Expedia Customer Service Contacts

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to file a formal complaint regarding my experience with Fox Ontario Airport Rental Car during a rental from May 23 to May 27, 2025. The issues involve deceptive practices, unprofessional conduct, and failure to provide paid services.

On May 23, 2025, at 10:17 PM, I picked up the rental car, processed by Fox employee Christina. She attempted to upsell Fox’s insurance, despite my confirmation of coverage through Expedia. Christina stated that Fox does not accept Expedia’s insurance and warned in a threatening tone that I would be personally liable for any damage, suggesting I seek reimbursement from Expedia later. She further advised against purchasing Expedia’s insurance in the future, claiming my AAA insurance for personal vehicles would suffice. This undermines Fox’s partnership with Expedia and misleads customers. No Fox representative accompanied me to inspect the vehicle. My brother and I recorded a video at 10:24 PM under poor lighting conditions, as the parking lot was nearly dark, with no light at the designated parking space. The black car, freshly washed but not dried, had water droplets obscuring visibility, making a thorough inspection challenging.

On May 27, 2025, at around 1:45 PM, I returned the car, and Fox employee Jesse conducted the check-in. Unlike the pickup, Jesse meticulously inspected the vehicle, circling a tiny windshield chip (approximately 0.5 cm or less than 0.25 inches) with a marker, without noting the time or dimensions. He provided no evidence that the chip was new and demanded I pay for it, claiming I caused the damage. When I presented my video, he dismissed it as inconclusive and insisted I prove the chip was pre-existing. This reverses the burden of proof, as Fox should demonstrate the damage occurred during my rental. Instead, Jesse handed me a Fox Accident Report Form, stating, “I give you a chance now to write down the incident.” I wrote: “No accident occurred. Fox is engaging in deceptive practices. No Fox representative inspected the car with me at pickup. I am not responsible for the 0.25-inch windshield chip. Fox must prove it was not pre-existing.”

Additionally, Fox failed to provide airport transportation, despite it being included in the rental fee. At around 1:45 PM on May 27, a shuttle was parked in front of the office. By around 2PM, just right before Jesse completed the paperwork, the shuttle left, made a U-turn, and parked in an off-hours space, ignoring me as I waited for transport. Despite 4-5 Fox employees nearby, none informed me about shuttle availability. After waiting for about 10 minutes, I arranged a Lyft to the airport.

Upon reviewing my video footage from May 23, I identified the windshield chip at the 00:47:24 mark. Though difficult to discern due to poor lighting and water droplets, frame-by-frame analysis confirms its presence at pickup. Regardless, Fox bears the responsibility to prove the chip was not pre-existing, not me proving the chip was pre-existed.

Fox’s practices are dishonest. Both Christina and Jesse used coercive tactics, from pressuring me to purchase unnecessary insurance to baselessly attributing minor damage to me. Other reputable rental companies typically overlook chips smaller than a 25-cent coin (1 inch in diameter), yet Fox targeted a chip less than 0.25 inches. I request a full investigation into Fox’s operations, a refund for the unprovided shuttle service, and a dismissal of any charges related to the windshield chip unless Fox provides verifiable evidence it occurred during my rental.

Thank you for addressing this matter.

Sincerely,

Tien Phuong Ly