I always have the rental car company inspect my car…if there’s something wrong they really need to state so then. If she didn’t damage the tire then I’m a rather surprised that she’d settle. The only thing I can figure is that perhaps when they showed her the documentation that she remembered where and when it could have taken place or what happened. (Perhaps they ran over a curb or maybe hit a road hazard something and didn’t think about it at the time because the car seemed to still be fine). Thus the reduced fee would have been “generous”.

Tires are often made fairly well these days…it IS entirely possible to drive for a while on a damaged (not flat or blown) tire and not realize it.

Too bad the flicker image didn’t show the part number of the tire. It looks like Chinese adhesive not holding the tread to the tire.

Here lies open trade
Between America and China
Killed by the 35% Tire Tariff
And cost is higher from Korea

RIP
Nobody was Faster

@LeeAnne, appreciate your careful reading of this story and thoughtful comments.

To our surprise, we later found a $250 charge on our American Express for a damaged tire. But that didn’t make sense. If it had been damaged we wouldn’t have been able to drive the car back to the airport.

She isn’t saying that the tire wasn’t damage. She’s saying that if there was damage, it wasn’t severe.

You really have to read this letter carefully. She invited the Hertz representative to inspect the car. Why would anyone ask the car rental company to inspect the car, under those circumstances?

Then she quickly agreed to split the difference with Hertz. Again, I believe this was a paperwork problem. I think the OP probably ran over something. At any rate, the resolution was presented to me, and she agreed to pay the reduced fee. So Hertz showed her something that satisfied her documentation needs.

“To our surprise, we later found a $250 charge on our American Express for a damaged tire. But that didn’t make sense. If it had been damaged we wouldn’t have been able to drive the car back to the airport.”

And then she disputed the charge.

I don’t see any way to interpret this other than she didn’t believe she’d damaged the tire. But after reading your clarifications, it appears she did, in fact, damage the tire…and Hertz was able to provide adequate documentation to prove this.

So, that being the case, good job in getting Hertz to bring the charge for the damage back down to a reasonable level.

That being said, you, like the rest of us, occasionally make mistakes. So if I call attention to something that I believe is in error, please don’t take it personally.

On this story, the bottom line is simply this: DID she damage the tire, or didn’t she? It’s a black and white issue. If she did, she should pay for the damage. If she didn’t, she shouldn’t. Simple as that.

If Hertz provided evidence that she did, then she should pay. If she has any question in her mind that she might have caused it, and Hertz provided documentation that she did, then she should pay.

But your article seems to indicate that she is dead certain she didn’t. And your article does not mention that Hertz provided any evidence whatsoever that she did. Your statement at the end that they furnished “additional documents” gives us no indication what those documents are, and it definitely does not give the impression that these documents are any kind of evidence that she did the damage.

Rental car damage scams are legendary. Just read the comments thread in any of the several articles you’ve written on this topic. Or do an internet search. They happen frequently, and need to be stopped. If this was not one of those scams, then it’s really just a standard customer-damaged-car-and-doesn’t-want-to-pay-for-it story. If that’s the case, then you definitely helped her by bringing the cost of the damage down to a more reasonable level (I would agree that $250 for a tire is a rip-off!).