Hello, I have attempted contact with Vinted over a banned account several times

specifically requesting human review and they have not provided it. Instead

sending me automated messages that they will not overturn account ban. My

account was banned due to attempt to sell a "weapon" when the item was

arrows used for archery and posted under the category of sporting

accessories. When notified I accepted that the item could not be listed and

did not dispute that. But I am not understanding the full account ban when

this was a first time misunderstanding on an otherwise compliant account. I

want a human to review my issue. There are SEVERAL other still active

seller accounts with the same type of item AND they are listed as hunting

arrows. Why is my account being singled out?? I have no interest or

intentions of attempting to post this item again, and feel the consequences

far exceed the action on my part. This company does not offer any way at

all to reach a live person and even in formally requesting a live person

you only receive automated responses. I do have a paper trail of all

communication and need assistance with getting my account reinstated.

What's your desired resolution? I would like to have a human contact me

about the account ban and have my account reinstated and I would like

Vinted to review these other sellers that have successfully posted arrows

which are clearly used for hunting or similar purposes, as I feel I was

singled out due to a single incident which was already resolved in the fact

that my item NEVER posted, nor was I pushing to have it listed.

SUMMARY
On 09/01/2026, Take 5 Shop #0028 (2401 S. Carrollton Ave., New Orleans) inflated all four tires on my 2018 Subaru Forester to about 54 PSI during an oil change (Invoice #443169). The tires' sidewall maximum is 51 PSI; the recommended pressure is 29 front/30 rear. My tire pressure light came on shortly after I left, and I have video showing it on 14 miles after the service. One tire developed a sidewall bulge. On 09/22, Firestone inspected the car and found all four tires need replacement (quote: $493.44 plus tax). The car is AWD, so all four must be replaced together.

Take 5 opened Claim #709710. I have called customer service five times, and each time I was told District Manager Brandon Lange would call me. He never has. I emailed him and customer service on 09/22 with no reply. I filed a BBB complaint (#25305886) on 09/22; Take 5's only response was that the claim had been escalated.

On my 09/25 call, a rep read me a note on my claim, attributed to the District Manager, saying the shop manager showed me footage of my tires being checked and advised me to go to a tire shop. That never happened. I have not been back to the shop since 09/01, and no manager has ever contacted me.

I am asking Take 5 to reimburse four tires ($542.78 with tax) and refund the $123.73 oil change. Through the BBB, I have asked for a written decision by 10/09/2026.

---

1. MY EMAIL TO BRANDON LANGE AND TAKE 5 CUSTOMER SERVICE
Sent 09/22/2026, 2:14 PM, to [email protected] and [email protected]. No reply.
Subject: Service Issue - 09/01 - have tried to contact four times

Brandon, 

I have reached out to Take 5 four times since early September for a service issue at one of the locations you manage -  #0028. I was told that I would get a call back from the district manager for the next steps - Brandon Lange - but I have not gotten a call back. 

I received an oil change and the technician topped off fluids and filled my tires. Leaving the location, my car tire alert started blinking and the car was driving unsteadily. I checked the tire pressure and all four of my tires were filled by the technician to around 54 PSI. The MAXIMUM PSI on my tires is 51 with recommended pressure at 29 and 30 for front and back. One of my tires had a visible egg that developed as a result of the technician's mistake, but all four tires were severely mishandled making my car unsafe to drive. Furthermore, my car requires that all four tires are replaced at the same time due to AWD. I have been waiting for a call back since early September, and have waited on hold with Take 5 Corporate for 40 minutes each time I called. On the call today, the customer service rep said she would escalate the request. 

CLAIM NUMBER: 709710

Please give me a call back and let me know what the next steps are. 

Sasha Solodukhina

4342490659

---

2. MY BBB COMPLAINT (#25305886), 09/22/2026

Take 5 Shop #0028, located at 2401 South Carrollton Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118, overinflated my AWD tires to 54 PSI, creating a safety hazard and causing sidewall bubbling. Claim #709710 was opened, but I have been ghosted for 3 weeks despite 4 follow-up calls. I am demanding the corporate office authorize the replacement of all 4 tires immediately due to AWD drivetrain requirements.

---

3. TAKE 5'S RESPONSE VIA BBB, 09/24/2026

Hello, Apologies for the delayed response to your BBB complaint. Thank you for providing this additional information pertaining to your claim. We have added this information to your claim notes and put an escalation on your claim. We have asked that the District Manager and team provide us with an update as soon as possible.

---

4. MY RESPONSE TO THE BBB REJECTING TAKE 5'S REPLY, 09/25/2026

I am rejecting this response because:

I was repeatedly promised a call back from District Manager Brandon Lange and never received one. An escalation with no timeline or decision is not a response.

On 09/01/26 at Shop #0028 (Invoice 443169), the technician inflated all four tires to about 54 PSI. Sidewall max: 51 PSI; recommended: 29/30. My tire pressure light came on shortly after I left; my video shows it on at 68,123 mi, 14 miles after the service (previously submitted). One tire developed a sidewall bulge. My AWD Subaru requires all four tires be replaced together. On 09/22, Firestone (WO #195595) found all four tires need replacement and quoted $493.44 plus tax.

I called Take 5 on 09/04, 09/16, 09/18, 09/22 and 09/25 and emailed Mr. Lange and customer service on 09/22. No decision.

DISPUTED CLAIM NOTE
On 09/25, a rep read me a District Manager note stating the shop manager showed me footage of my tires being checked and advised me to go to a tire shop. This did not happen. I have not returned to the shop since 09/01, no one showed me footage, and no District Manager has contacted me. I dispute this note, ask who entered it and when, and request Take 5 preserve all Shop #0028 camera footage from 09/01/26.

The rep confirmed receipt of my 09/22 email and could not transfer me to a District Manager; I left a voicemail for supervisor Brian Kim.

I request:
1. $542.78 for four tires ($493.44 + 10% tax)
2. Refund of the $123.73 oil change
3. A written decision by 10/09/26

If unresolved by then, I will replace the tires and pursue a Louisiana Attorney General complaint and small claims filing.

Note: Firestone's paperwork lists mileage as 82,912, a data-entry error. Actual mileage was about 68,291, consistent with Take 5's invoice and my 09/24 odometer photo (68,299). Firestone advisor Dorian can confirm.

---

5. PHONE CALLS TO TAKE 5 CUSTOMER SERVICE
- 09/04, 22 min (980-365-5166): told to wait for a District Manager call back
- 09/16, 29 min (980-365-5166): same
- 09/18, 30 min (704-377-8855): same
- 09/22, 47 min (704-377-8855): rep escalated the claim
- 09/25, 26 min (704-377-8855): rep read me the disputed District Manager note, confirmed my 09/22 email was received, and could not transfer me to a District Manager; I left a voicemail for customer service supervisor Brian Kim

6. TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT FROM 09/25 CALL (auto-transcript; full recording available)

Me: Can you read me back what's in the claim notes for 709710?

Rep: Do you mean when the claim was first submitted in?

Me: Just everything that you have down from every phone call that I've made to you.

Rep: Um. Hm. So just to sum it up, I see where they have notated down in regards to the tires where you had received the alert, and then of course the information for the PSI on the tire pressure, and then of course I see where the escalation has been put in, and then just notes from the shop - excuse me, the district manager.

Me: What is the note from the district manager?

Rep: So it would say that the shop manager had showed you the footage showing that all 4 of the tires were checked during the service and had advised to you for the vehicle to be taken to a tire shop for the tire issue.

Me: That never happened.

Rep: I do see that. Um.. Let me scroll down... Ok. And then I see -- 

Me: I have not been back to the shop since the oil change. No one showed me any footage. No one advised me to go to a tire shop, and the district manager did not call me, so that is completely fabricated information. 

I also have the Take 5 invoice, photos and video of the warning light and tire, the Firestone inspection report and quote, call log screenshots, and an 18 minute 37 second recording of part of the 09/25 call, if any of those would help.

I would like to get my tires replaced but am hesitant to do so prior to being contacted by the DM due to the receipt stating that all service must be approved. However, the rep on my last phone call (09/25) said that I could submit receipts to their email address if I did do the service. I am not sure if this advice conflicts with the receipt and am wondering what is a reasonable course of action as it's now been a month and I have not felt comfortable driving my car normally with damaged tires.

Thank you for considering my case.

I booked a Hilo, Hi vacation rental (“My Hilo Home”) through VRBO for
08/07/2026-08/19/2026. After our stay, I was reviewing receipts and
realized I had been charged $854.38 more than I agreed to pay through VRBO.
In my research of the discrepancy, I found that Salt Water Vacations'
billing system charged a $275.00 daily rate instead of $206.25 daily rate
as I was supposed to pay (daily rate discount based on the extended stay).
There was also a small discrepancy in the credit card service fee being
$99.71 on VRBO's booking fee details vs $129.09 that Salt Water Vacations
charged. There weren't any discrepancies in the damage waiver, cleaning
fee, or taxes. Also, what I was charged by VRBO for their service fees and
share of the taxes matched what the billing details stated when I booked
the vacation rental. No issues there. The only issue is with Salt Water
Vacations' charges.

I first contacted VRBO. They told me my reservation was created under the IPM rate plan, which means that the pricing, fees, and any other discounts are managed directly by the property manager through their integrated system. Any changes to the nightly rate, fees or promotions are updated on the property manager's side. VRBO told me to contact the host/property manager, Salt Water Vacations (Hawaii).

I have provided Salt Water Vacations with copies of my billing details from
VRBO, the final receipt from Salt Water Vacations from 07/08/2026 that
shows the differences in the daily rate and the credit card service fee,
and copies of my credit card statement showing the two payments to their
business. After some back and forth with them, via email, they have
refunded me $397.03 (cleaning fee and damage protection fee plus relevant
tax) “to apologize for the issues you reported”. Oddly, they refunded two
of the fees not in question… I am still owed $457.35.

Before I discovered this discrepancy, Salt Water Vacations had refunded me
$1008.76 as compensation for the poor condition of the home (ridden with mold/mildew, etc.) When they provided this refund, on 08/18/2026, they wrote, “We are so sorry that you were here for the big storm [Hurricane Lala] and that Hilo Home did not meet all of your expectations.” I had very politely brought some things to their attention during our stay. I didn't ask for compensation, but they did the right thing and provided me with a partial refund for my family's stay. They are now using that as justification/an excuse for not providing me with any further refund and say they are “unable to provide any further refund.” I've pointed out that my being provided compensation for the poor condition of the home doesn't negate the fact that I was overcharged for the rental in the first place. My last correspondence with them was via voicemail and a follow-up email directly after leaving the voicemail on 09/03/2026. They are no longer responding and haven't refunded the remaining $457.35 of the $854.38 that I was overcharged. Any advice on how to attempt getting the remaining $457.35 I was overcharged would be greatly appreciated.

I am disputing a diminished value charge following an accident involving a Thrifty rental at Salt Lake City International Airport on June 13, 2026. Hertz is handling the claim.

I have already paid $3,876.06 toward the claim. The remaining balance is disputed, and a collections specialist has contacted me.

My main concern is the calculation on Hertz’s diminished value worksheet. It applies a damage multiplier of 0.352626 to calculate a diminished value charge of $865.95. However, the 17c damage-multiplier scale attached to that same worksheet lists only 1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.25, and 0.00. It defines 0.00 as “No structural damage or replaced panels.” Per the repairment details Hertz sent me, there was no structural damage or replaced panels to the car.

I have asked Hertz to explain how it derived the 0.352626 multiplier and what documented damage supports its application. I have not received a response to my latest email to the recovery specialist.

Has anyone dealt with a similar Hertz/Thrifty diminished value dispute? What documentation should I request to evaluate this calculation, and how should I pursue a review while collections is contacting me?

I have an issue that I have been communicating with customer service about an auto renewal of a pair of season passes that I had no intention of purchasing. My interactions with them have only yielded scripted responses and a form letter that does not address the substance of my issue. Perhaps you can help me here? My customer ID is 53720537537

The responses fail to consider that i don’t deny that i received the array of heads-up emails before the spring deadline. I did receive them and acted upon them by going online to turn the auto renew off. I don’t know what happened here or why it apparently did not process. Why would i have booked the 5-day tickets in August? 

Subscription programs are at best, a clean way for companies to create & streamline a more predictable income stream to pass on savings and efficiencies to their customers with and, at worst, a predatory strategy to goose the income stream at the expense of unknowing customers. I have been a good customer of Vail Resorts for past few years and even booked my lodging through your portal for my trip in February. I really dont want our relationship to change here. Can you help me out? I am looking to have the season passes refunded.

Hi Chris,

Really appreciate all of the great consumer advocacy work that your team is doing. I wanted quick advice from you on how to manage a clear dispute with StubHub. I have kept all records and believe the case is rather black and white, but StubHub appears to be intentionally delaying case resolution, and wanted to make sure that I take the most effective next steps in the process.

Situation

• On 9/15, I purchased Anaheim Ducks tickets on StubHub at an attractive price (below the typical price for the section). 

• ~48 hours after purchase, the tickets in my Apple Wallet were invalidated without notice. I requested and received a written response from the Anaheim Ducks under CCPA, indicating that the transferred tickets were recalled.

• The seller, a large broker, did not notify StubHub, so the order status remains "Tickets Delivered" - without valid tickets on hand, for 2+ weeks. 

• I called StubHub and separately reached out to @TeamStubHub on X to open the case to change the delivery status, and either re-transfer the tickets or find a replacement. StubHub "escalated to the internal review team" and gave me a response timeline, some of which have already passed without any contact or resolution. 

• The seller is evidently aware of the situation, and has since relisted some of the same seats at a higher price. I have reported this to StubHub for double listing, along with the proof of recall and invalidated tickets.

What I Want

• The delivery status should immediately change to tickets not delivered.

• I want the tickets, same or comparable, not a refund. If the seller can re-transfer the tickets, that would be ideal.

• My fear is that StubHub will drag this out given that the games are 90+ days away, and simply offer a refund to allow the seller to get away (against their own Seller Policy that all contracts are binding and there is no cap on the penalties for replacement tickets), even if I escalate further. That would be extremely frustrating.

Where I Need Guidance On

I am happy to take the next steps independently, but would like your guidance on the approach. As early as next Tuesday (once all of the 5 resolution deadlines lapse), I am considering:

• Filing a formal notice of dispute - which would force a 30 day resolution timeline per StubHub user policy (or arbitration)

• Contacting the managers listed on Elliott Confidential (and if a warm intro / cc could be helpful)

• Escalating this issue with government agencies (BBB, California AG, State Senator/Rep, etc.)

Should I take all three steps simultaneously (or something else)? What are the right pressure points that could force StubHub to act quickly, and not in a way that results in a "lazy refund"?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Stephen

NOTE: All names are spelled as best we could by sounding out the Verizon employee names as spoken to us.

We have been Verizon customers for almost 20 years and since we bought our cell phones outright, our monthly bill has been approximately $93 for a long while.  Our January 23 - February 22, 2025 bill rose to $114.77 which we paid timely but were confused.  When our February 23 - March 22, 2025 bill arrived showing $113.32 due we paid it promptly but then started making phone calls.  We called and spoke with Ava on 03/31/25 at 10:40am.  She said due to our years of loyalty she could offer a "best loyalty discount" but had to check with her team.  After checking with her team,  Ava let us know that our bill would be $93.32 which would expire in one year.  However, she indicated Verizon would renew this deal as long as we reached out when the year expired.  Ava said our monthly bill would be $93.32 going forward.

Our March 23 - April 22, 2025 bill arrived and noted $93.10 due which we promptly paid and until the end of the year $93+ was indeed our monthly charge.  We promptly called at the end of the one year "best loyalty discount" to renew as Ava had instructed.  When our bills began to jump past $93 we called on 04/29/26 and spoke with Syaps, who indicated we would receive an email or text with directions to securing our "12 month loyalty discount". Syaps stated that for now they would provide a $10 credit as we wait for the loyalty discount to be applied.  On 05/13/26 we again called at 3:45pm and Emily stated an email had been sent, however, we informed we had not received/seen one.   Our April 23 - May 22, 2026 bill arrived and indicated we owed $113.91 (with a $10.10 "balance from last bill" discounted) with $103.81 due.  As usual we paid promptly in anticipation our next bill would be back to the $93+ amount.  

We called at 2:30pm on 06/01/26 and spoke with Emcee.  She promised that she was authorized to give us an amount due of $87 monthly as long as we retained both Verizon and Fronteir.  We have.  On 07/01/2026 we called and asked for a supervisor.  We were transferred to Sky who informed that our loyalty program had expired on 04/22/26 even though we had called to renew as Ava recommended the previous year.  He indicated if we switched to the Verizon simplicity plan we would be credited $10 each line for a loyalty discount bringing our monthly bill to $81.94.  We agreed but he said we needed to go to the Verizon store to set up auto pay for the $87 monthly charge.  We told him (as we had explained to all others) we are an elderly couple and this was not going to be something we could do.  He stated we could go into our Fronteir account and since, again we are an elderly couple who are not internet savvy, he said he would do this for us.  He indicated he was successful and this assistance was a one time thing.

On 07/31/26 we called and spoke to Hannah since our bill did not refelct the above mentioned $81.94 monthly.  She informed that our loyalty discount had expired 04/22/26 and we had switched plans, so she could apply a 12 month discount for $2 per line.  Two dollars per line would not keep out bill under our $100 monthly budget for cell service.  At this point our patience ran thin and we asked to be tranferred to managemnt.  Jeff came on and reiterated Hannah's information.  We really couldn't take it anymore so we ended the call.

On 08/20/26 at 1pm we called and spoke to Kate.  She repeated that the loyalty program had expired in April so they had put in for a new loyalty discount.  We have not seen that but she indicated she could see in her file a bill of $87.  She indicated she would check with her team and this amount was confirmed. Since we allowed automatic payments Verizon has taken $113.82 (Aug 12), $109.02 (Sept 12) and now they will be taking $142.22 from our credit card on October 12th.  We are becoming extremely upset and simply do not have the energy and stamina to continue playing games with Verizon.  We've explained over and over to each staff member who takes our calls that as an elderly couple we have a budget or no more that $100 monthly for our cell phones.  

Any assistance will be greeatly appreciated since we have grown weary and unable to keep calling, getting various staff members and team members who simply don't seem to have the authorization or power to come through with their promises.  I believe the calls are "recorded for quality assurance reasons" so there should be some verification as to the above stated facts.  I told each and every one of the staff members that I take copious notes and yet they continue to tell us things that are not happening.

PLEASE HELP US!!!!

And where's my refund?

Imagine using a travel platform to save time or money.

Then you need an ordinary change—and discover the platform has made your $2,130 airline tickets practically worthless.

That is what happened to my daughter and me after I bought two international airline tickets through Oojo.

A few days later, I needed two things: a one-letter correction to my daughter’s name and a change to our travel dates.

Nothing exotic.

I wasn’t trying to reroute through Antarctica or transport a live alpaca.

I needed to change one letter in a child’s name and ask what it would cost to fly on different dates.

Oojo’s website failed when I attempted the name correction, so I contacted customer service.

Then began nine days of what I suppose could be called customer service if we are feeling unusually generous about the definition of both words.

I received messages.

Many messages.

They had the polished, faintly synthetic quality of something generated by a machine that had been extensively trained on the phrase “Thank you for your patience.”

What I did not receive was an answer to the question I was actually asking:

How much will it cost to change the flights?

Oojo told me the name issue had to be resolved first.

So I contacted China Airlines, the airline on which the tickets had been booked, hoping to do the obvious thing and deal directly with the company operating the airplane.

China Airlines told me it couldn’t make the change because Oojo had issued the tickets.

I had to go back to Oojo.

Oojo, meanwhile, was telling me to wait.

This is one of the more remarkable achievements of modern travel technology.

A platform designed to eliminate friction had successfully placed itself directly between the customer and the company capable of solving his problem—and then stopped moving.

Travelers will recognize the type.

In many parts of the world, a very friendly man will appear beside you at a train station, announce that the ticket office is closed, explain that your hotel has burned down, and offer to take you somewhere much better.

The seasoned traveler learns a simple rule:

The helpful stranger may not actually be helping.

Online, apparently, we have industrialized the concept.

The platform appears at the beginning of the transaction smiling brightly, promising convenience, savings and effortless travel.

Then the credit card clears.

And when something goes wrong, the cheerful guide who was so eager to help you find your ticket appears to have wandered off into the jungle.

Two days before departure, Oojo finally gave me a concrete number.

Approximately $1,300 to correct one letter in my daughter’s name.

One letter.

At roughly $1,300 per character, I briefly wondered whether it might be cheaper simply to rename the child.

But even then Oojo still had not answered the question I had been asking for days:

What will it cost to change the itinerary?

The next day, still no answer.

Then departure day arrived.

And after nine days, Oojo had still never told me what it would cost to change the flights.

By then I had solved the problem using a surprisingly advanced piece of travel technology:

I bought a ticket directly from an airline.

United Airlines sold me one for roughly the same amount—perhaps even less.

I paid for it.

The ticket appeared.

I could manage it online.

If I needed to change it, I could make the change.

No pilgrimage through customer service.

No nine-day correspondence.

No suspense over whether someone might eventually reveal the price of changing the flight before the flight itself had departed.

It was a useful demonstration of a rather old-fashioned concept:

The company selling you transportation should make transportation easier.

The ticket I bought directly from an airline behaved like a ticket.

The tickets I bought through a travel platform had become a hostage negotiation.

And this is where the mythology of the modern travel platform becomes funny.

Somewhere, OTA executives are sitting on panels beneath words like INNOVATION, SEAMLESSNESS, AI, and THE FUTURE OF TRAVEL, explaining how technology is removing friction from the customer journey.

I would genuinely enjoy seeing one additional slide:

CUSTOMER JOURNEY

1. Buy ticket.

2. Need minor change.

3. Ask price.

4. Wait nine days.

5. Airline says platform must fix it.

6. Platform says wait.

7. Platform proposes $1,300 to change one letter.

8. Departure day arrives.

9. Still no price for changing flight.

10. Buy another ticket.

There is probably an impressive AI diagram that can make this look innovative.

For actual travelers, the test is simpler.

You have a child.

You have a flight.

Something changes.

You are getting someone to school, finishing work, packing bags, finding passports, making dinner and trying to get everyone onto an airplane.

You don’t need a “customer journey.”

You need an answer.

Oojo’s own review

Eventually I reached Oojo CEO Gulce Karsli-Rozenveld, who reviewed the case with the company’s Quality Assurance team.

She acknowledged that alternatives were not presented early enough for me “to make a meaningful decision.”

She acknowledged that the eventual solution came “too late to be practically usable at a reasonable cost.”

And she wrote:

“I do recognize that the delay and handling on our side contributed to the outcome you experienced.”

She said she would return “shortly with a concrete proposal.”

She didn’t.

Later I disputed the $2,130 through Citibank.

According to a Citi representative I spoke with on August 11, Citi attempted on August 4 to recover the money after reviewing the information I provided.

Oojo contested the return of the money.

And perhaps that is the most interesting detail of all.

Oojo’s own review had already concluded that its handling contributed to the outcome. The company knew the request had not been dealt with in time. Citibank then sought the return of the money.

Oojo kept it.

The helpful guide had disappeared when assistance was needed.

Anyone considering whether to put an online travel agency between themselves and an airline can decide for themselves what that is worth.

Hello,

My daughter and I had tickets on Air Canada to fly from Montreal to Miami
on 5/31/2026. The flight kept being delayed. I called Air Canada to get
more information and see about rescheduling. It took hours for them to
get back to me. As I was uncertain if the flight would actually take
place and if it did it would be getting in early the next morning, I decided to go online and rebook my flight for the next day. I was charged for changing the flight. The original flight ended up departing after a more than 4 hour delay and arriving in Miami 2:21 AM. Air Canada, in their texts to me and on their website, said the delay was "because we need more time to complete required aircraft maintenance" and then added it was also because no stand-by aircraft were available. I filed a claim and was denied because they said the delay was due to weather. I appealed and requested they re-open the claim, but they refused again denying responsibility due to weather.

I wanted to find out if I have a reasonable complaint to pursue and if so, what payment I should expect. I would like to be reimbursed for the charges to change the flight, receive the $400 per person 3-6 hour delay compensation, and if possible, reimbursement for the other expenses I incurred.

I also wanted to find out what other steps should be taken.

Thank you for reviewing. Sorry if this is long!

In summary, my dispute arises from a Sixt damage claim associated with tire damage. I am not refusing to pay all charges, and I have consistently accepted responsibility for the documented tire replacement cost of $123.51 plus applicable sales tax, totaling $133.70, and I remain willing to pay that amount immediately upon receipt of a corrected invoice.

The dispute concerns the remaining charges:

$200.00 Administrative Fee

$339.48 Towing/Recovery Charges

$62.06 Loss-of-Use Charge

Associated sales tax

My primary concern is that Sixt has now advised that the account will move forward toward collections despite months of dispute correspondence and repeated requests for supporting documentation.

Long version: Main Dispute Issues

Towing Charges

Shortly after vehicle pickup, the tire was damaged.

I contacted Sixt roadside assistance and sought guidance and was instructed to remain with the vehicle while towing was arranged. Sixt later characterized the towing as a renter-requested service and charged me for it.

Since June 2026, I have repeatedly requested recordings, tow authorizations, dispatch records, notes, or other documentation showing that I expressly requested or authorized the towing services for which I was charged.

Those materials have not been produced.

Administrative Fee

Sixt charged a $200 administrative fee, and I repeatedly requested documentation showing how the amount was calculated and substantiated.

Loss-of-Use Charge

Sixt charged $62.06 for loss of use, and I repeatedly requested documentation supporting the calculation and basis for the charge.

Privacy/Personal Information Concern

While the dispute was pending and before the invoice due date, I received a suspicious telephone call from a third party stating that I had a debt with Sixt that would go to collections.

Because the caller specifically referenced Sixt and the disputed debt, I repeatedly asked Sixt whether the account had been provided to a third party and requested an investigation.

The company largely continued responding to the billing dispute while not substantively answering many of the account-handling and privacy questions that were raised.

Timeline

May 6, 2026: Tire incident occurs shortly after pickup.

June 25, 2026: Sixt issues invoice for $779.71.

June 27, 2026: Initial written dispute submitted.

July 1, 2026: Suspicious call referencing a Sixt debt and collections activity.

July 2, 2026: Detailed dispute response sent.

July 16, 2026: Final demand for response sent.

August 7, 2026: Formal 30-day pre-suit notice sent.

August 28, 2026: Formal privacy and investigation demand sent.

September 24, 2026: Sixt responds that the dispute is denied and advises the claim has reached the threshold for collections.

September 27, 2026: Complaints filed with the Texas Attorney General and FTC. Additional dispute correspondence sent to Sixt.

Current Situation

The most recent communication from Sixt states that:

the dispute has been denied; notes have been added to the account indicating that the claim is disputed; and once the billing timeframe is exhausted, the claim will be forwarded to collections. I am continuing to dispute the charges in good faith and remain willing to pay the undisputed $133.70.

My main question is: Are there additional practical steps I should be taking to prevent referral to collections while the matter remains actively disputed and while I continue requesting the documentation necessary to evaluate the disputed charges?

About three weeks ago, I began receiving an error whenever I tried to book a ride stating that my payment method could not be charged and to try another payment method. I initially assumed it was a payment issue, but after deleting and re-entering my card and still being unable to use it, I reached out for help multiple times without receiving a response. Yesterday, I realized there was an Amex Platinum help line and I finally spoke with someone and was informed my account had actually been restricted for activity that allegedly violated Uber’s Terms and Conditions.

I am completely perplexed. I have been using Uber since 2008/2009 and have never had a problem. I never received any notification that there was an issue with my account, nor was I told what activity supposedly violated the terms (they will not say). My company uses Uber for business travel, and I have now been unable to use the service for nearly a month.

Has anyone ever had this experience and if so - did it resolve or what did you do - thanks - any and all help appreciated!

Don't worry. It drove your advocates a little mad, too.

Rental car companies have started using AI-powered scanners to flag dents and scratches when customers return their vehicles. The damage bills that follow have become controversial and drawn a wave of complaints.

I'm researching a story about what happens when one of those claims reaches your insurance, and whether your coverage is primary or secondary.

I'd love to hear from anyone who has rented a car and counted on their credit card's coverage. Did you know whether it was primary or secondary before you picked up the car? If you had a damage claim, did your card or your personal auto insurer pay it, and were you left owing administrative or loss-of-use fees? Did the claim raise your premiums?

I booked directly with Swissôtel The Stamford.

My official confirmation contained a dedicated “Cancellation Policy” field — completely blank.
No “Non-refundable” language appeared anywhere in the email.

When I raised the issue, Swissôtel told me their confirmations “customarily include” the cancellation policy… then offered a SGD 1,110.99 stay credit instead of a monetary refund.

When I continued to request a refund, the case was closed without one.

I escalated the matter via SignalConso, the French government’s consumer protection platform.

Accor’s initial reply said it would comply with applicable regulations.

Its subsequent formal response?

« aucune anomalie ne peut être décelée »
“No anomaly can be identified.”

So:

– The official confirmation I received has a blank Cancellation Policy field.
– Swissôtel says its confirmations “customarily include” the cancellation policy.
– Accor says there is “no anomaly.”

That leaves me with a simple question:

Do these responses actually match the confirmation I received?

I have retained the complete documentary evidence, including the original booking confirmation and the written responses from Swissôtel and Accor, and can provide it immediately upon request.

Hey everyone, I'm researching a story about the lines companies use to make an optional fee sound mandatory — and how travelers can tell the difference. For example, a rental car agent may tell you the state requires extra insurance coverage, a hotel employee might say a resort fee is required by law, and a crewmember may insist that a tip is mandatory.

