Consumer complaint received 2026-01-22 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: VW Credit
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Volkswagen XXXX XXXX ( VWXXXX ) for misleading, unfair, and contradictory lease-end billing practices, resulting in improper charges totaling approximately {$1400.00}. 

At lease termination, VWXXXX assessed charges for : Two mismatched tires, and Front bumper misalignment. 

At the time of lease return, I was covered by a Lease-End Protection policy XXXX XXXX ) with coverage of up to {$10000.00}. Importantly, XXXX approved coverage for the claimed damages, as confirmed in writing via email, which I can provide as evidence. 

Despite this approval, VW XXXX XXXX rejected the coverage and held me personally responsible for the charges, without a clear, consistent, or adequately disclosed justification. 

Contradictions and misleading representations Tires Wear and Tear contradiction VWXXXX own Lease-End Guide categorizes tires under wear and tear standards used during inspection. However, in practice, VWXXXX  denied coverage for the tires while still relying on that same classification to justify billing. 

A reasonable consumer would expect that a lease-end protection product is designed to cover lease-end wear-related charges. Using the same terminology both to impose charges and to deny protection creates confusion and a misleading consumer impression. 

Mismatched tires inconsistent application If mismatched tires were a material concern justifying charges, it is unclear why only two tires were replaced instead of all four, raising questions regarding consistency, proportionality, and the legitimacy of the charge. 

Front bumper misalignment undisclosed and undefined charge Charges were assessed for front bumper misalignment, yet : This condition does not appear as a chargeable item in VWXXXX Lease-End Guide, and It is not disclosed in my lease contract as a billable condition. 

Bumper alignment is more accurately characterized as a maintenance or adjustment issue, not excess wear or cosmetic damage, and VWXXXX provides no consumer-facing standard explaining how such a condition is evaluated or billed. 

Additional serious issues Improper mileage charge to XXXX VWXXXX  charged XXXX for excess mileage, despite the fact that my billing statement confirms I never exceeded the contracted mileage allowance. 

Failure to provide an itemized bill VWXXXX  never provided a proper itemized statement explaining how the charges were calculated, despite requests, preventing meaningful verification or dispute. 

Selective inspection and inconsistent reporting Other cosmetic issues present on the vehicle were not reported or charged, while select items were billed, raising concerns regarding arbitrary or inconsistent inspection and billing practices. 

Undisclosed contract terms/ incomplete disclosure ( with video evidence ) After disputing the charges, VWXXXX began relying on additional contractual exclusions contained in a multi-page document that was never provided to me during the lease term or lease-end process. 

All written communications from VWXXXX including emails and in-app messages show that I was only ever provided with a single-page document related to Excess Wear & Tear. No additional pages, full contract, or expanded terms were disclosed, attached, or referenced. 

I have video documentation recorded directly from the official VW XXXX XXXX mobile application, showing the original dated message and that only a single-page document was provided, with no access to additional terms. This video documentation is available upon request. 

Relying on undisclosed contractual exclusions after the fact to deny coverage constitutes a serious failure of disclosure. Material terms that were never furnished, explained, or accepted by the consumer can not reasonably be enforced. Any ambiguity created by incomplete disclosure must be interpreted against the drafter, not the consumer. 

Deceptive and unfair business practices legal concerns The conduct described above raises serious concerns under applicable California and federal consumer protection laws, including but not limited to : California Business & Professions Code 17200 ( Unfair Competition Law ), prohibiting unfair or misleading business practices likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. 

California Business & Professions Code 17500 ( False Advertising Law ), prohibiting advertising or representations that are misleading or create false consumer impressions, even absent intent to deceive.

California Civil Code 1770 ( a ) ( 5 ) and 1770 ( a ) ( 9 ) ( Consumers Legal Remedies Act ), prohibiting representations that services have benefits or characteristics they do not have, or advertising services with intent not to provide them as represented.

California Civil Code 1723, requiring businesses to provide itemized statements upon request, which VWXXXX  failed to do. 

California Civil Code 1632, requiring that consumers be provided with complete and clear contractual terms and material disclosures, which VWXXXX failed to furnish. 

California Civil Code 1654, requiring that any ambiguity created by incomplete or unclear contract drafting be interpreted against the party who drafted the contract. 

Taken together, VWXXXX actions advertising lease-end protection, denying approved coverage, relying on undisclosed contractual exclusions, using ambiguous terminology inconsistently, and failing to provide transparent billing are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer regarding the true scope and value of the protection product.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief