When you plan a moving day, you might feel more certain reserving a vehicle with a company with a guarantee like U-Haul’s: “When you make a truck or trailer reservation, we guarantee to provide you with the equipment size, location and pick up time, as agreed. Should you not receive the equipment size, location and pick up time you agreed to, U-Haul will pay you $50.” According to the complaint for this class action, however, this guarantee is simply one more promise the company doesn’t keep.
The nationwide class for this action is all persons who, during the class period:
The New York subclass for this action is all persons from the above group who ordered the equipment in New York. The class period has not yet been exactly defined.
According to the complaint, customers who reserved with U-Haul sometimes received confirmation that they had a reservation, then found that they had to wait hours or days or travel a long distance to pick it up. And while its guarantee may sound impressive, the complaint alleges that the guarantee was part of a settlement in a previous class action.
In that 2008 case, the complaint says, the judge found that it was a fraudulent business practice to call reservations “confirmed” and then not have the equipment. Under the settlement agreement in that case, the complaint says, U-Haul was required to “contact customers the day before their move to schedule the pickup time and location. Once there is agreement, the reservation will be considered ‘guaranteed,’ and U-Haul will incur a $50 penalty if it fails to fill it.” Unfortunately, the complaint says, U-Haul doesn’t keep this promise either.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff Trang Nguyen reserved a 6 x 12 cargo trailer and received a confirmation that the equipment was reserved for a specific time that day, but when she went to pick it up, the trailer was not available, nor was it available at another nearby location.
When Nguyen asked for the $50 compensation, the complaint says, the agent told her to call another number, but the person she was connected to at that number tried to get her to make a reservation at a farther-away facility. When she told the person that the location was too far away, the complaint says, the person simply said she’d cancel the reservation, then hung up without giving Nguyen time to reiterate that what she wanted was the $50 compensation.
According to the complaint, she was then sent a text message informing her that she had a reservation at the facility she’d said was too far away. The complaint says demonstrates the company’s “systematic practice of deception and evasion, the purpose of which is to repeatedly frustrate and exhaust consumers” so that they would give up on collecting the $50 owed them.