Consumer complaint received 2026-03-03 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: Mercedes Benz Financial Services
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, prior to entering the dealership, XXXX XXXX ( Plaintiff ) was negotiating a lease transaction with sales representative XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Defendant, doing business as Mercedes-Benz XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX During the initial discussion, XXXX XXXX informed Plaintiff that his prior lease payoff balance was approximately {$6100.00} and that he would have to pay that amount. Plaintiff responded that it was not financially reasonable for him to pay the entire remaining balance in order to enter into a new lease and that he would proceed only if the prior obligation could be satisfied through the transaction structure. Text messages dated XX/XX/XXXX reflect that Plaintiff owed approximately {$41000.00} on his prior lease. Plaintiff informed XXXX XXXX that if she could provide {$38000.00} in trade value, he would pay the remainder ; otherwise, he would not proceed. ( Exhibit A ) This was also communicated over the phone. XXXX XXXX indicated that she would consult with her manager. After consulting with her manager, XXXX XXXX called Plaintiff back and advised over the phone that, through trade value and tax savings, Plaintiff could enter into the new lease by paying approximately {$3800.00} instead of the full {$6100.00} payoff balance. ( Exhibit B ) Based on this representation, Plaintiff requested physical documents for review and signature in advance. ( Exhibit C ) No physical documents were provided. Nonetheless, Plaintiff agreed to come to the dealership on XX/XX/XXXX. Plaintiff Note : During this time, Plaintiff contacted multiple dealerships in an effort to obtain a lower number than what was initially provided by XXXX XXXX, which was {$870.00} due at signing. ( Exhibit Intent ) On XX/XX/XXXX, upon Plaintiffs arrival at the dealership, the vehicle was not yet prepared, and Plaintiff waited approximately two to three hours before entering the finance office. During the electronic signing process, the finance manager maintained exclusive control of the computer screen and directed Plaintiff to the signature section. Plaintiff was not given a meaningful opportunity to independently review the full itemization of the gross capitalized cost or any individual page before signing. ( Witness Testimony ) When Plaintiff attempted to review the documentation more thoroughly, he was informed that other customers were waiting and was verbally walked through what had been negotiated. Given XXXX XXXX prior representations regarding payoff satisfaction and the manner in which the signing process was conducted, Plaintiff relied on the verbal explanations provided rather than conducting an independent page-by-page review. ( Witness Testimony ) During the payment process, Plaintiffs debit card was initially declined due to daily transaction limits. On one such occasion, Plaintiff specifically requested confirmation that the funds he was providing would be applied toward satisfying the remaining prior lease balance and the first months payment. Plaintiff was assured that they would be. After resolving the bank limit issue, Plaintiff provided payment of approximately {$3800.00}, based on this understanding, in addition to {$860.00} toward the first months lease payment. ( Witness Testimony ) Months later, in XX/XX/XXXX, when attempting to obtain a buyout quote through the Mercedes-Benz Financial Services application , Plaintiff discovered that the payoff amount included a line item titled Prior Lien/Lease Balance in the amount of {$6100.00}, which had been incorporated into the new lease structure and carried forward into the payoff calculation. ( Exhibit D ) This directly contradicted the representations made to Plaintiff that his prior lease obligation would be satisfied and not rolled into the new agreement. Plaintiff promptly contacted XXXX XXXX, informing her of the discrepancy and believing it to be a mistake. XXXX XXXX recommended that Plaintiff speak with the dealership and/or Mercedes-Benz Financial Services . ( Exhibit E - F ) Plaintiff then submitted written correspondence disputing the inclusion of the prior lien balance and requesting correction of the account in order to avoid litigation. The dealership declined to adjust the account and maintained that the written contract controlled. ( Exhibit Emails ) Additionally, an {$800.00} processing charge was included in the transaction. This fee was not meaningfully explained during negotiations, and Plaintiff was not afforded an adequate opportunity to review or question this charge prior to signing. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC is the current assignee and servicer of the lease and is enforcing a payoff structure that includes the disputed prior lien balance. Plaintiff requests the removal of the {$6100.00} prior lien/lease balance from the current lease payoff calculation and reimbursement or removal of the {$800.00} processing fee. The total disputed amount is {$6900.00}.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation