Letter to the Urban Municipality of Ljubljana
Request for Meeting — Loss of Access to Avant2Go After a Pricing Dispute
To: Urban Municipality of Ljubljana (Mestna občina Ljubljana) Mestni trg 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Date: April 2nd, 2026
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would be grateful if you could direct this request to the department responsible for urban mobility or car-sharing services within the Municipality.
I am writing to request a meeting regarding a matter involving the car-sharing service Avant2Go, which operates within Ljubljana’s urban mobility ecosystem.
The issue concerns the handling of a pricing and service dispute, and the subsequent loss of my access to the service. Specifically, I raised a dispute relating to a significant discrepancy between the pricing displayed in the application and the amount charged, which the company has since acknowledged as a technical fault.
According to the company’s later response, the amount charged was approximately three times higher than the amount that should have been charged, due to what Avant2Go described as a technical fault.
After I first raised the issue, the company did not accept my position, including after a formal dispute, and the charge was later corrected after I escalated the matter through formal written communication.
Chronologically, after this dispute:
- My account was terminated on the next working day after I had raised the matter
- To my knowledge, there was no intervening use of the service or new conduct on my part between raising the issue and the termination
- In my reading of the termination justification, the matters relied upon appear to arise from the same pricing and service issues that I had challenged
Chronology as I understand it: my account was terminated on the next working day after the dispute, and, to my knowledge, there was no intervening use of the service or new conduct on my part.
As a result, I have lost access to a locally available vehicle.
In practical terms, this has affected my ability to carry out essential trips (for example, transporting my dog for veterinary care), because I am not aware of an equivalent nearby alternative service.
My concern is not only the individual dispute, but also the broader question whether access to a widely used urban mobility service can, in practice, be lost in circumstances where a consumer seeks correction of an error later acknowledged by the company.
I would appreciate the opportunity to briefly present the situation and to understand whether there is an appropriate municipal contact or framework through which such issues can be considered.