The first official Avis response made clear that the agent 2 days prior should have also requested a passport, and neglected company instructions in failing to do so.
The second official response apologized for the confusion this lack of consistency may have caused.
Yet the official faq on the company page already tells foreigners to be prepared to offer a passport, so there really shouldn’t have been any drama.
So, one possibility is that the inconsistency was because the two-days-ago agent didn’t follow training and failed to request a passport. That’s what a direct reading of the official response would lead you to.
Another possibility is that the exec also bullied the earlier agent into accepting only the license, but in that case it worked. This scenerio would also be consistent with Avis’s first official response.
By the way, we earlier discussed in this thread a yelp complaint from an Argentine who gave a horrible review because the agent wouldn’t accept only her foreign drivers license, she had to argue for an hour.
Would you say they are bigoted against Argentines also in following policy and asking for secondary documentation?
Maybe she should have run to the press and led a boycott?
What first official response ? I thought it was deleted and rescinded because it was so unprofessional as to expose the company to a lawsuit.
The second official response apologized to Dov, saying Avis should have done better here. It was Avis' fault, not Dov's and Dov accepted the Avis apology.