Dear Nicole,
Thank you for your feedback. While we generally welcome honest reviews — even critical ones — we must clearly and firmly respond to the claims you have made, as they are factually incorrect and misleading.
On June 11, you selected the vehicle, confirmed in writing that you had read the Terms and Conditions (which you have received twice). Although a home delivery is part of our service, you refused to provide a local address and gave us a foreign one instead.
On June 12, we suggested three pickup points in Alicante, which you later changed to an airport pickup. On June 14, our staff waited over an hour at the meeting point. We helped carry your luggage while you managed your dog — even though the contract clearly prohibits animals in our vehicles. We chose not to object out of goodwill.
On June 16, you reported a rattling sound but said it didn’t seem serious. We reassured you based on our experience, yet immediately began searching for a repair appointment based on your preferred days. You also complained that our prices were too high and mentioned other providers.
On June 18, we scheduled an appointment at a partner workshop. When the garage confirmed availability, we booked June 23 and informed you. You later asked to move it to June 25, which we accepted. But then you began questioning our previous statements, refused to drive the 90 minutes, etc.
To accommodate you, we offered a choice: continue using the car (as the issue wasn’t serious) or cancel early as of July 31 — an offer we made voluntarily. You didn’t respond clearly but kept referring to the rattling and the rental fee.
On June 21, you confirmed the repair appointment but gave no answer regarding the contract. We interpreted this as your decision to continue. We also confirmed you’d get a replacement vehicle if needed.
On June 22, you mentioned ending the contract again and questioned our credibility. We repeated your options and asked for a clear decision. You didn’t provide one.
On June 23, after more unclear and confrontational messages, we told you the car could be returned anytime. You again misunderstood our offer, believing the repair was tied to a forced 9-month term. It wasn’t. You had signed a 9-month contract — we were offering you a way out, not an ultimatum.
On June 24, we asked again for a decision. You then admitted transporting the dog was a mistake and asked for another week.
On June 25, you arrived at the garage — with your dog in the car again. Initially, no sound could be reproduced. We offered to fix it on the spot and asked you to wait at a nearby mall. You declined.
On June 30, you denied receiving a WhatsApp we sent to the same number we had used previously. Just because you didn’t see it does not mean it wasn’t sent.
By this point, it was clear you had been unhappy from the beginning and were looking for reasons to exit the contract on your own terms — while ignoring the ones you agreed to in writing.
On July 7, after a week without response, we notified you by email that the part had arrived and asked you to pick a date. You then told us the issue had resolved itself and you do not want the repair.
On July 10, we finally received your official request to terminate the contract. Again, we made an exception and converted your long-term contract into a short-term one, waiving all future fees — saving you over thousand of euros.
To be clear:
- You were not forced into a longer contract. You signed it willingly.
- No repair was denied. You declined to return when the part arrived.
- No fees were invented. We waived costs despite repeated contract breaches (pet, unclear communication, potential unauthorized driver).
Your accusations and this review are not based on facts. They appear to be a retaliation against our refusal to allow you to continue violating the agreement.
We’re confident that anyone reading this will see the full picture.
Sincerely,
Attila Hatlaczki
