in this case
- A renter returns a car after a short 7-hour trip, only to receive a $450 cleaning fee a week later for a “heavy smoke smell” despite being a non-smoker.
- Avis provides evidence dated three days after the return, showing extra mileage and photos of dust rather than smoke damage.
- See how the customer used home security footage and executive contacts to prove his innocence and get the charge reversed.
Randall Lee returns a rental car to Avis after a 7-hour rental during which he only drove 57 miles — only to receive a $450 cleaning fee a week later for a “heavy smoke smell.” But hang on. Neither Lee nor his wife smoke. Can he get a refund?
Question
I rented a car from Avis for a quick 7-hour trip between California airports. I returned the vehicle clean, with no odors or damage.
A week later, I received a $450 cleaning fee for a “heavy smoke smell” — even though neither I nor my wife smoke.
The company’s “proof” included photos of dust and a form dated three days after my return, with a mileage reading one mile higher than at drop-off.
I fought the charge, sent time-stamped security footage of the car sitting unused in my driveway, and escalated to the executives, but Avis still charged my card. How can a company bill me for damage that didn’t happen? And how do I make this right? — Randall Lee, Los Gatos, Calif.
Your voice matters
Randall Lee received a $450 bill for smoking in a car he rented for only seven hours. He doesn’t smoke, and Avis didn’t check the car for three days. We want to hear your thoughts.
- Should rental companies be allowed to charge damage or cleaning fees based on inspections conducted days after the return?
- Have you ever been accused of smoking in a rental car or hotel room when you didn’t? How did you prove your innocence?
- Do you think these cleaning fees are legitimate, or are they a revenue stream for rental companies?
Answer
Avis should have inspected the vehicle immediately upon return and notified you of any issues right away. Anything could have happened in the three days between dropping off the car and inspection. Although California’s Civil Code Section 1936 doesn’t require rental companies to provide detailed invoices for post-return charges, it strictly regulates how charges must be calculated, disclosed, and justified. If you dispute a charge, the burden is on the rental company to prove its validity through itemized documentation.
You did almost everything right: You kept records, challenged the discrepancy, and contacted executives. For future rentals, take “before” and “after” photos of your car, including photos of the interior, odometer, fuel gauge, license plate, and VIN placard. Paper trails are critical, and yours made this case winnable. (Here’s our best guide to renting a car.)
Of course, there’s no way to document a strong smoke smell with an image. And there’s no way to quickly and objectively verify that you didn’t smoke in the car or that one of your passengers didn’t smoke. But in my experience resolving hundreds of rental car smoke cases, smokers are usually pretty honest about their habits. You were a careful renter, and it looks like you were being charged for something you didn’t do. There were also the time and mileage discrepancies, which were problematic.
My husband and I travel a lot and we used to rent cars nearly every time we traveled. After reading so many accounts of how rental car companies are ripping off consumers with exorbitant fake or unsubstantiated after-the-fact charges, we have made car rental an exception rather than a given.
When we do rent, we follow all of Christopher’s guidelines — as time-consuming and inconvenient as they can be — (videos of everything including undercarriage, waiting for agent instead of just dropping-off, making notations on documents, reading all the fine print, etc.) We use public transportation, taxis, car services, etc. instead of car rentals. Thus, we went from regular renters to seldom renters. Is that what the car rental companies are going for????
Read more insightful reader feedback. See all comments.
I see you also appealed this case to an Avis executive (I list the names, numbers and email addresses of the Avis executives on my consumer advocacy site, elliott.org). A manager should have reviewed your case and fixed it.
My advice? Document every scratch, smell, and mile on your rental car. If you catch even a whiff of impropriety, say something immediately. Don’t wait for the car rental company to write it up, because at a time when car rental companies are monetizing everything, it probably will.
I thought Avis should take another look at this claim, given the inconsistencies in its files and the fact that you don’t smoke. Avis agreed to reopen your case, and it refunded the $450 it had charged for your car.
How to fight a bogus smoking fee
Don’t let a rental car company burn you with a fake charge
Before you drive away: sniff test
At return: prove your innocence
If you are charged: fight back
Executive Contacts
Stuck in a loop with Avis over a billing error or loss of use? Take your complaint straight to the top. Here are the executives who can help you resolve your issue.
What you’re saying
Readers are cynical about rental car damage claims, viewing them as a “profit center” for agencies. The Brown Crusader argues companies “weaponize uncertainty,” while others share strict protocols for documenting every scratch.
-
It’s a “shakedown”
Dangerous Ideas calls vague damage claims a “straight-up shakedown” used to generate revenue. 737MAXPilot explains why: third-party claims administrators have a “financial incentive to collect” and operate on a “guilty until proven innocent” model.
-
Video is non-negotiable
Miles Will Save Us All says leaving the lot without a comprehensive video is a “cardinal sin.” Lobo agrees, detailing a forensic-level inspection process, including noting every dent on the rental agreement before driving away.
-
Home security footage to the rescue
Little Lion praises the renter for gathering “timestamps, mileage records, and home security footage,” noting that this level of proof is what saved him. Laura adds that when the “evidence” is dated days later, it becomes “hard to trust the process.”


