I booked a petrol hire car but Hertz sent me on a nightmare 560-mile trip in an EV: CRANE ON THE CASE
My wife and I live in Australia and recently visited family in England. One day, we booked a Hertz hire car so we could visit my wife's grandparents. One of them is unwell and this may be the last time she is able to see them.
I asked for a Mercedes GLA when I booked - which would be either a petrol or diesel car, or a hybrid. But when I turned up, I was was given a Polestar electric vehicle.
Neither of us had driven an EV before, and this caused huge problems.
Our journey was a 560-mile round trip from London to the Lake District, with a stop in Birmingham on the way home to see my uncle. The maximum mileage of the car in peak conditions is about 250 miles.
We had to stop to charge four times for about 40 minutes each, and also kept having to veer off course to find a charger.
This totally derailed our trip and meant we missed our dinner with my uncle in Birmingham at 5pm. We didn't arrive there until 9pm.
It was a freezing winter day and we kept the heating off to conserve battery. The card Hertz gave us to pay for charging also didn't work.
This completely ruined our day, and by the end my wife was in tears. N.L, Brisbane
Helen Crane, of This is Money, replies: I am sorry to hear about your traumatic trip in this electric car. This was an important and emotional day for your wife, and the vehicle Hertz gave you just wasn't up to the job.
Baffled to be given an electric car, you requested a replacement when you arrived at the Hertz office to pick it up - but the assistant told you that only EVs were available. You say they were rude and told you to 'take it or leave it'.
The lack of petrol cars may have been because you were in central London, where many non-electric vehicles must pay the £12.50 daily ULEZ charge, so perhaps Hertz keeps a smaller internal combustion-engined fleet there.
You and your wife can also only drive an automatic - which is the norm down under - and this ruled out many of the cars.
But it is Hertz's responsibility to give you a car that is the equivalent to the one you booked and if that isn't available it is standard car hire industry practice to upgrade people.
You were reluctant to take the EV, but the desk assistant assured you there were charging points 'everywhere' and that the car would charge fully in 15 minutes, so you set off.
This easy charging was far from the case, in your experience. You made one stop to charge on the way to the Lake District, which took around 40 minutes.
This only charged the car's battery to around 50 per cent - which might have been down to the freezing weather and depends on how fast the charger available was.
EVs don't charge as quickly when it is very cold, and the battery will also run down faster - but you can't have been expected to know this, as total novices.
When hiring an electric car, you must pay for charging in the same way you would pay for fuel in a petrol car. Unfortunately, while c harging an EV at home is cheap, on the move it can be expensive.
You paid £112 in total for charging, which you claimed was more than double what you might have paid in petrol for a similar journey.
Chargers can be cheaper or more expensive depending on who runs them and how fast they are, but you didn't know this.
Hertz had given you a payment card for charging, which would add the cost of the charging to your final Hertz bill, rather you paying out of pocket upfront. However, you couldn't make it work.
When you arrived at the grandparents' home, you plugged the car in and hoped the four-hour stay would allow it to charge enough to get you home.
But in fact, it charged the car by just a measly 3 per cent. While EVs can charge via a regular three-pin plug, this is painfully slow. They really need a dedicated charger, which of course your wife's elderly grandparents didn't have.
After leaving the Lakes, you had to charge the car twice on the way to Birmingham and both times had to veer wildly off course to find a high-powered charging point.
All in all it took you seven hours to drive from the Lakes to Birmingham - a trip that could be done in three and a half hours in good conditions.
You arrived at 9pm, having missed dinner with your uncle and with your wife cold, fed up and in tears.
You had to make a final charging stop on the way from Birmingham to London, which meant you didn't get back to your hotel until 1:30am - not ideal as you had a sightseeing tour booked first thing the next day.
You couldn't complain when you returned the car early the next morning, as the office wasn't yet open - but you did so afterwards with the help of your UK-based uncle.
Hertz refused to reimburse you, saying that only EVs were available at the time and that it didn't take responsibility for customers' charging issues.
