OP056, Enterprise Operation: Taking Money by Enterprise via Mastercard of Viseca based on Overcharge Invoice and Even Trying to Take More Money on False Debt - Enterprise Ignored ALL Complaints, while Viseca Rejected the Appeal against Enterprise without Explanation yet the Appeal Run under Manipulation of Address (2582CO1 instead of 2582CT)
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/iccg/op056
Latest Update: 09 November 2023
OP056, Enterprise Operation: Taking Money by Enterprise via Mastercard of Viseca based on Overcharge Invoice and Even Trying to Take More Money on False Debt - Enterprise Ignored ALL Complaints, while Viseca Rejected the Appeal against Enterprise without Explanation yet the Appeal Run under Manipulation of Address (2582CO1 instead of 2582CT), https://www.rozen-bakher.com/iccg/op056, Residence Location, Netherlands, Main Entity, E045, Enterprise Switzerland - Helvetic Mobility AG, Switzerland, Sub-Entity I, E051, Google-Alphabet Inc (Gmail), USA, Sub-Entity II, E066, Salt (Mobile; Internet via Hotspot-08/2020-12/2020), Switzerland, Sub-Entity III, E047, Enterprise HQ, USA, Sub-Entity IV, E046, Enterprise Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sub-Entity V, E021, Viseca, Switzerland, Sub-Entity VI, E022, Mastercard, USA, Sub-Entity VII, E032, PostNL (Dutch Post), Netherlands
Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher rented a car at Enterprise Zurich Airport (Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG) with a return at Enterprise Amsterdam Airport when she and her son relocated to Netherlands. The car was rented for 7 days, from 07 August 2020 afternoon until 14 August 2020, yet with the ability to return the car earlier. The price included the cost of returning the car to Enterprise Amsterdam airport. On 10 August 2020 in the morning, one day after their arrival in Amsterdam, Dr. Rozen-Bakher and her son returned the car to Enterprise at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. During the return of the car, an Enterprise employee checked the car and confirmed that the car returned without any damage. Despite that the car returned on 10 August 2020, Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG sent an invoice with an overcharge, namely that the rent was until 14 August 2020 instead of until 10 August 2020. This overcharge was was taken by Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG via the Mastercard of Viseca. Worse, two weeks after returning the car, Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG (Zurich) argued by phone that Dr. Rozen-Bakher didn’t return the car, despite that she returned the car. Following the overcharge invoice, Dr. Rozen-Bakher sent several requests to Enterprise to correct the invoice via email, forms (Enterprise website), and even via Enterprise Twitter account, but Enterprise ignored all the requests to correct the invoice in terms of rental days, return location and overcharge. In light of that Enterprise ignored all direct complaints, Dr. Rozen-Bakher gave an appeal to Viseca about the overcharge of this transaction, but Viseca rejected the appeal by sending two letters to a fabricated address 2582CO1 instead of 2582CT (see also OP034). Worse, Viseca in the first letter argued that will be given a refund, but the refund did not appear on the credit card, yet in the second letter, Viseca informed that eventually the refund is not going to be given, despite that the refund was supposed to be given by Viseca. Much worse, instead of giving a refund, Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG even sent false charge of 721 CHF based on the argument that the payment did not settle. More specifically, the letter from Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG didn’t describe for what is the debt and they even ignored the request to give clarification about the debt. In other words, Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG not only took money for overcharge invoice but also tried to take more money for fabricated debt. Likely, that ICCG tried to intimidate Dr. Rozen-Bakher from suing Enterprise for the overcharge and wrongdoing by sending fabricated debt. ICCG used the method of intimidation in other cases by sending false charges by Debt Collectors or even by lawyers, such as in the case of Eneco Operation (see OP055). Note, Viseca Operation was already mentioned in previous complaints to police including to Zurich Police (see section 2.4.21 in CM019 and CM060). To clarify, until today, Dr. Rozen-Bakher didn't get any response from Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG or from Enterprise HQ about the overcharge nor refund for the overcharge or correction for the inaccurate invoice (price, days, location of return), as well as no explanation from Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG about the false debt. Besides, Viseca NEVER gave an explanation for rejecting the appeal against the overcharge transaction of Enterprise Switzerland-Helvetic Mobility AG.
