2.0
Made a reservation, showed up, and there were no cars available. Desperately needed a car to drive home because our flight got canceled. Had to pay for an Uber to this location for the rental car for absolutely no reason. Wasted over $50 because Avis said there was a car available for us. Employees were so horrible and rude that I left sobbing. Will NEVER try to use Avis again.Reviewed 2 Jul 2025
review from![kayak]()
8.0
We were given a smaller car than they advertised, a Corolla instead of a Camry. I didn’t realize this until we drove off.😔 The car was clean, the rental office was offsite from the airport, but that’s why we got such a good price. In-out in 5 minutes! I’ll rent from them again, but will be more aware of the model of the car.Reviewed 30 Jun 2025
review from![kayak]()
2.0
REPORT OF FACTS VEHICLE RENTAL UNIDAS/AVIS RENT A CAR I rented a vehicle through the rental company UNIDAS AVIS Rent a Car, located at Guarulhos International Airport GRU1 (Unidas Locadora S.A.), with pick-up taking place on June 29, 2025, at 7:22 a.m., as per the receipt in the reservation # *****. The final destination of the rental was the rental company's unit in Sorocaba SOD2 (Av. Eng. Carlos Reinal, *****, Sorocaba/SP), where the vehicle was returned on the same day, June 29, 2025, at 12:55 p.m. The rented vehicle, a white Hyundai HB20 model, license plate *****, was subjected to an initial inspection at the time of pick-up, with the procedure being carried out by the employee identified as GRU1-GILMA (unit GRU1). At the time, some damage to the car's bodywork was noted, and there was no mention or finding of cracks or damage to the windows. When the vehicle was returned to the Sorocaba unit (SOD2), a new inspection was conducted by the employee identified as GRU1-GABRI (even with the code GRU1), who claimed to have identified a crack in the front windshield, right side, attributing responsibility for the alleged damage to me and demanding payment of R$1,100.00 (one thousand and one hundred reais) to replace the glass. However, it should be noted that the aforementioned crack already existed when the vehicle was picked up, and was hidden by a sticker strategically positioned over the damaged area, which prevented its identification during the initial inspection (as shown in Photo 1, which reveals glue marks from the sticker later removed by the inspector himself upon delivery). Furthermore, the crack had already been repaired with resin, which is evidence that the damage is pre-existing and does not correspond to the period in which I used the vehicle, as shown in Photo 2. Furthermore, the short interval between the collection and return of the vehicle (approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes) makes it highly unlikely that there would have been enough time to cause and carry out repairs to the crack in question. Despite these arguments having been presented clearly, I was forced to immediately pay the amount of R$1,100.00, without any possibility of contestation or filing a dispute. It should be noted that the employee responsible refused to provide his full name, to issue an invoice or receipt for the payment made by card and, in a harsh manner, limited himself to providing only the telephone number of the company's ombudsman. Another point that deserves attention concerns the charging of a return fee of R$222.11, which was duly paid at the time of contracting, presumably to cover the costs of returning the vehicle to the unit of origin (GRU). However, I was informed by the same employee that the vehicle would remain at the Sorocaba unit, contradicting the justification for the aforementioned fee and configuring a possible undue charge.Reviewed 30 Jun 2025
review from![kayak]()