You were then hit with an extra cost when you checked your bill. The petrol car you originally booked included unlimited mileage, but only 300 miles were included on the electric car. Extra miles were charged at 24p per mile.
It meant that in total, the rental cost you £252 including the fee for the hire, extra mileage and charging costs.
Can a car hire firm give me an EV?
You selected a petrol Mercedes GLA when you booked. You've sent me a screenshot to show that, on the website, cars are clearly marked as electric - and the one you opted for was not.
This is standard car hire industry practice to show whether a car is petrol / diesel or electric and many people do not want to hire EVs due to the extra hassle.
But when you later complained to Hertz, it simply said you booked a 'medium car' and the booking didn't specify whether it was petrol, hybrid or electric.
Hire firms are allowed to swap the car you've booked for a similar or higher-spec car, if it isn't available.
Hertz's website states that 'similar' means 'that the vehicle you rent may not be the exact make and model as the vehicle displayed, although it will be from the same car group, meaning that it will be comparable in size and performance to that vehicle.'
Is an EV comparable to a similar-sized petrol car? The problem here is that it's so subjective. For someone who regularly drives an EV, and was only going 100 miles, the Polestar EV you were given might not have been a problem.
But for you, it was a disaster. The car was totally unsuitable for your trip, and you were told the car would be electric with any reasonable notice, you would have cancelled and booked elsewhere.
Being able to spring an EV on you at the rental garage, when you're eager to get away, doesn't seem fair.
It would seem sensible to have an option where drivers can opt out of EVs during the booking process, if they don't feel comfortable driving one or don't think it's suitable for their trip.
Given how upset you were about this experience, I contacted Hertz to ask if it would reconsider reimbursing you.
It said the limited car choice you were offered on pick-up was because you required an automatic. But many tourists aren't able to drive manual cars or don't want to, and I agree with you that there should have been better options.
Hertz also clarified that the charging card you were given was not broken, but would only work with chargers operated by Shell, with which it has a partnership. This could have been explained better.
However, Hertz added that it recognised that you were disappointed with your experience during an important time.
Therefore, it has provided a refund of your hire fee and charging costs as a gesture of goodwill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Wake Up to Money Government Spending: Nukes, New Homes and Nuclear Power
The government's Spending Review has been published and Wake Up to Money has been combing through the detail. Will Bain goes through the highlights with Kevin Brundish, chief executive of the battery scale-up company Lionvolt; Emma Wall, head of platform investments at Hargreaves Lansdown; and Simon French, chief economist at Panmure Liberum. With technology, AI and nuclear energy getting boosts in investment in this spending round, we also hear from former boss of both Rolls Royce and semiconductor design firm ARM, Warren East. Plus, a new report from Deloitte suggests that the English football system is "under strain," even though Europe's 'Big Five' leagues are collectively breaking records. Deloitte Sports Business Group's head of insights, Jennifer Haskel, explains why.
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Five loopholes wealthy pensioners can use to claim winter fuel payments
Pensioners are being advised on how to tweak their annual income to ensure they receive the winter fuel payment. Those earning above £35,000 a year are frozen out of keeping the government-funded cash boost under new rules unveiled by Rachel Reeves. Financial planners told The Telegraph that those just above the £35,000 limit could make small behavioural changes which will give them a cash boost this winter. Alice Haine, of wealth manager Bestinvest, said the new threshold 'is effectively another tax cliff-edge'. 'Paying attention to what constitutes as income may become very important for those whose incomes hover around the £35,000 mark, as a minor adjustment could be the difference between receiving the payment or handing it back through tax.' Income from the state pension, private pensions, savings interest and dividend payments all constitute the annual pot which determines winter fuel eligibility. How the new rules work Following a barrage of criticism for swiftly axing the winter fuel payment for millions last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves about-turned on the policy this week. She said the decision to reinstate winter fuel payments for the majority of elderly people meant 'no pensioner on a lower income will miss out'. Under the new rules, those earning over £35,000 will receive the money, but it will be effectively clawed back via HMRC based on an individual's taxable income. If both occupants of a household have an income over £35,000, they will be required to return their full winter fuel payment via a tax return or PAYE. If one occupant has an income over £35,000 and the other less, half the money must be returned. In households where both pensioners earn less than the threshold, they will keep the full payment. Around 75pc of pensioners in England and Wales, approximately nine million people, will be entitled to the payment. Five ways to become eligible Sarah Coles, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said 'there are some sensible no regrets moves you can make'. Here are the five steps pensioners could consider. Reduce pension drawdown income Those who take their income from a pension drawdown could reduce their taxable earnings. For example, they could take a smaller income and top up their spending needs from tax-free cash instead. 'This could keep them just under the line, but they need to be sure this still aligns with their overall retirement plan,' said Jon Greer, of tax firm Quilter. By making use of this tactic, you wouldn't lose any income, as the money not taken as a monthly payment will remain in your pension pot for drawdown further down the line. Ms Haine said it would make most financial sense for pensioners to reduce their regular drawdown in February and March in the run-up to the end of the tax year. She added: 'This ties in with the break households receive on their council tax bill, which is typically charged across 10 months with a two-month pause in February and March.' 'Stopping drawdown in those months might ensure the loss of income coincides with the point when there are no council tax charges to pay.' Transfer assets to a lower-earning spouse In situations where one partner earns above the £35,000 threshold and their partner doesn't, couples could shift assets to the lower earner to ensure they can receive the full winter fuel allowance. While a pension cannot be transferred to someone else's name, other income-generating assets such as investment portfolios can. As an example, Tom and Sally are both retired and married. Tom receives £36,000 per year from a mix of the state pension, private pensions and dividends. Sally's income is around £20,000. If Tom transfers part of his portfolio that delivers £2,000 in annual dividends to Sally, this lowers his annual income to £34,000, while boosting hers by £2,000. Tom now falls below the threshold, and from a household wealth point of view, they are no different. Sally would also benefit from using her tax-free dividend allowance (up to £500) too, meaning they get the winter fuel payment and potentially less tax on the dividend income. Move savings into an Isa The tax havens, which can prove beneficial in a host of scenarios, can once again prove a shrewd tactic for those just missing out on the winter fuel payment. Ms Haine said: 'With savings interest, even if it falls within your personal savings allowance, it's considered taxable income, so the chunk you don't pay tax on will count towards the £35,000.' For instance, if a pensioner earns £2,000 a year in savings interest, that sum will count towards their annual income in the eyes of winter fuel eligibility. 'But if you move that money into a cash Isa, all the interest is tax-free, which takes it out of the calculation,' Ms Haine said. The same goes for taxable income from investments. Moving these into a stocks and shares Isa would reduce your taxable income and could also bring you under the threshold. Draw money from your Isa rather than pension For those already with hefty Isa savings, you could dip into the savings to reduce your reliance on your pension income. In doing so, you'd need to sacrifice growth in your Isa, so it might not be worth taking such action for the sake of earning the winter fuel payment. Ms Coles said: 'It's not going to work for everyone, but if you have Isa savings and investments alongside your pension, you can consider where you draw your income from. 'If you were planning to draw money from a pension that would take all your taxable income slightly over £35,000, for example, you could take some of it from an Isa and stay under the threshold – it would protect you from tax as well.' Donate to charity Alternatively, you could donate to charity to reduce your overall income, and slip below the £35,000 line. Ms Haine said: 'Charitable donation can be another way to reduce an individual's taxable income, as the charity takes the donation and then reclaims the tax paid by the giver from HMRC. 'For couples, making sure the charitable donations are made by the spouse or civil partner with the higher marginal tax rate has the potential to reduce taxable income below the £35,000 threshold. What to do next Wealth managers expect to see increased queries from middle-earning pensioners in the coming months over whether they could make minor changes to become eligible for the winter fuel allowance. When determining what to do next, make sure to weigh up the overall implications of any changes. Mr Greer said: 'We could see some very small behavioural changes among those with flexible income streams, particularly couples with a bit of financial wriggle room. 'But the fact remains that £200 or £300 isn't a big enough carrot for most to make major changes, especially when the rules risk becoming even more complex.'
