Consumer complaint received 2021-08-30
Company: Volvo Car Financial Services U.S., LLC
State: CA
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease
Sub-issue: Excess mileage, damage, or wear fees, or other problem after the lease is finished

Complaint:
My wife and I leased a vehicle from Volvo Finance VCFS Auto Leasing Company.

At the end of the lease term, we dropped off the vehicle at the Volvo dealer as instructed, obtained a receipt from the dealership, and notified Volvo Finance. This was on XX/XX/XXXX. 

We have performed all routine maintenance at the Volvo dealership where it was dropped off. The vehicle was returned under the mileage limit. 

In XXXX, we started receiving repeated calls from Volvo Finance that the lease had terminated and they had not received the car. Volvo continued to charge and harass us.

We explained to Volvo Finance that they did turn in the car, had a signed receipt, and had notified them at the same time.

Volvo continued to call and harass us, and we continued to advise the Volvo collectors that they were not correct. The Volvo collectors did not verify the accuracy of their claims. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, we received XXXX XXXX  alerts that Volvo Finance was reporting our account as delinquent, with a negative impact on their credit scores. There was a charge for a past-due balance for XXXX in the amount of {$590.00}. 

We then made the complaint to the C.F.P.B. on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX then backed off of the delinquent calls and delinquent credit reporting that they started in XXXX. It seems that the C.F.P.B. complaint did what it was intended to do to get to someone who would pay attention, rather than the erroneous information they were acting on, and refusing to correct their records. 

Unfortunately Volvo did not leave it alone. In retaliation for the C.F.P.B. complaint, Volvo claims to have had an inspection of the vehicle done on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX This was the same date of the C.F. P. B. complaint Coincidence? ) The purported results of the inspection were that three of the tires measured XX/XX/XXXX tread, and one was XX/XX/XXXX tread. They claimed that this constituted excessive wear under their standards ( the XX/XX/XXXX tires ) and they decided to charge us {$1200.00}. This amount is excessive wear for three tires for {$780.00} plus {$60.00} sales tax, and {$350.00} vehicle turn-in fee plus {$27.00} sales tax.

This is peculiar and improbable for the following reasons : ( 1 ) when dropping off the car no issue was identified ; ( 2 ) I dropped the car off on XX/XX/XXXX and Volvo located their car, the inspection takes place at XX/XX/XXXX ( over a month later ) and I have no way to validate what wear and tear has occurred over the last month plus. ( 3 ) We also conducted a complete inspection that was certified by Volvo ( document attached to this complaint ) establishing the car was in perfect condition and the tires had not experienced excessive wear by their own report prior to returning the car - the report clearly indicates no concerns were raised by Volvos own service department.

Volvo is retaliating against me as a consumer for not renewing my lease and is acting in bad faith against consumers at-large by falsely accusing me of excessive wear to receive more money with the knowledge that many consumers dont or wont fight back. I have offered Volvo that I will pay the vehicle turn-in fee of {$350.00} as per the lease agreement, but they refuse to accept this and continue to operate in bad faith. I am writing to you to make this right and to protect me against Volvos fraudulent actions and to have them XXXX  out the balance due as acknowledgement of their continued bad faith and wrong doing.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation