Consumer complaint received 2020-04-24
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Excess mileage, damage, or wear fees, or other problem after the lease is finished
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (IN)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint RE : GM Financial Leasing I attest that the following is a truthful account of the dispute between myself and GM Financial Leasing. 

My son and I co-leased a XXXX XXXX XXXX from GM Financial Leasing for a 2 year period of time. The vehicle lease was due to end in XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was returned on XX/XX/XXXX even before the due date. At the time that the car was returned it was under the allowed mileage and in near pristine condition. 

A few weeks after the vehicle was turned in to the local XXXX dealer I received a letter from GM Financial dated XX/XX/XXXX indicating that there was a balance due of {$600.00}! 

Upon receiving the letter I immediately phoned GM Financial to discuss these charges. I spoke with a representative who explained that the {$390.00} Disposition Fee was in the contract. It should be noted that even if this is in the contract, GM has the discretion to waive this fee if a customer leases or buys another GM vehicle. It was my deisre and I did attempt to lease another GM vehicle before the end of the car lease but was unable to secure a deal that I could financially afford. The salesman at the car dealership would even verify that he worked hard to get me into another leased vehicle. 
Having been a lifetime owner of numerous GM vehicles, having leased a GM vehicle just prior this this car, as well as my parents being loyal GM owners, and my uncle was a XXXX GM XXXX I found that my loyalty to GM should be taken into consideration and this discretionary policy of who does or doesn't have to pay a Disposition Fee to be an unfair practice. In addition, my payment history with GM Financial was exemplary. 
During the same phone call I questioned the Excess Wear Charge in the amount of {$170.00} which also appeared on the bill, the representative directed me to a website to look at the pictures of the so called damage to the vehicle hub caps as determined by the person who inspected the car after it was turned in. The representative offered no assistance other than these we valid charges. I asked to speak with a supervisor and was told that there was no supervisor available. 

After my initial phone call to GM Financial I visited the website to view the damage report and look at the pictures. There were scuffs on the hub caps which were determined by the inspector to be excessive but would be consistent with nothing more than the hub cap getting up against a curb. I would venture to guess that nearly 100 % of cars on the road have these kinds of scuffs yet this is what was deemed to be excessive to the tune of {$170.00}. There are no means to dispute or question the people that GM Financial hire to inspect the vehicles after a lease turn-in. I find these type of business practices to be highly questionable and deceptive. 


Another call was placed to GM Financial a few days later. The charges were again disputed and again a representative indicated that the charges were legitimate. We requested that GM provide proof that the hub caps had been replaced for the {$170.00} charge. We were told that that was not possible. I have the right to request that I have proof of a product for which I am being charged. However, I am aware the reason this is not possible is because the hub caps were NOT replaced or repaired before it was sold or sent to auction, yet GM Financial believes they can levy these outrageous charges to line their pockets and customers have no recourse. Again during this call we requested to speak with a supervisor, who was not available. Was told that this would be sent for a review and they would respond. A return call was never received as was promised. 
Having receiving NO contact from GM Financial Leasing for almost 6 months I assumed that they had decided to write the charges off. 

The next contact I received was in early XX/XX/XXXX when I received an automated message asking me to call GM Financial Leasing. 
Coincidently, on the same day I had received my credit score from the bank where I had applied for a refinance loan. Apparently GM Financial had reported me to the credit bureau in XX/XX/XXXX of having a delinquent loan. 

On or around XX/XX/XXXX I again phoned GM Financial Leasing and spoke with another representative. At this point in time I am very upset that my credit as well as my son has been ruined and GM Financial had made no attempt to contact me by mail or phone for almost 6 months. She told me that there were numerous automated calls to me that were time stamped as proof that the they had attempted contact with me. I have no knowledge of these calls she referred to. All I can say is that if robo calls were being placed to my phone that they were either being blocked as I am on a no-call list or incoming calls displayed as spam that I do not answer. I told her that I would pay the Disposition Fee ( which I am still in disagreement with ) but that the Excess Wear Charge was still an issue and I continued to ask for proof that the hub caps had been replaced. I told the representative that I wanted this reviewed by a supervisor and wanted a phone call back. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I received a voicemail from an actual person XXXX # XXXX after XXXX XXXX. I immediately attempted to return the call but the office had closed at XXXX. I was hopeful that this was finally a supervisor returning my call since this was the first time I received ANY contact at ANY time from a live person. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I contacted the number that XXXX had left only to discover that it was not a supervisor who had contacted me but just another call room representative. Speaking with yet another representative who offered the same line that I had received from all my other contacts. I reiterated that I would pay the {$390.00} but would not pay the {$170.00} without proof that the hubcaps had been replaced. Her response was that they are are not required to repair or replace any damage. What?? This was the first time and first representative that had made such a statement! GM Financial wants to fleece customers by demanding payment for services or products they dont receive. After consulting with someone, the representative came back on the phone and offered to reduce the amount by {$50.00}. I told her that this was not an acceptable amount. She indicated that she would make a note of my refusal to accept the {$50.00} deduction. Clearly if there is discretion to reduce the charge by {$50.00} then they have the ability to waive the charge all together. 

Placed another call to GM on XX/XX/XXXX by contacting a different phone number hoping that I could perhaps speak with someone other than in the call center. 
Spoke with someone named XXXX. I explained my situation and dispute. He indicated that he was willing to send an email to have the damage charges reviewed but said that in the 4 years he had been working for GM Financial that he had never seen any reversal because they go by the report from the people who inspect the vehicles after lease turn-in. 
When I complained that GM Financial had waited 6 months to pursue these charges, he blamed me and also said calls had been made to me to let me know that GM Financial did review and rejected my dispute. This is total fabrication. He also blamed me for being on the no-call list that blocks spam and robo calls. He told me as the previous representative had that GM Financial does not have to prove that they have replaced or repaired any damage. He further stated that these inflated charges and having no means of dispute are just the price of leasing a vehicle. 
He also told me that GM Financial will not remove anything from the credit report. By the end of the phone call he was no longer willing to send an email to have this reviewed stating that it had already been reviewed, denied and that I had been informed of this back in XXXX ( another complete lie ). 

GM Financial Leasing is intentionally gouging consumers who have no recourse against a big business, or recourse against the people they contract with to exaggerate damage during inspections and then refuse to provide proof of replacement. 

I have found hundreds of similar complaints online against GM Financial Leasing and their unscrupulous practices, so I know that I am certainly not alone in my frustrations. Apparently they believe that their customer base is expendable as people vow to no longer purchase another GM product. 

This experience has been the worse customer service I have ever experienced. Despite efforts to speak with someone in charge to get some resolution to this dispute I have been unable to speak with anyone other than a person in a call center that just repeats what they have been told to say. 
It appears that GM Financials idea of customer service is automated robo calls and representatives who are not interested in helping consumers.