Disgusting service and ill treatment received at the Avis Greenacres branch.

<p>I am dismayed at the level of bad service and ill treatment received at the Avis Greenacres branch.</p> <p>On the 7th of July, I fetched a vehicle from the Avis branch as arranged by my insurance company Brolink. I was attended to by a young man identified as Onke. He gave me papers to sign and initial, when I asked him as to why I am signing before we had checked the vehicle, he simply responded that we would check it. We then ventured outside and proceeded to check the vehicle, I pointed several marks around the vehicle, including the windscreen. Lastly, I pointed out to him that there were also marks on the rear bumper, to which he responded that he had already noted them. I took him at his word and left.</p> <p>I then took a ten minute drive to my father’s house, he came outside to have a look at the vehicle. The first thing he asked me about was the black mark on the bumper, my response was that all the marks had been noted. Subsequent to that, he was not the only one to comment on this.</p> <p>Then on the 21st of July, I returned the vehicle to the same branch and the same person checked it. He made a light enquiry regarding the mark on the bumper, my response was to ask him “what mark?”. He then pointed out the same mark and I told him that it was there when I got the vehicle. He then asked me to wait while he got the form they use to check vehicles out. He took a look at it, and said that everything was fine, I could go.</p> <p>Hardly a minute later, he chased after me as I was about to drive off and said that he thinks that the mark “looks fresh”. I disputed this, and he asked me to go with him to have a look. When we got back to the vehicle he said that the mark looks fresh and that on the initial inspection sheet he noted scratches, and it was only at this point that he said the mark was not a “scratch” as he had noted previously, but a “chip”. I told him that I was not accepting that, as well as the fact that I wasn’t privy to the terminology that he used when writing his initial report and I asked him if I should then have to pay for him having written “scratch” instead of “chip”. Further to this, I asked him how he expected me to have known the difference, as he never explained his scribblings to me.</p> <p>He then asked me to speak to the manager, at which point I was engaged by Khanyisa, whom I relayed the sequence of events to, at which point he said that he had been referring to surface luggage scratches which were on the bumper. To which I asked him why I would have even noticed those, let alone go to the trouble of pointing them out to him, with no response. Khanyisa then said that she would refer the matter to their damages manager, who was only identified to myself as Alan. She made an undertaking that she would phone me, and then later changed and said Alan would phone me with feedback.</p> <p>Six days later, on the 27th, I received an SMS, stating that I had billed R1507.02 excluding vat for damages to the vehicle. Having received such, I contacted the Avis help line and spoke to someone who referred me back to the branch, I spoke to Khanyisa again. Thereafter, I contacted my insurance company, as they had arranged this car hire and spoke to Bridget, who said she would refer the matter to the appropriate channel. Then the next morning, which was at this point day 7, Khanyisa called to ask if Alan had gotten in contact with me, and she said she would get him to call me.</p> <p>Hours later, in the afternoon, Alan finally called. I pointed out to him that, first of all, his call was a week late. He proceeded to make some excuse about having tried to get a hold of me on the alternative number that I had supp**** them, which made very little sense. Anyway, I proceeded to give him my perspective on this matter and he gave me his reasons for charging the damage to my account.</p> <p>Some points that struck me during our discussion include, his dismissive attitude. As well as the fact that he told me that the vehicle was checked at their depot situated at the airport prior to it being delivered to Greenacres, and that there is no way that “all the people who checked it” would not have seen a chip on the bumper, with me being the only one who saw it. He also raised the point about the marks looking fresh, in response to which I asked him how this “freshness” is determined, pointing out to him that I could provide witness testimony to the contrary.</p> <p>I also asked him, since he is such an expert, what kind of impact, in his opinion, would result in such a “chip”. His response was that it could be anything, from people walking past, to luggage, to a trolley being pushed past. Toward the end of our conversation, he then said that the only way forward would be for me to go back to the branch and speak to the people there, because, according to him, both Onke and Khanyisa told him that the marks looked fresh. I agreed to go back to the branch.</p> <p>When I got to the branch, my father in tow, Khanyisa was there alone and we had to wait for more that an hour for Onke’s return. The matter was then referred to Neil Kennedy, who was identified to me as the owner of the branch. After a further lengthy discussion, with me pointing out several things to him, including:</p> <p>· instances where the chip might have occurred prior to me taking delivery of the vehicle.</p> <p>· These include:</p> <p>-The fact that Khanyisa confirmed that, contrary to Alan’s assertions that the car was checked at the depot, it was actually washed at the branch and was not checked thereafter before I checked it.</p> <p>-The fact that when I arrived, the car was parked in a position in which any number of people, carrying any number of items could have already walked past.</p> <p>-The fact that their clerk does not have a clear recollection of the incident.</p> <p>-The fact that after I had pointed out the mark on the bumper he never went back to verify what I was saying, merely stating that he had noted the marks on the bumper, among others.</p> <p>Mr Kennedy then, instructed Khanyisa to reverse the charges. This was done in my presence. When I left the branch, it was understood that this matter was done. There was no indication that any further people had to be consulted.</p> <p>Six days further to this, I received another SMS, urging me to make arrangements to make payment of a further R418.00. So, I went back to the branch, where I was promptly informed by both Khanyisa and Mr Kennedy that Alan had ordered that the charges be reinstated. In essence, overruling Mr Kennedy’s decision</p> <p>To this day, I am yet to receive the email I asked Alan to send to me, detailing his reasoning. Further to this, I am compelled to ask why he referred me to the branch, if he knew he would just overturn their decision, completely disregarding the fact that this frivolity bore further cost implications, in terms of both time and money. Where is the fairness? Is it Avis policy to treat customers in such an arrogant manner?</p> <p>I find it utterly unfair that I must bear the cost for something that I know was there, all because of bungling by Avis employees. For me this is a matter of principle as I know for a fact that no damage was caused to that vehicle while under my care. If I, in anyway had caused damage to the vehicle or anyone else’s property, for that matter, I would gladly take responsibility for such. All they seem to care about is their repeated assertion that someone must pay regardless.</p> <p>This causes one to wonder, how may more customers are bul****, cheated and bamboozled in this manner. I am upset and disgusted by Avis’s conduct in this regard.</p>