Consumer complaint received 2022-07-01 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
My XXXX XXXX XXXX was authorized for a manufacturer buyback in XXXX, XXXX, due to well publicized issues of the vehicle 's battery pack catching fire. Before the buyback was authorized, manufacturer General Motors advised customers not to park the vehicle within 50 feet of any object ( must park outdoors ), and GM limited the range of my vehicle to 40 miles less than the advertised range that I paid for using a software update. This also prohibited me from charging my vehicle at home ( making my life extremely difficult ), and ultimately, leaving me without a car once my buyback was completed because it was nearly impossible to locate an equivalent replacement vehicle in the current market. 

Before the buyback was completed, I called 28 (!! ) XXXX dealerships within a XXXX  mile range of my home in XXXX XXXX attempting to secure a replacement car. 26 dealerships had no cars to sell and no ETA to receive more, and I was finally able to find one dealership who had a car to sell me at sticker price ( XXXX  more than I paid for my similarly equipped XXXX vehicle ) which would arrive in a few weeks. So, in XXXX XXXX, I was now left without a car for 3 weeks once I had to turn my XXXX XXXX  back in to GM. 

On about XX/XX/XXXX, GM announced the {$5900.00} reduction in MSRP on the XXXX model of the XXXX XXXX. I was set to lease the model currently available, which is a XXXX. 2 days later, my XXXX XXXX arrived at the dealership. I asked if I could place a non-refundable cash deposit on the car and wait a few days to hear if GM would make an announcement on a price cut for the XXXX model. The General Manager of the dealership told me he was expecting a forthcoming announcement, however, I was also told " I've already sold your car to someone else if you dont pick it up today. '' Since there are essentially no electric vehicles on dealer lots for sale in Southern California, I had to go forward with my lease despite being told that an upcoming price adjustment may be happening. Otherwise I would not be able to commute to my job. Had the {$5900.00} price cut happened on the day I went to secure my vehicle, I would have purchased it outright rather than leasing. 


To note - I've purchased 30+ cars in my lifetime. As long as I've been purchasing, EVERY SINGLE MANUFACTUER announces their monthly incentives, dealer cash, interest rates for financing and leasing, residual values, etc, to their dealers on or about the XXXX  day of the month. Those are the fixed numbers for the month and do not change until the next month. 

However, two days after my lease agreement was signed, GM announced the {$5900.00} price cut would also apply to XXXX models. Then on XX/XX/XXXX, GM announced that people who had purchased XXXX models before the price reduction would receive compensation from GM, who effectively reduced the values of their cars overnight by {$5900.00}. However, GM has stated that this compensation would not apply to Lesees. 

But, here is the problem- I signed my lease 2-3 days later. Aside from being atypical to make an incentive adjustment mid month, GM knew that it would be making this announcement well in advance. This is a multi-billion dollar international company with thousands of lawyers and PR people. They don't make a corporate decision and press release it the same day. GM FInancial sets the RESIDUAL VALUE for a car lease based upon their realistic prediction of the value of the car a the end of the lease. Since GM knew it was going to announce the {$5900.00} drop in XXXX XXXX pricing in only days, the Residual Value provided by GM Financial in my lease was fraudulent and did not reflect the tremendous drop in the value of my car. The price I paid for my car should have been reduced by {$5900.00} to reflect the price cut. Additionally, GM leased me a car based on a residual value which they knew was totally unrealistic, and now with my car with so much less overnight, I will be vastly " under water '' on my lease, giving me no opportunity to contractually purchase my vehicle for anywhere near its real market price at the end of the lease since the fraudulent residual is so massively overinflated. 

Because GM 's original Bolts had a battery flaw in the first place, I was now left without a car, forced into overpaying for an equivalent replacement vehicle with my out-of-pocket payment grossly overinflated, and additionally, I have no plausible path to purchasing the vehicle at the expiration of the lease because the real residual value will be far lower than that in my lease as provided by GM. 

GM Changed the rules in the middle of my deal and offered my terms which they knew were based on fraudulent information. I contacted GM XXXX XXXX and they told me that the compensation did not apply to lessees and they would do nothing for me. I have additionally emailed General Motors CEO XXXX XXXX and other executives GM Financial Account # XXXX Vin : XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation