Unjustified Damage Charge - Sixt

I rented a Peugeot 2008 (registration W-47359Y) from Sixt Austria at Salzburg Airport under rental agreement no. 9613555242. The vehicle was collected on 15 August 2026 at 10:09 and returned on 17 August 2026 at 17:39 via the key-drop box. At the time of return, no joint inspection was carried out in my presence, and no Sixt employee walked around the vehicle with me or pointed out any issue. I was not given any opportunity to see, verify or comment on any alleged damage before leaving the airport. No damage was reported to me at the time of return. On 26 August 2026, nine days after the return, Sixt prepared damage protocol no. 47252291 and informed me of damage claim no. 9078692550. According to Sixt, there are scratches on the passenger-side rear door and passenger-side mirror, and they are demanding EUR 1,320, which appears to correspond to the contractual excess. I firmly dispute liability for this alleged damage. During my rental, I did not cause or notice any incident that could have resulted in damage to the passenger-side rear door or passenger-side mirror, and, to my best knowledge and observation, the vehicle’s condition on return was unchanged from the start of the rental. I have received Sixt’s documents, but they do not contain clear, dated and time-stamped comparative photographic and inspection evidence of the exact alleged damage areas immediately before the start of my rental and immediately after the return. In particular, I have not been provided with a set of photographs and inspection records that can be independently verified to show the precise condition of the passenger-side rear door and mirror directly before I took the car and directly after I returned it. Without such comparative, time-stamped evidence, it cannot be established that the alleged damage occurred during my rental period or that I am responsible for it. The contractual excess is a limit on potential customer liability; it is not automatic proof that the customer is liable for any subsequently alleged damage. Treating the existence of an excess as sufficient to demand EUR 1,320, without transparent and conclusive documentation establishing responsibility, is unacceptable. I have already disputed the claim and requested objective evidence and a detailed calculation of the amount demanded. Accordingly, I do not authorise Sixt to charge my payment card or otherwise debit any amount in relation to damage claim no. 9078692550 unless and until it provides the evidence requested above. Failing this, Sixt should withdraw the claim and confirm in writing that no amount will be charged.