Hertz Invoices Tesla Model 3 Lessee $277 Charge for Fuel, Refuses to Compromise [Updated]

The surprise Joshua Lee encountered upon receiving the bill for his Tesla Model 3 rental from Hertz was palpable. Returning the car at the end of a weekend escapade in Los Angeles, Lee was astounded to find an additional fee of $277.39 added to his original booking cost. The reason for this steep extra charge? Hertz claimed it was the expense for replenishing the electric Model 3. Despite Lee’s inquiries, Hertz remained steadfast in its stance, leaving him increasingly perplexed.

Update May 9, 12:45 p.m. ET: Subsequent to the publication of this article, Hertz communicated to The Drive that its Customer Care unit would be “making contact with Mr. Lee to express regret and will reimburse this erroneous charge.”

At the time of Lee’s reservation—receipts of which were reviewed and verified by The Drive—he selected the “Skip the Pump and Save Time” feature, enabling renters to return their vehicles without refueling. Even though he was driving a gasoline-powered car, he shouldn’t have been subject to an extra refueling fee. Mistakes are conceivable, and it’s possible an oversight occurred at the rental counter. Nonetheless, when Lee contested the charge, Hertz persisted in applying the refuel fee, despite the Tesla Model 3 lacking a fuel tank and Lee having already paid for the “Skip the Pump” service.

One might question if Hertz was billing Lee for having to recharge the Model 3’s battery upon return. Per the final receipt, the car was returned to Hertz with a 96% charged battery, the same level it was picked up with. Even if Lee hadn’t done so, the maximum fee should have been $35, in accordance with Hertz’s EV recharging policy: “You can return your EV at any charge level and we’ll recharge it for $35—or just $25 for Gold Plus Rewards Members. Or, return it at the same level as pick-up and pay $0.”

In essence, even if Hertz believed a recharging fee was warranted, $277 was an exorbitant amount. Adding to the dilemma, here’s how a Hertz customer service representative responded when Lee raised a query via email to contest the additional charge:

“I regret to inform you that no adjustment or refund can be provided as the service was rendered and the agreement has been concluded. Your signed rental contract will serve as confirmation that you were fully aware of the fuel service specified in the agreement. I trust this clarifies the matter for you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review and address your concern.”

To summarize: Not only did Hertz acknowledge that Lee was billed for fueling an electric car, an impossibility, but it justified this action by stating the agreed-upon “service was provided.” How was this service provided? Where did the fuel go? Moreover, one can’t help but wonder, even though this is somewhat immaterial: were it a fossil-fuel vehicle in question, which make and model demands $277 for a full tank? That surpasses 46 gallons at LA’s highest rates, not factoring in any Hertz markup of course.

Lee informed The Drive that all subsequent interactions with Hertz occurred over the phone; currently, his issue remains unresolved and Hertz persists in denying the $277 refund. (The Drive has initiated contact with Hertz for feedback and will provide updates accordingly.) Lee is contesting the charge through his credit card company but is skeptical of its success due to Hertz’s unyielding stance.

Lee has been a devoted Hertz client, holding President’s Circle status. He expresses a fondness for the Model 3, particularly in California where recharging is more cost-effective than refueling a similar petrol car. Therefore, both Hertz and Lee are well-acquainted with the Model 3. Understandably, Lee affirmed that this Hertz rental would mark his final one after this ordeal.

Have insights to share? Send them to tips@thedrive.com

[ad_2]