I want to hear from travelers who were told a fee or add-on was required and later learned it wasn't. What exactly were you told, and by whom? When did you realize it wasn't true, and what tipped you off? Did you push back — and did you get your money back?

While booking a reservation on American Airlines for myself and my wife, I was logged into my AAdvantage account. After selecting our flights, the fare displayed for the itinerary was $1,791. Before I was allowed to purchase the ticket, the system required me to enter my wife’s passenger information.

During that process—without changing flights, dates, or fare class—the fare increased from $1,791 to $2,325. This occurred while I was entering the required passenger details.

I spent more than an hour speaking with Reservations representatives to understand why the fare changed mid‑booking and to request an adjustment back to the originally displayed fare. I was ultimately told that they were unable to modify the fare, and no explanation was provided for the sudden increase.

I thought I'd share a few of my photos from the road.

The famous Viehscheid, when the cows come down from the mountain for the winter. It's quite a spectacle — and it's LOUD!

This is our Bavarian village, Bad Hindeland. We wake up to this view every morning. The weather was spectacular, as it often is in early fall.

The houses here look perfect, like gingerbread houses at Christmas. Except you can't eat them.

But the best part of Bavaria is the people. They're very friendly and always seem happy to see you. That kind of hospitality is hard to find.

Family of four with following bookings via award travel (Iberia Avios):

1) JFK-MAD-LIS

2) BOS-MAD-LIS

3) MAD-JFK x2

Other bookings on this trip did not have downgrade issues.

Flight 1: JFK-MAD on PE (29,500 Avios) but downgraded to Economy. MAD-LIS was on Economy (7k Avios); single itinerary: total of 36,500 Avios. Economy on JFK-MAD leg itself would have been 25k Avios.

Filed an involuntary downgrade complaint online with Iberia and after 4-5 rounds of emails back and forth after Iberia's initial 4,500 Avios credit [and some $ portion against taxes], despite the "final demand" with next action to the regulatory authorities, Iberia held their refund position (I could not understand how they computed 4,500 Avios [writing this post I know see that it is the fare differential between PE and Economy] when their website clearly indicated 75% or the expected 22,125 (75% of 29,500)).

Do I now file with with AESA or via AviationADR?

Flight 2: BOS-MAD on Business Class (40,500 Avios) but downgraded to Economy. MAD-LIS was on Economy (7k Avios), booked together on one single itinerary (47,500 Avios). Economy on JFK-MAD leg alone would have been 25k Avios.

Filed an involuntary downgrade complaint online with Iberia and offered only 11k Avios credit [and some $ portion against taxes]. I emailed back for reconsideration only to receive an autoreply to file electronically (the only method I saw how was of the initial compliant and I did so, obtaining a new claim # and a quicky reply stating of a duplicate request and the [2nd] claim closed). Additional email attempts of reconsideration/additional information was met by same autoreply email asking to file electronically. Case remains open.

Do I now file with with AESA or via AviationADR?

Flights #3 [and 4]: Booked Premium Economy MAD-JFK for 40,250 Avios but downgraded to Economy. Filed electronic complaint and immediately offered 30,187 Avios (75% of initial cost) and a portion of $ for the taxes paid (not 75% and Iberia stated that [and online searches validated] that $ refund may not necessarily equate to 75% of actual total taxes paid.

Summary/Position:

My thoughts [which I can't really believe it would be true/the case] is that because Flight #3&4 originated from the EU, Iberia quickly offered what is per EC 261 (75% of "paid") whereas they did not on the non EU originating flights (JFK-MAD, BOS-MAD), despite EC 261 covering EU carriers (Iberia) on flights to the EU.

Again, for Flight #1 [JFK-MAD], the claim which I made a final demand and Iberia has since closed, do I now file a formal complaint with AESA or via AviationADR?

Again, for Flight #2 [BOS-MAD], I have been unable to further communicate beyond my initial complaint, do I now file a formal complaint with AESA or via AviationADR or attempt to continue to try asking for reconsideration/final demand, etc with Iberia?

Thank everyone in advance for your input/suggestions/words of wisdom!

Otherwise you could end up in the F-Files.

If you want your next consumer case to fail, just use any of these phrases. We can all but guarantee it will go nowhere. Warning: This podcast contains material not suitable for a younger audience, including depictions of people throwing themselves into a wood chipper. Ouch!

Airbnb tried it. Here's what happened.

Enjoy reading your emails and I find Back channel to be even more informative . The other day I even posted a question and got some good answers.