Unbelievable

[GP51 Weidner's Bitch]

Originally Posted by Unregistered123

Admin,

You are starting a dangerous precedent here...this guy could very well be making a valid complaint, but at the end of the day you have no real way of knowing if he committed this damage or not.

I think you have enough evidence on this board from people who admittedly hate the company, but at the same time acknowledge that some of the customers we deal with are trash, and will lie, cheat, and steal at the first opportunity.

My point is, what is going to stop you from not helping those people who come to you or this board for help, but are guilty of the damage, owed charges, etc? You really have no way of knowing, it is the old chiche of one word versus another. This website and the avenue you are taking is going to encourage these type of people to try and weasel their way out of their personal responsibilities. And Enterprise or the employees involved are going to fold because they don't want the personal publicity regardless if they know they are correct. Therefore, all you will be doing is encouraging customer's unethical behavior, but maybe that is what this site has come to now...but I hope not....

Excellent post. Unfortunately, the majority of problems of this sort end up being one word vs. the other. That's why I put in my post "Stand tall - you won't have to pay for the damage if what you are saying here is complete truth." Again, if they are being 100% truthful, they should have nothing to worry about. If, however, they did commit the damage and are now trying to weasel their way out of it, they should be ashamed of themselves.

[playerchick]

Unless you were confronted with the damages when you were PHYSICALLY in their office to return the vehicle, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can be charged for. Once you step out of that office, it is a done deal.
Find out when was the DX typed and how many times was the car rented after you. They probably found the damage few rentals after you, and had no idea who to stick with it. So they randomly chose a closed contract.

Good luck

Originally Posted by playerchick

Unless you were confronted with the damages when you were PHYSICALLY in their office to return the vehicle, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can be charged for. Once you step out of that office, it is a done deal.
Find out when was the DX typed and how many times was the car rented after you. They probably found the damage few rentals after you, and had no idea who to stick with it. So they randomly chose a closed contract.

Good luck

Absolutely right. When I was at ERAC, the most consistent message we received from LC was "Proper underwriting, proper check-ins and check-outs." They always said once the customer leaves the office, there is absolutely nothing we can do if they fight our claim for damages.

So all you need to do is keep asking questions about how they know it was you who caused the damage, and eventually they'll be forced to admit they don't know it was you for sure, and you're home free.

[Captain Fucking Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by FailingEnterpriseAdmin

OK, I just created a new thread "Attention Tim White..." Let's make that the first step. Please contact Tim yourself and tell him he's now featured on FailingEnterprise.com.

Agree with unregistered123... If you publish the dx, that is enough for any employee to track who is responsible for writing it. If you post the document number of the invoice, same thing. Posting the employee's name is not fair assuming they were just doing their job.

The customer isn't posting his/her name even though any employee can also look that up with the same information you provided (dx/document number.) I think you're encouraging people to push ERAC to waive things solely on the basis of getting their name taken off of your postings on this site. That doesn't seem fair to me.

You tout fairness, but this smacks of vested interest in promoting your site Admin.

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

Originally Posted by Jesus Fucking Christ, Bitch

Agree with unregistered123... If you publish the dx, that is enough for any employee to track who is responsible for writing it. If you post the document number of the invoice, same thing. Posting the employee's name is not fair assuming they were just doing their job.

The customer isn't posting his/her name even though any employee can also look that up with the same information you provided (dx/document number.) I think you're encouraging people to push ERAC to waive things solely on the basis of getting their name taken off of your postings on this site. That doesn't seem fair to me.

You tout fairness, but this smacks of vested interest in promoting your site Admin.

Given all that we know about Enterprise, and given the customer's story as it was presented to us, it looks to me like there's a good chance there's something not right with this damage claim (just for starters, the damage was "discovered" 16 days after he returned the car, and then they didn't contact him for another 60 days after that - are you sure you want to stand by Enterprise on this one?).

Enterprise dropped a bomb on this customer by mailing him a letter demanding $2,200 and threatening to both ruin his credit report and drag him into court if he doesn't pay. When you do that, you have an especially strong responsibility to get your facts straight. Tim White shouldn't have any qualms about explaining what he's done and why, and he can do so here, for free, at any time.

If Enterprise isn't doing anything shady here, then why should they care if it gets described on a web site that they won't even acknowledge exists?

I don't want customers scamming Enterprise out of damage that they should pay for, but given the facts in this case, which version of the story is more likely, and are you really standing behind Enterprise's behavior so far?

[Captain Fucking Bleedgreen]

Originally Posted by FailingEnterpriseAdmin

Given all that we know about Enterprise, and given the customer's story as it was presented to us, it looks to me like there's a good chance there's something not right with this damage claim (just for starters, the damage was "discovered" 16 days after he returned the car, and then they didn't contact him for another 60 days after that - are you sure you want to stand by Enterprise on this one?).

Enterprise dropped a bomb on this customer by mailing him a letter demanding $2,200 and threatening to both ruin his credit report and drag him into court if he doesn't pay. When you do that, you have an especially strong responsibility to get your facts straight. Tim White shouldn't have any qualms about explaining what he's done and why, and he can do so here, for free, at any time.

If Enterprise isn't doing anything shady here, then why should they care if it gets described on a web site that they won't even acknowledge exists?

I don't want customers scamming Enterprise out of damage that they should pay for, but given the facts in this case, which version of the story is more likely, and are you really standing behind Enterprise's behavior so far?

I didn't read this specific damage claim story, so...no I'm not backing ERAC in this specific instance.

I was more interested in your thoughts/rationalization of posting employee's names in general.

I would care if my name were posted here for allegedly doing something wrong even if I fully believed I didn't do anything wrong. Just because I wouldn't want the pressure from within the company or the phone calls, "Did you know you're on FE?"

On your point about ERAC not acknowledging this site's existence... My point wasn't about Enterprise the company, it was regarding posting a specific employee's name who may or may not have been just trying to do his/her job.

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

Originally Posted by Jesus Fucking Christ, Bitch

I didn't read this specific damage claim story, so...no I'm not backing ERAC in this specific instance.

I was more interested in your thoughts/rationalization of posting employee's names in general.

I would care if my name were posted here for allegedly doing something wrong even if I fully believed I didn't do anything wrong. Just because I wouldn't want the pressure from within the company or the phone calls, "Did you know you're on FE?"

On your point about ERAC not acknowledging this site's existence... My point wasn't about talking about the Enterprise, it was about talking about posting a specific employee's name who may or may not have been just trying to do his/her job.

Yes, I think your argument does have some merit. Given that neither you nor I are posting our names here, this does give me pause.

But still, as one of his official acts as an Enterprise employee, he sends out these threatening, dunning letters over his signature. If the customer were to go to "60 Minutes" with the letter, they'd certainly mention the employee's name and then try to talk with him. I think that if you're dealing with the public, especially in such a threatening manner, there's no reason you should expect to preserve your privacy.

If this employee has done his homework and got his facts straight, then he should have nothing to fear from the customer making this letter public and he should expect his boss to back him up.

However, if this claim is a scam, as many people feel it is, then shining a light on him might cause him to reconsider.

Sure, it sucks to have your intentions questioned in public, but when you mail letters to people saying "Give me $2,200, or else!", in a civilized society you'd better be ready to explain yourself. And if you're doing your job properly, why would you care if you're mentioned on Failing Enterprise? People will talk.

[Captain Fucking Bleedgreen]

[quote=FailingEnterpriseAdmin]Yes, I think your argument does have some merit. Given that neither you nor I are posting our names here, this does give me pause.[quote] I knew the "but" was coming... =-)

But still, as one of his official acts as an Enterprise employee, he sends out these threatening, dunning letters over his signature. If the customer were to go to "60 Minutes" with the letter, they'd certainly mention the employee's name and then try to talk with him. I think that if you're dealing with the public, especially in such a threatening manner, there's no reason you should expect to preserve your privacy.

If this employee has done his homework and got his facts straight, then he should have nothing to fear from the customer making this letter public and he should expect his boss to back him up.

I don't work in loss control, but I'm operating under the assumption that they have form letters for this type of thing given the volume of business and percentage of damaged cars we likely have on any given day.

I'm thinking this was a, slightly massaged for the situation, form letter. He wasn't dealing with the public at large, he was dealing with one customer accused of damaging a rental car.

I completely agree with the customer posting the DX and branch information if he felt abused/misguided, but posting an employee's name solely because he sent the letter is a sticking point for me...but that's just me.

You're right about one thing, posting an employee's name will likely lead to quicker response... It's cornering ERAC employees instead of fairly disseminating information.

Sure, it sucks to have your intentions questioned in public, but when you mail letters to people saying "Give me $2,200, or else!", in a civilized society you'd better be ready to explain yourself. And if you're doing your job properly, why would you care if you're mentioned on Failing Enterprise? People will talk.

Yes, I would. I'm not a public official and so expect some semblance of privacy. On unethical acts (i.e, letter to Weidner,) I understand posting specific names to call people out, but on a DX, it's someone in loss control doing his job by sending out a demand letter. But that's just my opinion. No one else seems to mind here.

[FailingEnterpriseAdmin]

[quote=Jesus Fucking Christ, Bitch][quote=FailingEnterpriseAdmin]Yes, I think your argument does have some merit. Given that neither you nor I are posting our names here, this does give me pause.

I knew the "but" was coming... =-)

I don't work in loss control, but I'm operating under the assumption that they have form letters for this type of thing given the volume of business and percentage of damaged cars we likely have on any given day.

I'm thinking this was a, slightly massaged for the situation, form letter. He wasn't dealing with the public at large, he was dealing with one customer accused of damaging a rental car.

I completely agree with the customer posting the DX and branch information if he felt abused/misguided, but posting an employee's name solely because he sent the letter is a sticking point for me...but that's just me.

You're right about one thing, posting an employee's name will likely lead to quicker response... It's cornering ERAC employees instead of fairly disseminating information.




Yes, I would. I'm not a public official and so expect some semblance of privacy. On unethical acts (i.e, letter to Weidner,) I understand posting specific names to call people out, but on a DX, it's someone in loss control doing his job by sending out a demand letter. But that's just my opinion. No one else seems to mind here.

I suppose it could be worse; lots of companies send out letters like this with a signature from a fake made-up person.

Getting a letter like this for most consumers is a nightmare. Even if you're completely innocent, you're forced to respond or else your credit is ruined and you can get dragged into court. It could easily cost you hours and hours of hassle and then a lot of money for an attorney. And Enterprise is probably counting on this and hoping the customer just folds up and pays the money to make this go away. Frankly, it's starting to feel like extortion.

I feel that if you're going to drop this on someone, particularly when they are forced to respond and cannot ignore you, you have a special responsibility to really get it right, but the story we're seeing so far hints that Enterprise may be playing fast and loose here and hoping for a scared customer to just write a check.

I also don't buy any argument about that employee just doing their job, or only sending out a form letter, as if that someone reduces their responsibility. You signed it, you stand by it. Surely Enterprise wouldn't let a customer dodge responsibilities on a rental contract because the customer argues "It's a just a standard boring contract; nobody actually reads those things!"

I've also got no problem with the customer making truthful statements about the contents of the letter. It was addressed to him, it's in his possession, he can post of copy of it here if he wants.

If Tim White is doing his job properly and has the documentation and logic to back up his claims in that letter, then he should have no qualms about his customer making truthful statements about this letter in public.

On the other hand, if Tim White has a $2,200 OX hot potato on his hands that he's looking to convert to a DX to improve his numbers, and he's desperately looking for a wealthy customer that he can frighten or harrass into paying, 76 days after returning the car, then the Failing Enterprise community is going to have some awkward questions for him.

So, Tim White, what say you?

[slave no more]

Admin,

I am going with JFCB on this one. Tim White is just doing his job and Tim white is getting his facts from the branch themselves. Again what you are doing is assuming that because you are reading all of these stories that you know what it is like to work at ERAC.

Tim's job is to see the information given to him by the branch and call on the customer to get his side of the story and then process the claim as best as he can (just like any other claims processor). Do you know the customer? Have you checked his phone records to see if he has responded to phone calls from Tim White? Did the customer actually give his proper phone number or did he bullshit it like a good deal of ERAC customers do because they think ERAC sells phone numbers which they don't? Maybe this guy did wreck the car and is trying to blame someone else. I have seen people pull off of the lot and hit a car on the way out and pretend like nothing happened. We would tag the contract and when they came back we would bring it to their attention. We would have left messages with them and everything and they would still deny it. When it comes to taking out coverages a lot of customers are quick to say "NO" but when it comes to taking responsibility for damage they are even quicker to say "No" again. The only person who know the truth is the renter and Tim is going to have to decide who to believe. The branch or the renter. Funny thing is that the employee who rented the car was named, the loss control employee was named but I see no name for the supposed "victim" in this (unless it is guy mor). Tim White's job is based off of both sides telling the truth and in most cases that does not always happen. You pay your insurance company to resolve these types of issues so use them. Not a bunch of pissed of EX employees and bitter ex customers to do your dirty work. Try getting your own hands dirty DOUCHEBAG (I did that for you admin).