Negativa injustificada a entregar vehículo reservado con condición no recogida en los T&C

El día 08/05 acudí a recoger el vehículo reservado con la empresa Differental (Italia). El personal se negó a entregármelo alegando que la política de la empresa exige que el permiso de conducir tenga una validez mínima de 6 meses antes de su caducidad. Sin embargo, dicha condición no figura en ningún punto de sus Términos y Condiciones publicados en su web, tal y como se acredita con la captura adjunta. Como consecuencia de esta negativa injustificada, me vi obligado a contratar un vehículo con otra empresa, abonando el doble del precio por un vehículo de categoría inferior. Solicito el reembolso de la diferencia económica sufrida como perjuicio directo derivado del incumplimiento contractual por parte de Differental. Ademas tras adjuntarle la politica de su empresa y pregubtarle no responde.

Dear customer, We have carefully reviewed your communication and the attached documentation. After checking the case directly with the relevant operations office, we were confirmed that his driver's license had an expiration date two days after the end of the rental agreement. In this specific situation, the vehicle could not be delivered for safety and operational reasons, since in the event of an extension of the rental, delay in reimbursement, or unforeseen circumstances, the contract would automatically be invalidated by the expiration of the driving license during the period of use of the vehicle. This circumstance would have generated contractual and coverage problems, both for the customer and for the company. For this reason, the office acted according to prudential and operational criteria, without this constituting a breach of contract by Differental. We apologize for the inconvenience caused, but it is not possible to recognize a refund of the costs incurred with third parties, since the failure to deliver the vehicle was motivated by a documented and objectively verifiable condition. We remain available for further clarification. Kind regards, Eleonora Customer Service www.differental.it This email is a service from Differental. Delivered by Zendesk On May 9, 2026 at 18:00:22 UTC, reclamar@ocu.org wrote:

Dear Differental team, Thank you for your response. However, I must respectfully disagree with your position for the following reasons: 1. If the expiry of the driving licence was a valid operational concern, I would like to understand why the rental company located next to your office had no issue renting me a vehicle under the exact same circumstances. This raises serious doubts about the consistency and legitimacy of the criteria applied by your staff. 2. More importantly, the premise of your refusal is factually incorrect. I am attaching my digital driving licence, which clearly shows that my licence has already been renewed and remains fully valid. The physical card was pending delivery at the time of the rental, but the digital version — which is legally recognised — confirms there was no expiry issue whatsoever. The grounds cited for the refusal are therefore demonstrably false. 3. Regarding the policy you refer to: I have reviewed your Terms and Conditions in full and I cannot find any clause specifying a minimum validity period for the driving licence. I kindly ask you to provide the direct link or reference to the specific clause in your company policy that supports the decision made by your office. If no such clause exists, the refusal constitutes a clear breach of contract on your part. In light of the above, I maintain my request for reimbursement of the additional costs incurred as a direct consequence of your staff’s unjustified refusal to deliver the vehicle. I look forward to your prompt response. Kind regards

Dear Customer, following up on your further communication, we would like to definitively clarify the points you raised. Regarding the behavior of other rental agencies, each car rental company operates on the basis of its own internal procedures, insurance policies, and risk criteria. Decisions taken by another agency are in no way binding or comparable with ours. Our society applies specific and standardized rules, which staff are required to respect without exception. Regarding the validity of the driving licence the documents considered valid for rental purposes are only those physically presented when the vehicle is collected. Any digital versions, ongoing renewals, or documentation not yet materially available cannot be accepted, regardless of their general legal validity. The intended operating rules have been applied to these documents submitted on site, in a correct and compliant manner. In light of the above, we confirm that no reimbursement of the costs incurred is foreseen. The work of the staff has been correct and in accordance with our company policies. We therefore consider the matter definitively closed. Kind regards, Eleonora Customer Service www.differental.it This email is a service from Differental. Delivered by Zendesk On May 11, 2026 at 14:30:48 UTC, reclamar@ocu.org wrote:

Dear Differental team, Thank you for your response. However, I am unable to consider this matter closed under the current circumstances. Throughout this exchange, your company has justified the refusal to deliver the vehicle on the basis of internal policies regarding driving licence validity and the non-acceptance of digital documents. These are serious claims that have a direct contractual and financial impact on me as a customer. I therefore formally request that you provide the specific written policy or clause — including a direct link or official document reference — where these requirements are explicitly stated. I am attaching once again a screenshot of your published Terms and Conditions, in which no such requirements are mentioned. If these policies exist, they should be readily available and transparent to customers at the time of booking. If they are not documented, their application constitutes a unilateral and arbitrary decision that is not supported by the contract agreed upon at the time of reservation, which would represent a clear breach of contract on your part. Until these documents are provided, this matter is not closed from my side. Should your company fail to supply the requested documentation, I will have no choice but to escalate this case to the OCU (Spanish Consumer Organisation) and the European Consumer Centre, requesting formal legal action for breach of contract and the resulting financial damages I have suffered. I trust you will reconsider your position and respond accordingly. Kind regards Ignacio del Busto

Dear Mr. del Busto, As mentioned, the vehicle was not delivered because, when the vehicle was collected, the physical driver's license presented expired two days after the end of the rental period. For Differental, the only documents considered valid for rental purposes are the original physical documents presented on site at the time of collection. Digital versions, renewal receipts, or licenses pending physical release are not accepted, regardless of their general legal validity in other contexts. This requirement is part of Differental's internal operating and insurance procedures, which are binding on our staff and applied uniformly to all customers. These procedures are designed to avoid contractual invalidation, insurance coverage issues, and legal exposure in the event of rental extensions, delays, or unforeseen circumstances. For these reasons, the decision taken by our staff was prudential, justified and in accordance with company policy. Refusal to deliver the vehicle does not constitute a breach of contract; the actions of our staff have been correct and appropriate; no reimbursement or compensation may be granted for expenses incurred with third parties. We regret the inconvenience encountered; however, our position remains unchanged. For our part, the matter must be considered definitively closed. Kind regards, Eleonora Customer Service www.differental.it This email is a service from Differental. Delivered by Zendesk On May 11, 2026 at 16:15:23 UTC, reclamar@ocu.org wrote:

Dear Differental team, I acknowledge receipt of your response. However, your position remains unsupported by any verifiable documentation. You continue to reference internal operating and insurance procedures as the legal basis for the refusal, yet after multiple requests, you have failed to provide a single written document, clause, or policy link that supports these requirements. This is the last time I will request it: please share the official written policy where it is explicitly stated that a driving licence must have a minimum validity period beyond the rental end date, and that digital licences are not accepted, I will formally escalate this case to the European Consumer Centre and the EU Online Dispute Resolution platform, requesting an official investigation into a breach of contract and the application of undisclosed, non-contractual conditions to the detriment of a consumer. I trust this will be your final opportunity to resolve this matter directly. Kind regards