Consumer complaint received 2016-06-22
Company: Mercedes Benz Financial Services
State: CA
Product: Consumer Loan
Sub-product: Vehicle lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease

Complaint:
My issue is with Mercedes-Benz Financial Services ( " MBFS '' ). In XXXX XXXX I leased a new vehicle and set up autopay for my monthly payments at that time. In or around XXXX XXXX, I wanted to change the bank acct from which my autopay would be deducted. I went to MBFS 's website, but was unable to process my request because my payment was due in less than 7 days. When I called customer service, I was told to make a one-time payment in order to avoid that month 's autopay and then change my autopay acct for future monthly payments. Per MBFS 's instruction, I made a one-time payment, but then received a message from them stating that my auto payment for that month would still be processed. After numerous phone calls to cust service & speaking with a supervisor to explain that I did not wish to make 2 payments in one month & asking them to manually block the autopay for that month because I had already paid, I was advised there was nothing they could do & my only option was to place a stop payment on my autopay through my financial institution ( an option that typically costs upwards of {$30.00} ). I hesitatingly did so in order to avoid a double payment for that month. After again following their precise instructions for handling the situation, MBFS billed me a " returned payment fee '' for the blocked payment that they had instructed me to block. I again called cust service who said they would request a reversal of the fee. Strangely, the paper invoice I had received stated the fee as {$2.00} higher than what my online account displayed & what cust service said the fee was. Cust service was unable to explain this discrepancy to me, but ultimately reversed a fee ( I received no record of amount reversed ). I then began receiving invoices for a {$2.00} " returned payment fee. '' My online account also reflected a {$2.00} fee, but there was no further explanation as to what this " fee '' related to. I again called cust service on XX/XX/XXXX & spoke with " XXXX '' who stated that the {$2.00} was for " past due taxes '' & that she needed to contact their tax dept. ( which was closed ), but assured me she 'd call me back within 2 days at the latest with an explanation. I never received a call from XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I again called cust service & spoke with " XXXX '' who stated that the {$2.00} was a tax that could not be waived, with no explanation as to what it was a tax on. I explained that it was likely related to the prior reversed returned payment fee & requested to speak with a supervisor, but due to an extended wait time, XXXX assured me that the sup. ( XXXX ) would return my call. I never received a call from XXXX. Today, XX/XX/XXXX, I tried to access my online account to see if anything had changed, but was unable to do so as the site was down ( a seemingly recurring issue ). I then tried again to call cust service, was routed to a " XXXX XXXX '' ( I believe ) who turned out to be in the lease-end dept & he tried to transfer me to cust service but was unable to bc they were " closed. '' ( At apprx. XXXX PST. ) XXXX did not seem to know why cust service would be closed, so he again assured me that he 'd pass along my message & ask them to call me back. It 's been over 2 hours since I called & I have not heard back from MBFS. Frankly, I am exhausted from my numerous attempts to resolve a simple issue with them & their inability & unwillingness to properly address the issue. I have never experienced this level of incompetence & unprofessionalism from a financial institution. I believe MBFS 's actions & practices are unethical, to say the least. Further, it does n't strike me as legal to assess purported fees/taxes on a person while unable to explain what they relate to. Also do n't understand why there are discrepancies b/w paper & online invoices & why cust service/online srvs are so often down. I believe this is a mistaken charge. If someone can accurately explain its validity I will pay. Pls help.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation