A businesswoman surnamed Han, who runs a company in Henan, traveled to Hangzhou on business and rented a Xiaomi Corp. (XIAOMI-W) SU7 online that was listed as a new car less than six months old. During her trip, the vehicle repeatedly experienced steering abnormalities that nearly caused an accident. A subsequent inspection revealed the car had a high-value repair record, exposing serious hidden safety hazards.
In late October, Han, who operates a company in Henan, went to Hangzhou on a business trip and booked a Xiaomi Corp. (XIAOMI-W) SU7 online in advance, advertised as a new car less than six months old. The lessor was Hangzhou Cheyida Automobile Service Co., Ltd. The listing showed it was a new car within six months, with a pickup time of October 21 and a return time of October 24. The rental period was two days and 18 hours, with a total payment of over 1,100 yuan.
After landing in Hangzhou, Han picked up the car at the airport parking garage. Unexpectedly, as soon as the vehicle left the airport parking lot, the steering wheel suddenly veered to the left on its own, nearly hitting a wall. Then on October 23, while driving on the highway with many trucks around, the steering wheel malfunctioned twice, nearly colliding with a guardrail and a truck. Covered in cold sweat, Han exited the highway at the nearest point, and the right rear tire triggered a tire pressure warning after a nail punctured it. After Han called the Xiaomi Corp. (XIAOMI-W) rescue hotline, the vehicle was towed to a nearby repair shop for inspection.
After the inspection, the repair technician's conclusion made her heart sink: the car was a major accident vehicle, with repair costs reaching 196,000 yuan against a total vehicle price of 238,000 yuan, meaning the damage ratio was very high and many core components had been replaced. The inspection report showed the car had been involved in two accidents, with repair costs of approximately 111,000 yuan and 85,000 yuan respectively. Han said she was deeply frightened. "Renting a car like this to me created a safety hazard. If something happened to me, I have two companies under my name, over a dozen employees, and a whole extended family. Their expenses — are you going to bear them for me? Can you handle that?"
Han immediately requested to terminate the rental, but the merchant insisted the tire damage was her responsibility. "When I heard this, I was extremely angry. Your car is a major accident vehicle — shouldn't you have told me when renting it out?" During negotiations, the merchant initially expressed willingness to resolve the issue, so Han sent over her business license and income proof. She told them her monthly income from January to October this year was over 3 million yuan, translating to a daily income of over 100,000 yuan, and proposed a compensation plan including lost work wages. "I provided income proof, not because I was making arbitrary demands. I simply calculated it roughly, without going into detail." But she also made clear to the merchant that even if she received compensation, she would not keep a single cent. Her real demand was for the merchant to face the vehicle condition problem honestly and give a sincere explanation. Unexpectedly, the negotiation took a sharp turn — instead of apologizing, the other party accused her of extortion, and communication reached a complete deadlock. "From beginning to end, he never said to me once, 'Ms. Han, this was our mistake, our car dealership was wrong.'"
The two sides' accounts diverge sharply, with their demands vastly different. To preserve evidence, Han wanted to send the vehicle for inspection, which led to a conflict with staff who came to retrieve the car, and police were called. Eventually, on October 24, the vehicle was taken back by the lessor. A reporter visited the Qiantang District store address provided by customer service but could not find the dealership. The reporter contacted Boss Li of Hangzhou Cheyida Automobile Service Co., Ltd., who said the vehicle had complete paperwork, had undergone proper repairs, and obtained a qualification certificate, and that the high damage costs claimed by the renter did not exist. He believed the steering abnormality was most likely due to rear-wheel drive slipping after rain, not a vehicle defect. "I'll refund the rent to you. That was her initial request, and I agreed to it, but then she said no and demanded 100,000 yuan in compensation. Some demands are excessive and I can't fulfill them, and I can't make decisions alone — I need to discuss with my shareholders." He also mentioned that initially he agreed to refund all rent, but later Han escalated her demands and blocked the vehicle with a car, and the dealership reserves the right to pursue liability, suggesting the dispute be resolved through legal channels. "We never collected a single cent from her offline. The vehicle issue is what she claims, and no accident occurred on the highway. If the tire can't be patched, we'll just replace it, and we never told her she would bear the cost."
Han does not agree with the merchant's account. She stated she is not fixated on compensation — even if she receives not a single cent, she wants to speak out about this matter to prevent this accident vehicle from continuing to be rented out and posing safety risks to other renters. She is also considering pursuing legal action to protect her rights.
The platform steps in to arrange third-party inspection to clarify the vehicle condition. After the dispute escalated, the rental platform provided a resolution plan. The merchant reported that the vehicle had no fault warnings during the rental period. The platform has coordinated with the store and commissioned a qualified third-party institution to conduct a safety technical inspection, with the testing costs borne by the platform. The store also offered to fully refund the rent for this rental order. If Han can provide valid documentation proving direct losses caused by this incident, the platform will continue to follow up and coordinate the matter.
Comments