Complaint Review: Zig Zag Rent A Car - Miami Florida

My daughter rented a car from these lowlife Russian scammers over Thanksgiving 2017. Because she declined their Collision Damage Waiver, they charged her a security deposit of $750. The car was returned undamaged; however, instead of returning the deposit, the owners, ANDREY GOLEV and SERGEY GURIN, made up an invoice for a raft of fraudulent charges including bogus SunPass tolls, phony refueling charges (the car was returned full of gas), and absurd cleaning fees.

Here is a detailed description of their criminality:

Facts

1. This $750.00 transaction was a security deposit collected by Zig Zag Rent-A-Car (the Merchant), in the event of collision damages, since my daughter (the Cardholder) declined the Merchant’s CDW for an 8-day car rental. It was not authorized for any other purpose.
2. The Cardholder also declined the merchant’s $14.95 daily fee for unlimited use of toll roads in the State of Florida, as she intended to purchase her own Sun Pass transponder to pay for tolls (see "Purchased Sun Pass”). However, shortly after purchasing her Sun Pass transponder, she realized that she did not know how to disable the Merchant’s Sun Pass transponder. So, she returned to the Merchant to inquire if she could change her rental agreement and pay them for the use of their Sun Pass transponder. She was told to go ahead and use it and that the Merchant would bill her for the actual tolls incurred at the end of the rental. Upon returning the car, the Merchant charged the Cardholder $31.56 for her incurred tolls (see "Toll Pass Receipt from Zig Zag”).
3. Before returning the vehicle, the Cardholder’s mother used her American Express card to fill the vehicle’s gas tank at a gas station 2/10 mile from the Merchant’s place of business (see “Gas Station Receipt” and “Map of Route from Gas Station to Zig Zag”). The Merchant provided photos of the vehicle’s instrument panel, including the gas gauge, before and after the rental (see "Gas Before Rental" and "Gas Upon Return”). The images appear to indicate that the vehicle was returned with less than a full tank; however, the “distance to empty” indicator in the middle of the instrument panel of the “Gas before rental” image (see yellow box in image) shows the vehicle can be driven 425 miles until empty, while the “distance to empty” indicator in the “Gas upon return” image shows the vehicle can be driven 430 miles until empty.
4. The vehicle was returned with no collision damage, and required only minor cleaning consistent with the usual and customary use of a rental car by tourists on vacation in south Florida.
5. On Dec. 8, six days after the return of the vehicle, the Merchant provided a final bill of sale to the Cardholder which assessed alleged toll pass violation fees, vehicle cleaning fees and re-fueling fees which completely offset the $750.00 security deposit (see "Rental Receipt from Zig Zag”).

Argument

Since both the Merchant and the Cardholder agree that there was no collision damage to the vehicle, the use of the $750.00 security deposit for other alleged charges is in explicit contravention of its agreed-upon purpose, and is sufficient grounds in and of itself for the Cardholder to prevail in this dispute.

Addressing the remaining charges by the Merchant, their assessment of a “toll violation fee” of $327.10 is fraudulent, as their original agreement with the Cardholder at the time of the rental was superseded by their subsequent verbal agreement with the Cardholder to charge her only for actual tolls incurred. The attached receipt from the Merchant clearly states “SunPass Tolls Reservation” as the purpose for the charge. If the Cardholder was already knowingly being charged $327.10 for toll violations, she would never agree to pay the Merchant an additional $31.56 for those same tolls.

The Merchant also purports to charge a “vehicle refueling charge” of $51.77; however, the charge from American Express indicating the re-fueling of the vehicle 2/10 of a mile from the Merchant’s place of business, as well as the “distance to empty” indicator on the photos supplied by the Merchant, which show the vehicle with a HIGHER number of “miles to empty” when the car was returned than when it was rented, clearly belie any claim that the vehicle was returned with anything other than a very full tank of gas. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the gas gauge and the “distance to empty” indicator upon the return of the vehicle is that the vehicle was started and the picture quickly taken before the gas gauge needle had a chance to reach the “Full” indicator.

The final charge, a “vehicle cleaning fee”, is such prima facie nonsense that it hardly merits a response. The Merchant indicated in their e-mail of Dec. 8 to the Cardholder that “seemingly ice cream” as well as “something sweet and sticky” were spilled on the floor. (How the Merchant determined the unknown substance was, in fact, sweet, is left to the reader’s imagination…)  Even if this assertion is true, such substances are quickly cleaned from rubber floor mats with warm soap and water and a little bit of elbow grease. In no way, shape or form would such minor cleaning justify a $327.10 charge or, in fact, any charge at all, as such cleaning is a normal and customary responsibility of the Merchant in the car rental business.

Finally, the fact that the Merchant never provided a final bill to the Cardholder at the time the vehicle was returned; instead, only doing so 6 days after the conclusion of the rental in response to a demand from the Cardholder is, when examined in conjunction with the other acts of the Merchant in this matter, strongly suggestive of chronically dishonest business practices.