Consumer complaint received 2023-11-07 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem when attempting to purchase vehicle at the end of the lease
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Filing a complaint against Hyundai Motor Finance for not permitting me to buyout my vehicle per the contractual agreement we have within the lease agreement. 

On XX/XX/20, I entered into a lease with Hyundai Motor Finance. The lease agreement included two sections pertaining to a buyout right at the end of the lease term. The first section provides for the option to purchase the vehicle from them, or a party they designate, for the following : ( i ) Residual Value ( explicitly stated as {$10000.00} ) plus ( ii ) a Purchase Option Fee of {$990.00} plus ( iii ) any official fees ( e.g., taxes, tags, license, and registration ). The second section acknowledges that if I reside in a state ( such as FL where I live ) where a seller needs a motor vehicle dealer license that I must process this through the Lessor ( Dealer ) or another authorized, licensed dealer selected by Hyundai. The only other language is that I must notify them 30 days prior to exercising for them to make appropriate arrangements, if necessary. 

I have contacted them 30 days prior as well as multiple times since. They continue to direct me to dealerships ( which I would imagine are related parties via a franchise agreement and they likely have contractual rights to ensure the dealerships abide by these contracts ). The issue is that the dealerships will not permit me to exercise my contractual right and purchase the vehicle with the items and amounts set forth in the contract. Rather, every dealership I have spoken with ( XXXX ) quotes me {$1500.00} - {$3000.00} in additional fees above and beyond what is in my contract. I have a proposal from one such dealership as an example in writing as evidence ( as well as the lease ). This proposal includes items such as " Selling Price '' of the vehicle, rather than the Residual Value, above and beyond the Residual Value. It includes other fees such as " Service Fee '' ( not in contract ), taxes/license/tag fee ( which is fine ), but also " E-Tag File '', " Priv-Tag-Agency ''. " Documentation Fee '', " FL Documentation Stamps '', etc.

Due to this, I am unable to exercise my buyout per the contractual agreement I have with Hyundai, which, though I am not a lawyer, by definition should be a breach of contract on their end. There was none of these additional fees in the contract, no mention of being subject to dealership mark-ups, and at the dealership when signing lease, I was informed the amounts in the contract are the only ones I would need to pay to buyout the vehicle. 

Over the past 3 months, I have contacted Hyundai Motor Finance various times requesting assistance or for them to make arrangements to complete this, which they have failed to do. On multiple occasions, the representative has informed me that I need to pay these dealer fees, despite these not being in the contract, and again I am not a lawyer, but this would imply to me they are complicit in this act. 

I have researched this online and it seems to be a recurring issue in Florida and several articles point to this being against federal laws. See the below excerpt as an example : " Consumer attorney XXXX XXXX said the add-ons violate the Federal Consumer Leasing Act, which states : A dated disclosure must be given to the consumer before signing the lease and must contain all of the information '' and " lessors are required by federal law to provide the consumer with leasing cost information and other disclosures. '' Assistance with this would be greatly appreciated and if I am incorrect in my interpretation of this legal issue, I am happy to remove this complaint. 

If I am correct, I imagine there are likely thousands and thousands of consumers in the state of Florida who have simply accepted this practice, had their contracts breached, and had significant amounts of money taken from them, despite having a contractual agreement. This to me seems like it is a widespread predatory act against consumers.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation