Consumer complaint received 2019-06-01 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: BMW Financial Services NA, LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Per my lease with BMW Financial I was to have my car inspected and returned by or on XX/XX/2019. Having previously completed a lease with BMW and having had the car inspected and returned on the same day, I showed up to BMW of XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to do the same. When I arrived I was told that the car had to be inspected by a third party, XXXX, before the lease can be returned. They told me as such, they would provide me with a 5 day grace period to have the car inspected and return the vehicle. I was surprised as this was not my experience before, but I nevertheless I made sure to call XXXX that same day, XX/XX/XXXX, to request a inspection. On XX/XX/XXXX I called XXXX back to inquire about the status of my inspection request as my grace period was now over. I spoke to XXXX who is a Customer Service Reprehensive and her Supervisor XXXX in the XXXX call center and they advised me that BMW had canceled my request for an inspection, as they saw my lease maturity date passed and they assumed the request must have been a mistake. As such, XXXX put my name back on the list for an inspection, however, I was now being added to the bottom of said list, and it can take two to three weeks to get my car inspected. During this time, BMW Financial has stated that I must pay for the car for each day that it continues to be in my procession because per the lease the car must be inspected before returned. Despite BMW Financials stance my complaint is the following : a ) Nowhere in my lease does BMW Financial explain that my car had to be inspected by a third party. Furthermore, there was never warning that this third party works on a 3 week to 1 month lead time. Therefore, by providing no such stipulation or warning in the written contract or any future correspondence, BMW Financial forces customers to pay them extra money each day they are waiting for the third party to inspect their vehicle.

b ) BMW Financial did not mail me any documentation prior to my lease-end describing this process. BMW Financial does claim they emailed me in XXXX describing that I should call XXXX however, I can locate no such email, BMW can not provide a read-receipt, and I never agreed to electronic communication as my sole form of contact. BMW Financial mails me a paper statement monthly, however, would not mail something as important as this. 
c ) In reviewing my previous lease documentation with BMW Financial and this lease contract, aside from the date, amount, and VIN number, the two documents are identical. If they are identical documents, and there was no indication to me that the process to return the lease would not be identical, why would me as the consumer think differently.

d ) In speaking with XXXX, a maturity specialist for the lease end department at BMW Financial, my concerns were completely dismissed and disregarded as void because BMW Financial is not the same company as BMW and BMW Financials lease  clearly states that a inspection is required before lease end. Therefore, any cancellation or mistake made on the part of BMW XXXX is not their problem. However, stipulations of the third party inspection, the three week-1 month lead time, and email as sole notification of such, is not in the lease. 

It is my claim that BMW and BMW Financial are harvesting additional monies out of unsuspecting customers by requiring a third party inspection, not giving proper advance notice of this requirement, and by sneaky tactics such as canceling the request for appointments in order to prolong the lease term. In response to XXXX, the maturity specialist for the lease end department at BMW Financial, BMW Financial and BMW may be two separate legal entities but BMW Financial was birthed out of BMW Retail and any retail establishment that persuades consumers to use their financing company and actively dissuades consumers to use competitors, is directly tied to that company. In addition, if BMW Retail is directly benefiting from closing loans with BMW Financial, in the forms of increase commissions or bonuses, then in fact any action by one or both entities which negatively effect the consumer, can be legally attributed to both entities. 

What has taken place with BMW XXXX and BMW Financial is unethical and I suspect, illegal. As such, as this was my forth BMW purchase ( and loan ), it is unfortunate that this has taken place and ruined the relationship I had with BMW and its deceptive financial company.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation