Consumer complaint received 2020-07-06
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Volvo Car Financial Services U.S., LLC (CT)

On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a 30 month lease with Volvo Car Financials Services ( hereinafter Volvo ), which was scheduled to end on XX/XX/XXXX. The lease indicated that a Vehicle Turn-in Fee of {$350.00} would apply and a {$500.00} refundable security deposit was paid. 

I was responsible for state properly taxes. The State of Connecticut taxes vehicles based upon the vehicle being on an XX/XX/XXXX Grand List ( assessed at 70 % of average retail value ), and for vehicles registered in XXXX, I would owe 25 % of the amount due ( or 3 months ). Volvo initially charged me for {$180.00} and {$710.00} in property taxes the first amount presumably 25 % of {$750.00} for property tax from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, and the second amount for property tax from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. In a Lease Invoice dated XX/XX/XXXX, Volvo charged me for {$590.00}. As such, as of XXXX of XXXX, I had paid 27 months of property tax on the vehicle. 

In late XXXX of XXXX, Volvo requested that I have an " independent inspector, '' supplied by Volvo, inspect the vehicle for " excess wear & tear. '' I subsequently received a report indicating that {$390.00} was being estimated for excess wear & tear. These were for a variety of scratches that were so small that I needed the inspector to specifically point them out to me otherwise they were not readily noticeable. Moreover, when I took the vehicle into my local auto body shop, the estimator also had trouble identifying the scratches and was shocked that Volvo was stating that these were " excess wear & tear. '' While agreeing with the estimator that these scratches were insignificant, I ended upon spending {$120.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, to address these scratches. 

In my Lease Invoice as of XX/XX/XXXX, all 30 lease payments were indicated as being paid, and I had {$0.00} amount due. On XX/XX/XXXX, I returned the vehicle to the dealer. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a Lease Termination Invoice from Volvo. This Invoice indicated that I owed {$350.00} for a Disposition Fee ( not disputed ) and {$390.00} for Excess Wear and Use ( disputed ) and {$47.00} tax on the two ( disputed because it was based upon a disputed amount ). Additionally, the statement indicated that I owed {$590.00} for " Actual and/or Estimated Property Tax '' ( disputed ) and that I had a credit of {$500.00}, which was my initial deposit.

In at least one phone call with Volvo 's representatives, I disputed both the charge for Excess Wear and Use and also for the Property Taxes. I had already spent money to address the scratches prior to the turning in of the vehicle. Additionally, I disputed the Property Tax amount for two separate reasons. First, the {$590.00} was the amount from the previous year, and the actual assessment amount ( not known until XXXX of XXXX ) would naturally be lower because the vehicle depreciates in value from year to year. Thus, the actual amount should have been lower. Second, I only had the car for 3 additional months since the last time I paid property tax ( as noted above, I already had paid 27 months of property tax for a 30 month lease ). As such, I should have only had to pay an additional 3 months of property tax not 12 months. 

Based upon my conversation with Volvo 's representative, I did not believe Volvo was  going to adequately address my concerns, I wrote a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, in which I indicated that I disputed the amounts owed. At the same time, I wrote a check to Volvo for {$220.00} in full satisfaction of the amount owed. This checked was cashed by Volvo on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another Lease Termination Invoice in which the Estimated Property Tax was reduced from the prior {$590.00} to {$520.00}. Also, my check of {$220.00} and my {$500.00} security deposit were credited to arrive at a balance of {$600.00}. However, Volvo continued to charge me for 12 months of property taxes instead of 3 months. Assuming that the {$520.00} ( reduced ) amount is correct, I should have only been charged ( {$520.00} x 25 % ) or {$130.00}, which means, at the very least, that the amount due should have been {$200.00}. Considering that I had already spent {$120.00} to repair the vehicle, the difference between what I should have owed and what I already paid was negligible. As such, my settlement offer of {$220.00} ( in addition to the {$500.00} security deposit ) was reasonable.

The Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) is a comprehensive set of laws governing commercial transactions in the United States. The Lease document does not indicate the choice of law governing the particular lease. As such, I am assuming that the Lease is to be construed under Connecticut law or Alabama law. Identical versions of UCC 3-311 are found in both Connecticut law and Alabama law, a portion of which is reproduced below : ( a ) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that ( i ) that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, ( ii ) the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and ( iii ) the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.

( b ) Unless subsection ( c ) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim. ( emphasis added ) I met all the requirements of subsection ( a ), which is that ( i ) I tendered a check to Volvo in full satisfaction of the claim, ( ii ) I had a bona fide dispute with Volvo over the amount, and ( iii ) Volvo obtained payment of the check. Referring to subsection ( b ), the " claim is discharged '' upon a conspicuous statement that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction. This statement was contained in both the letter I sent to Volvo and the check. Therefore, under UCC 3-311, Volvo does not have a claim against me for any amount. Therefore, all indications of the charge off amount of {$600.00} with Volvo should be removed from my credit report.

I eventually leased another vehicle ( from a different manufacturer ) immediately after returning the vehicle. However, I believe Volvo intentionally used these lease-end " up charges '' in an attempt to coerce me into signing another lease with them since the Volvo dealership repeatedly indicated to me that they would remove those charges if I signed another lease. Additionally, throughout the time period at issue I received numerous solicitations from Volvo. Also, they appear to have used the third party inspector as " cover '' ( i.e., to be the bad guy ) in order to insulate their dealership from their consumer 's anger over the inflated excess wear and tear charges. Additionally, Volvo appears to have intentionally overcharged me ( and likely others ) on property taxes relying upon consumer ignorance to not double check Volvo 's figures.

Currently, my credit scores have taken a substantial hit because of Volvo 's misrepresentation of my credit history. I paid everything that was rightfully owed to Volvo, and with regard to the items that were disputed, Volvo took my check in full satisfaction of these debts. Based upon the law, Volvo has no legitimate basis by which to report unpaid amounts ( i.e., charge offs ) to my credit history.