Additional fees are often hidden in the small print of the terms and conditions of commercial car rental companies, which can sometimes cost a lot of money. For example, almost all providers charge a processing fee for forwarding traffic tickets. Depending on the landlord, this can sometimes be more expensive than the fine that has to be paid to the authorities.

The Federal Association of Consumer Organizations sued the Frankfurt am Main regional court against the German branch of the internationally active car rental company Hertz. The essence of the matter was that this provider charges a flat fee of 40 euros for processing official traffic tickets. This can be seen in both the terms and conditions and the price list.

However, it depends on which country website or agent the booking is made through, because in Germany the processing fee should be 29,75 euros, but if you book via the same website in Spain, 40 euros should be charged. In the Federal Republic, however, the fee is only collected if the fine was actually justified. This means that if it subsequently turns out that the driver does not have to pay anything to the authorities, you should not have to pay a fee to Hertz either. However, this does not apply to bookings abroad, because the 40 euros should always be charged here, regardless of whether the traffic ticket is subsequently canceled or not.

Hertz argued in court that the German company was only responsible for business in Germany. Bookings abroad, for example for Spain, are passed on within the network or group. Spanish law would then apply to these and in this specific case this would allow the charging of a flat-rate processing fee, which must be paid in any case.

Court: Mediation was not apparent to consumers

But the Frankfurt am Main regional court sees it differently. This is of the opinion that if booking is made via the German Hertz website, then the German Hertz Autovermietung GmbH is also the customer's contractual partner for rentals abroad. German law therefore applies, which would not allow such flat rates to the detriment of consumers.

For the court, the decisive factor for this decision was that when booking for Barcelona, ​​which was being negotiated, the homepage and the terms and conditions were consistently in German. There was no indication that the German Hertz company was merely acting as an intermediary for its Spanish sister company. This gives the consumer the impression that Hertz Autovermietung GmbH is the contractual partner. The Spanish company was never mentioned during the entire booking process or in the confirmation email. The Frankfurt Regional Court therefore overturned the fee because German law applied to the specific rental agreement. How the Hertz companies conduct their business with one another is not important to the consumer in this particular constellation.

“A flat-rate processing fee would only be permissible if it corresponds to the company’s typically expected costs and customers are expressly given the opportunity to dispute the traffic ticket. That was not the case with the controversial Hertz clause. For example, anyone who wrongly received a fine or warning should still pay the flat rate,” explains Kerstin Hoppe, lawyer at the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations.