Consumer complaint received 2026-05-28 00:00:00
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: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
OVERVIEW I am disputing lease-end charges of {$2300.00} on a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX returned XX/XX/XXXX. The charges represent approximately 25 % of the total lease value and are based on an inspection report that is demonstrably incomplete and inconsistent, conducted by a third party inspector ( XXXX XXXX ) whose credibility is directly undermined by his own report. KEY FACTS INSPECTOR MISSED THE MOST VISIBLE DAMAGE ON THE CAR The right rear tire has a significant sidewall gash. I have a photo of this gash taken XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX weeks before the inspection. The inspector did not document it anywhere. Additionally, the tailgate has a long visible scratch - the single largest scratch on the vehicle - also photographed by me on XX/XX/XXXX. The inspector did not document that either. Instead he charged for minor door nicks from normal parking lot use. An inspector who missed the XXXX most visible damage items on the vehicle while charging for minor nicks can not be trusted to have accurately assessed anything else. TIRE CHARGES ARE NOT CREDIBLE The report charges {$500.00} to replace both rear tires based on tread depth readings. Reported depths range from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX across XXXX tires on a XXXX mile vehicle. XXXX XXXX tires are rated for XXXX to XXXX miles. This variance is not consistent with normal wear. I measured the tires before return and they were within acceptable range. XXXX weeks after returning this vehicle I purchased a used XXXX of the same year with higher mileage - XXXX sold it to me with no tire concerns. It is not credible that my lease return tires were more worn than tires on a higher mileage vehicle sold as roadworthy XXXX weeks later. No documentation of measurement locations has ever been provided despite XXXX formal requests. PRE-INSPECTION DENIED IN PRACTICE I attempted to schedule a pre-return inspection more than XXXX month before the return date. Santander offered only XXXX available appointment - the day before the return date. This gave me no meaningful time to address any issues. I was effectively forced to return without a pre-inspection. DOCUMENTATION NEVER PROVIDED I requested inspection photos and tread measurement locations on XX/XX/XXXX and again via certified letter received XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX 's only response was a broken URL. No photos or documentation have ever been provided. I can not verify a single charge without photos. FORM LETTER CONFIRMS NO REAL REVIEW Santander 's XX/XX/XXXX response denied requests I never made and referenced a lease buyout option explicitly prohibited in my lease contract Section XXXX. This proves my dispute was never reviewed by a human being. CHARGES ARE EXCESSIVE AND SELECTIVELY APPLIED The inspector charged for minor door nicks that constitute normal parking lot wear while missing a significant tailgate scratch and a tire sidewall gash - both documented in my photos taken before the inspection. All XXXX wheels are charged for XXXX inch curb rash simultaneously. There is no requirement Santander use these funds to actually repair the vehicle. COMMUNICATION FAILURES I received no electronic notifications despite an active online account. Invoice arrived 15 days after it was dated. Online dispute ticket was closed without resolution. The inspection report is not available on Santander 's portal - I had to find it myself through XXXX 's portal.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation