they provide in Australia includes LDW and high excess. That is what you should have as a minimum.
I think some people are reading way too much into it. People have been using CDPs for many years on these forums and there has not been a single instance reported where the rental agreement has been cancelled for using wrong CDP.
Again, I'm saying that using a CDP you cannot prove you are entitled to use may leave you open to having the damage waiver voided, resulting in you being liable for all damage, rather than just the excess, as the damage waiver is provided on the basis you do not breach the agreement, which using a CDP without entitlement could be argued as a breach.
