Consumer complaint received 2017-04-26
Company: De Lage Landen Finance, LLC
State: NY
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease
Sub-issue: Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing

Complaint:
AGCO Finance executed a predatory Lease Agreement, c hanged a co-signor to a co-lessee when my credit alone was not adequate without disclosure, changed a Lease after it was signed by all parties, tampered with a VIN number and attempted to collect a debt it is not entitled to. AGCO Finance refuses to address the contract irregularities restated below This Complaint is against  AGCO Finance Company who bears responsibility for all AGCO Re presentatives who conducted business on the instruction of  XXXX   XXXX . In  XXXX   XXXX , I attempted to lease a  XXXX   XXXX  Tractor thru the AGCO Representative  XXXX   XXXX .  XXXX  collected my financial data.  XXXX  referred to the lender as  XXXX  when it was really  AGCO Finance .  XXXX  advised me that I needed a co-signor. I supplied a co-signor who submitted a separate financial application to  XXXX . Unknown to me and the co-signor  XXXX  elevated the co-signor to co-lessee without disclosure to either me or the co-signor.  XXXX  created a second credit application after the tractor was delivered an d the Lease Agreement w as signed.  XXXX  also returned the Lease Agreement to me after it was signed stating that there was an error in the serial number, ( the Tractor VIN Number ) that was listed on the Lease, would I acknowledge the change.  XXXX  did not contact the co-signor whom he elevated to co-lessee and the co-signor never acknowledged changes made to the contract by  XXXX  after the co-signor had signed the contract.  XXXX  used the financial information from the co-signor to meet the financial requirements and this was why he elevated the co-signor to co-lessee.  XXXX  always made a point to ask AGCO when he needed clarification.  AGCO Finance a pproved credit only with the submission of a co-lessee and not me ; AGCO  Finance administered financing and approved a Lease Agreement  that without a co-lessee they did not believe would be repaid making this a predatory lease/financial agreement and never advised the parties of the change from co-signor to co-le ssee. AGCO Finance, AGCO and t heir representative  XXXX   XXXX  did not show me where the VIN was located on the tractor and the VIN on the tractor was not verified to be the VIN documented on the Lease Agreement. In  XXXX   XXXX , it was discovered that the VIN on the tractor was not the same as on th e Lease Agreement.   In  XXXX , when I attempted to purchase parts for the tractor which should have been covered by the Warranty from a differ ent AGCO represent ative, I was told the tractor did not have any warranty. When I tried to verify the VIN with the VIN listed on the Lease Agreement they clearly were not the same. When this was brought to the attention of  XXXX , his response was you must have removed it ; it is from damage from the operators feet. No, neither are the case and then  XXXX  and AGCO wanted me to tamper with the VIN of the tractor by applying a new VIN with the number that was on the Lease Agreemen t. AGCO financ e continues that this is about monetary default and this is why they commenced legal action against me and the co-signor that they now call the co-lessee. So again conside r AGCO Finance st ates : As such, due to the ongoing payment default under the Lease occurring since  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX  and  XXXX   XXXX  decision not to accept the repaired Equipment from the Dealer, AFC notified the lessees of its decision to terminate the Lease and pursue its remedies under the Lease. Consider that it was  XXXX   XXXX  that I advised  AGCO Finance an d AGCO that the tractor was a Lemon and they did not respond. AGCO did not advise me what remedies existed.  XXXX  said NY does not have a  XXXX   XXXX . NY does have a  Lemon Law.   Consider that the tractor, under protest was returned to  XXXX  on  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX  ; under protest because  XXXX  was unable and unwilling to repair the tractor that was defective on the date of delivery  XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX . I had requested to take the tractor to a different AGCO representative and AGCO said NO only  XXXX  can fix. Consider that AGCO did not and has not reimbursed me for the parts covered by the Warranty that I purchased in  XXXX   XXXX , more than another payment in value. Consider that the tractor was out of service from  XXXX   XXXX  till  XXXX   XXXX  and  XXXX  says they do not offer substitution even though the tractor was out of service the entire growing season ; I was not receiving anything as my part to the Lease. There was not any default because after a considerable runaround time required to notify all parties ( first I was told to contact this one and that one said someone else until the last one said I had to contact the first one ) and no offer of solution or resolution b y AGCO, I told AGCO, AGCO Finance  and  XXXX  the tractor met the definition of N Y State as a Lemon and b ecause they had not acted in good faith to resolve the issues other than to say the tractor is ready after being out of service for the third time and this time for 129 days, and never having been able to fix the tractor on previous attempts, I said keep the tractor and declare the Lease, a document based on fraud, Null and Void. Consider that the tractor I received had 60 hours on the tachometer and  XXXX  sold it as new on the  Lease Agreement.   The tractor was already known to be defective when  XXXX  brought it to me, the person with subpar credit.  AGCO Finance c hanged a contract to call a co-signor a co-lessee in order to approve the Lease Agreement ; the Lease Agreement was altered after it was signed by AGCO without the acknowledgement of all parties and AGCO readily tampered with the VIN of the tractor to make it appear it was the tractor defined by the Lease. AGCO has no basis to say this complaint only refers to a defective tractor and not the financing portion. No default in payment occurred because of the failure of AGCO to reimburse for parts under warranty and it was  XXXX  several months prior to  XXXX   XXXX , which I sought solutions for which AGCO failed to respond.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation