Consumer complaint received 2025-06-06 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Termination fees or other problem when ending the lease early
Company: Mercedes Benz Financial Services
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, we ( XXXX XXXX and spouse, XXXX XXXX ) leased a 2024 Mercedes-Benz EQE 350 through Mercedes-Benz Financial Services ( MBFS ) , initiating the lease at Mercedes-Benz of XXXX in Oregon XXXX At the inception of the lease, {$28000.00} of negative equity from a prior vehicle was rolled into the new lease. However, the lease contract did not specify how this negative equity would be treated in the event of voluntary early termination or surrender. Due to this lack of clarity, we sought direct guidance from MBFS representatives to understand the financial implications before making any decisions. In early XXXX, facing financial hardship, we began exploring options to reduce our monthly obligations, including the possibility of voluntarily surrendering the vehicle. 
In XX/XX/XXXX, we contacted MBFS Collections on at least four separate occasions to request detailed information regarding the voluntary surrender process. We specifically inquired about how the remaining lease balance would be handled given the substantial amount of negative equity. We were consistently told that the process involved dropping the vehicle off at an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership , after which it would be sent to auction. Proceeds from the auction sale would be applied to the remaining lease balance. For example, if the balance was {$60000.00} and the vehicle sold for {$50000.00}, we would be responsible only for the {$10000.00} difference, plus any applicable early termination fees. 
While the original Total Gross Capitalized Cost was $ XXXXwhich included the {$65000.00} vehicle price, a {$1500.00} service contract, a {$1000.00} acquisition fee, the {$28000.00} in negative equity, and {$2400.00} for XXXX XXXX were repeatedly advised that the amount considered in the surrender process would be between {$59000.00} and {$60000.00}. Based on this repeated and confirmed guidance from MBFS representatives, we felt reasonably informed and comfortable proceeding with the voluntary surrender. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, we surrendered the vehicle at Mercedes-Benz of Wilsonville and provided MBFS with the dealership 's contact information, as instructed. We would not have moved forward with the surrender had we known the true financial consequences. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, we checked our MBFS account and discovered an outstanding balance of $ XXXXsubstantially more than we were led to expect. When we contacted MBFS for clarification, we asked whether the full auction proceeds had been applied to the balance, suspecting that only a partial amount may have been credited. A customer service representative confirmed that the sale had been completed, and no additional funds would be applied. We then requested an escalation from a supervisor, believing there had been a misunderstanding or miscalculation.

Upon escalation, the manager stated the remaining balance was due to the negative equity rolled into the leasean explanation that directly contradicted the consistent guidance we received prior to surrendering the vehicle. We requested that a formal complaint be filed, as we believed the guidance had been misleading and lacked the transparency required for an informed decision. We explicitly asked that all four pre-surrender phone calls be reviewed for accuracy and accountability. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a Lease-End Statement reiterating the {$33000.00} balance. This included : {$900.00} in Total Excess Wear and Tear Charges ( which we were later advised would be removed due to the charging cable being returned ), {$30000.00} in Unpaid Lease Payments, {$1800.00} in Early Termination Fees, and {$590.00} for a Vehicle Turn-In Fee.

The statement failed to specify the original balance against which these charges were calculated or how much was credited from the sale proceeds. This omission, combined with the inconsistent guidance received, caused further confusion and concern. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, we received a call from the same manager regarding the complaint. Although we missed the initial call, we returned it the same day. The manager stated that MBFS had completed its investigation and reviewed the four calls we made prior to surrender. According to the manager, the first call contained incorrect information that matched our understanding of the process. However, they claimed that the remaining three calls included the " correct '' explanation, and therefore MBFS was not liable for any misguidance or balance recalculations.

We stated that this resolution was unacceptable and requested further escalation. We reiterated that the same explanation had been confirmed in multiple calls, and that this consistency is what led us to move forward with the surrender. Had the guidance been corrected at any point, we would have reconsidered our course of action. We informed the manager that if the matter could not be resolved fairlyspecifically by reducing the outstanding balancewe would consider filing a lawsuit against MBFS for the resulting financial harm and potential regulatory violations.

We believe this situation may involve multiple violations of federal consumer protection laws. Under Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), creditors must provide clear and accurate disclosures of credit terms and obligations. The misleading and inconsistent information provided by MBFS representatives prevented us from making an informed decision. Under the Consumer Leasing Act ( CLA ), which amends TILA to cover lease transactions, lessors are required to clearly disclose total lease costs, including those resulting from early termination. MBFS failed to explain how the {$28000.00} in negative equity would impact the remaining balancean omission we believe constitutes a material failure of disclosure.

Additionally, we believe this situation constitutes a violation of UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) due to the materially misleading and contradictory information provided, which resulted in substantial financial harm. If MBFS or its agents are attempting to collect on this lease balance, the failure to clearly explain the debt calculations and to provide truthful, consistent information may also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 
We respectfully request that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX investigate this matter, considering the misleading representations MBFS made regarding the voluntary surrender process and the determination of the lease-end balance. We are seeking a fair and just resolution considering the inaccurate and contradictory information on which we relied, the resulting financial harm, and the potential violations of federal lending and consumer protection laws. Furthermore, we ask that the Bureau ensure MBFS provides accurate, consistent, and lawful communications to consumers, particularly in complex lease situations involving rolled-in negative equity.

Most importantly, we are requesting immediate corrective action to prevent undue and unjust damage to our credit profiles stemming from this mishandled process, which threatens to harm our financial wellbeing for years to come.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation