Consumer complaint received 2023-08-04
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (DC)

Complaint:
On XX/XX/2023, my husband and I leased a XXXX XXXX XXXX from BMW of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). For background, at the time we were leasing a XXXX XXXX where the monthly payment was {$950.00}. Our goal going into BMW of XXXX was to lower our payment, make the move to an all-electric vehicle, and not pay a single dollar ( due to our equity we had in the XXXX ) out the door ( down payment, taxes, licenses, fees all-In ). Our salesman assigned, XXXX XXXX, was made aware of our not to exceed or out the door - all-In monthly payment, which was targeted at {$780.00} and after negotiating the deal over several hours, we finally agreed upon the price of as dealerships say out the door of {$780.00} per month over a XXXX period at XXXX miles a year ( XXXX miles total ). When we met with and finalized the deal with the finance manager, XXXX XXXX and signed the paperwork, we reviewed the contract, initialed and signed, and made the required initial first month payment in the amount of {$780.00}. 

As we have with all of our leased cars over the past 9+ years, we set up automatic payments to draft the monthly payment amount of {$780.00}, as agreed, and the second payment in that amount was paid on XX/XX/2023. 

Upon review of the payment due for XXXX, we noticed that there was an adjustment to the regular monthly payment, with an increase of {$80.00} per month for sales/use tax. This resulted in a new monthly payment of {$860.00}. We contacted BMW of XXXX first and then followed the directions that were told to us and that is all captured below. 
Monday, XX/XX/2023 : We called BMW of XXXX first, spoke to XXXX XXXX our salesmen and he advised that he would have a manager contact us to discuss this issue. 
XXXX XXXX, the finance manager who finalized our deal, called us back and advised that this adjustment was made by BMW Financial and that we needed to resolve the issue with them. He indicated that BMW of XXXX had been advised that they were not required to include sales/use tax for EV vehicles, leased by XXXX XXXX residents XXXX He then also acknowledged that as of Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, BMW of XXXX received an internal notification stating that they in fact needed to include sales/use tax on EV vehicles that were leased by XXXX XXXXXXXX residents and this would affect consumers. we requested that XXXX have someone else contact me in management to continue discussions and options to make this right, XXXX said he would have someone call us back. 
XXXX XXXX, the sales manager involved in the original negotiation, contacted us to discuss the mistake. He acknowledged the issue and confirmed the internal notification noted by XXXX during our first call that they were not compliant in calculating and including the sales/use tax on leased EVs for XXXX XXXX residents . However, he did indicate that the issue was caused by a change in XXXX XXXX law ( which we have not been able to validate ). He further stated that BMW of XXXX when processing leases through BMW Financials system, that they did everything right, because otherwise, when inputting the sales/use tax, they would have received an error by inputting {$0.00} ( which they did on our contract ) but they did not receive an error when processing our deal. XXXX continued to advise that this needed to be resolved by BMW Financial Services. We advised XXXX that we could discuss negotiating the contract to honor the original price in the signed contract as it was, but that it would have to be inclusive of the sales/use tax. XXXX stated that he would contact us the next business day ( Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX ) with options to resolve. 
Conclusion : After now talking with both entities, it was clear that both BMW of XXXX and BMW Financial were passing the blame on each other. And us as the consumer, were left unclear as to who had the responsibility to resolve this mistake and neither seemed to want to resolve this mistake. 
Tuesday, XX/XX/2023 : XXXX XXXX stated on XX/XX/XXXX that he would call us back with options to resolve this mistake. We did not receive a call back. After not receiving the promised callback, we left a message and still did not receive a callback. 
Wednesday, XX/XX/2023 : We called XXXX XXXX, left a voicemail, and did not receive a callback. 
Thursday, XX/XX/2023 : Due to the lack of response from XXXX XXXX, we called our original salesman, XXXX XXXX to attempt to get a response. XXXX answered the call and said, he would have XXXX XXXX, call us back. 
XXXX XXXX, called us back and left a voicemail ( we were not able to answer his call, because we were on the other line with BMW Financial )XXXX XXXX XXXX  voicemail said, he would have the General Manager contact us Friday afternoon due to the GM being on PTO ( this continues to prove that BMW of XXXX is allegedly relying on us to not continue to follow-up ) While talking with BMW Financial they advised that due to the dealership mistake, that we would need to undergo a contract rewind which by their definition, means that we are subject to signing a new contract to include the sales/use tax. BMW Financial acknowledged that this is solely under the dealership discretion and that it may result in the increased payment amount indicated by their new statement with the sales/use tax. They indicated that they would attempt to call BMW of XXXX to solicit a response.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation