“More often than not they don't do the repairs at all but the rental company will use the quote to charge the customer. “They will get all final repairs done prior to selling the car, which will ‘hopefully’ still be charged to another customer.” Fairfax’s source, who worked for a franchised rental firm in 2012 and 2013, was responding to our December investigation into the plight of half a dozen customers who claimed Europcar had charged or was trying to charge them for damage they did not commit. “They all do it and it is very easy to catch them out,” alleges the whistlebower, whose former employer, it should be noted, was not the also-franchised Europcar. Europcar has denied to Fairfax that it charges multiple customers for repairs or that it levies over-the-odds fees for repairs.

In a statement in December, the company said: "Minor repairs may not be repaired until a later time, but if following repair the actual cost is below the original assessed estimate, the difference is refunded to the customer." However, since publication of Fairfax’s original story, Europcar has dropped altogether action against two of the featured customers. It has waived a $990 bill issued to Dr Peter and Tammy Keller, and called off debt collectors, after they hired an “extensively damaged” van. And it has reversed a $302 charge to Mark Fermor for an aerial it claimed went missing during a one-day rental. Fermor said: “Wow, I just received a full refund with a statement that ‘there were some issues in the case’. I hate it when companies feel they can simply get away with things. Thank you for your hard work.” But also subsequent to our previous report, four further people have approached Fairfax alleging erroneous damages claims by Europcar. It has already dropped one action, as a “gesture of goodwill”, after the customer found her copy of the misplaced rental contract stating pre-existing damage. She had threatened to go to the Department of Fair Trading and the ACCC. However, Emma and Martin Brookes, of Doreen, Victoria, are still fighting after hiring a car for five days while their own car was getting repaired, in June last year. The additional repair cost for scuff marks on the hire car front bumper was $425.

The alleged damage to the car hired by Emma and Martin Brookes. The Brookes deny causing any damage. “I drove it twice; it was parked on a residential driveway. My husband drove it twice and parked it in a private work car park,” Emma Brookes said. Martin Brookes adds: “In the 40 minutes from dropping the car off, from not being interested in checking the car’s returned condition, they managed to take the car for a wash, call me (while still driving home!) to advise of the alleged damage, and then complete and email their 'incident' report form.” The Brookes convinced their bank to do a ‘chargeback’ for the disputed money but are now being pursued by debt collection firm Dun & Bradstreet. Emma and Martin Brookes, of Doreen, Victoria, are fighting a $425 charge for alleged damage to a hire car.

Their circumstances echo Fiona and Peter Townend’s, who hired a car from Hobart Airport April last year. They bought per-day damage liability insurance when they made the booking, but the excess was $500 and they were billed $477 for a small dent to the left front door. “We returned the car just as the attendant got into another car and drove away. We waited but in the end had to go and get our plane,” Fiona Townend said. “I remember Peter saying it made him nervous.” "Some people might think 'It's good that the damage was under $500’ but we're going ‘it's not good because there was no damage’." The photographic ‘evidence’ Europcar supplied and Fairfax has sighted, was blurry and inconclusive. But Townend, a lawyer, has taken the dispute to NSW Fair Trading, which said her only recourse was a tribunal.

“The problem with taking our claim to a tribunal is that it would probably have to be in Victoria where Europcar are based or Tasmania where the hire took place. This adds to the expense of fighting them.” The fourth new reader to contact Fairfax reported an almost identical experience in Ireland, where the money was never recovered. Indeed, Europcar has attracted significant negative publicity for its practices overseas. The UK consumer group Which? recently conducted a survey that found repair costs there were inflated two thirds of the time, and the Serious Fraud Office is understood to be looking into the matter. This follows allegations of a “secret system of rebates” in the UK, whereby car repairers would charge excessively and channel money back to Europcar in a practice reminiscent of what the Australian whistleblower alleges. Europcar UK has reportedly instructed any branches that engage in such activity to stop and reserved 40million pounds for compensation claims. There have even been accusations the company pays bonuses to employees who spot ‘damage’.

In Australia, a poor industry reputation and ACCC fines against Europcar and Hertz in recent years have seen the launch just this month of a new Car Rental Code of Practice, agreed to by all large rental firms. The most recent allegation Fairfax has reported is from November. “We’ve committed to this as a standard by which our members will abide and it addresses the types of issues you are talking about,” says Helen Gordon, chief executive officer of the Australian Finance Industry Association. There are provisions in the code that are supposed to stop companies charging a renter’s credit card without specific authorisation and acknowledgement of damage, and also a new industry-funded conciliation scheme. Europcar says it has been “instrumental” in creating the code. Fairfax’s source says: “I doubt things have really changed [in the industry as a whole] as the way companies operated is what made them money.”

“I lasted less than a year as I couldn't be part of it anymore.” If you have unauthorized money debited by a hire car company, contact nicolehelps@fairfaxmedia.com.au. What Fairfax Media’s investigation reveals fake repair claims have in common Of the 10 cases now investigated by Fairfax, there are some distinct similarities: 1. No attendant was available to inspect the vehicle on return and sign to confirm ‘no damage’. Half of the cars were hired from airports and the alleged victims reported not being able to “stick around” to find someone, because they had to rush to catch planes.