Consumer complaint received 2022-08-24 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle
Company: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Dear Sir or Madam : I have been attempting to exercise the lease options that have always been available to lessees until recently on my XXXX Nissan XXXX  now that my lease has ended this month ( XXXX XXXX ). I have made all of my payments to Nissan Motor Acceptance Company. Nissan and other car companies and their financial wings are currently engaging in tactics to prevent lessees from trading in their vehicles on another car ( refusing to accept the payoff residuals from other dealers or entities other than the lessee ) and selling the vehicle back to the Nissan dealer the lessee leased the car from. These were options that were widely exercised and even promoted by these car companies until recently. The car companies and their financial wings have realized that due to the used car market values increasing significantly over the last two years has created the scenarios where the lessee 's vehicles have a positive equity balance in the vehicles. Nissan and others are thus " blocking '' all end of lease options other than allowing the lessee to just return the vehicle as a " wash '' ( which Nissan and the dealers will profit immensely ) or only allowing the lessee to purchase the vehicle at the stated residual values. In my particular case, I had recently went to the Nissan dealer I leased the XXXX from to make a deal to have them buy the car ( at a discounted price well below current local market value of the car ), which would leave me with the difference between the payoff residual price and sell price the dealer was offering. I had a written agreement with this dealer for them to purchase my XXXX for {$20000.00}. However, I received written evidence from the dealer in the form of an " internal only '' Nissan memorandum generated from Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation that was sent to all the Nissan dealers around the world. This memorandum confirms that Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation intervened on our written deal and threatened the dealer to not complete our deal. I have also tried to trade my vehicle in on another vehicle with other dealers, and each time the dealer contacts NMAC to ask for the residual amount and where to send the check for the payoff amount to buy the vehicle, the NMAC representative tells the dealer that " ... we will not accept your money nor transfer the vehicles title to you. '' This is nothing more that corporate greed run amuck. Here is a copy of a recent letter I sent to NMAC to try and resolve this issue : XX/XX/XXXX Nissan Motor Acceptance Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Dear Sir or Madam : I am a current lessee of a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, and my NMAC account number is ( ). I have faithfully made all of my lease payments, and my lease is officially ending on XX/XX/XXXX. In preparation for this event, I have spent the last few weeks attempting to exercise what used to be widely accepted ( and even encouraged ) options to lessees as myself as to what to do with our vehicles. What I have discovered through this process is that Nissan,  along with other major car companies allegedly, are engaging in what can only be characterized as slimy, abhorrent, and borderline illegal tactics to keep lessees from exercising options that were readily available and done until recently. What makes these actions even more egregious is that Nissan nor NMAC decided to put in place these new restrictions on lease end options without notifying lessees like myself in any manner. Nissan apparently believed it would be best, probably for public relations considerations, to implement these new rules in secret. Thus, lessees like myself are left to scramble at the end of our leases to find a viable option. The reasons that Nissan and other car companies are implementing these new rules regarding end of lease options is abundantly clear. First, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the extreme new car shortages, used car values have increased dramatically over the last two years. Thus, those people that signed leases around XXXX or XXXX have cars that have high positive equity values currently ( in comparison to their stated residual values on their lease contracts ). Nissan and others thus want to be able to profit themselves from these positive equity values instead of the lessees. Also, Nissan and other car companies recognize that their dealers are in desperate need of having used cars on their lots to sell in order to keep the lights on, so to speak. Regardless, this is nothing more than corporate greed run amuck with total disregard to the harm done to their customers like myself. 
The first option I wanted to exercise, which again having leased many vehicles in the past was an allowable option until just recently, was to trade the vehicle on another vehicle. As you are aware, this used to be a simple transaction that Nissan had no qualms allowing. In fact, the preference was that the lessee return to the Nissan dealer to do this transaction on either a new or used vehicle. Nissan did not care who paid the residual payoff amount, as long as it was paid in full. I attempted this option with multiple car dealers, and this is what occurred : each time I made a deal to trade my car in for another vehicle, the dealer would call NMAC to get the official residual payoff information. In each instance, the NMAC representatives told the dealers that sorry, we will not accept your money and will not transfer the title to this vehicle. The NMAC representatives would never provide any reasons as to why they would not accept their money. Nissan also never provided any written policies or other documentation as to why they were refusing to take the dealers money for the buyout to either the dealer or myself. Again, this was a common allowable practice until just recently. I will also make note of another important factor with this particular option, which is if the residual value of the vehicle was higher than the cars current market value. Nissan had no qualms in this situation in carrying over the negative equity from the leased vehicle into the total cost of the new vehicle being purchased.

The second option I attempted to exercise, which was also an allowable and even encouraged option, was to sell the vehicle back to the Nissan dealer that leased the vehicle. I went to my Nissan dealer, which is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) to exercise this option. I worked with their used car manager, XXXX XXXX, to negotiate this deal. XXXX XXXX evaluated my car and looked up my vehicles current market value ( taking into consideration the cars mileage, condition, etc. ), and he came up with an offer to buy my XXXX for a price of {$20000.00}. This of course was well below the cars current trade-in and third party values according to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which prices the car at an average of {$25000.00}, with a high being {$27000.00} ). We proceeded to having a written agreement for this deal, and the only remaining item to finalize the deal was for their finance person to call NMAC to get the official residual payoff information ( even though I was able to provide them with this information from my own NMAC account, which is {$15000.00} ). XXXX XXXX also actually took possession of my vehicle as well, and I was sent home to await their finance individual to get in touch with NMAC. The next day I awaited a phone call from XXXX XXXX to tell me to come back into the dealership to finalize the written deal. Instead, I received a call from some other associate from this dealer. This person proceeded to tell me that yeah, our General Manager looked at this deal, and he is not comfortable completing this deal. I proceeded to ask this individual as to why they were backing out of our written deal, and this individual refused to provide me with any answers. I demanded that my car be returned to me right away, and they obliged. While they did not tell me what their reasons were for backing out of the deal at the last minute, someone at the dealership decided to give the gift of an internal-only memorandum that NMAC apparently sent to all of the Nissan dealers XXXX I do not know if they felt sorry for me that they backed out of the deal at the last minute as a reason for giving me this memorandum, but this document ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) reveals in black and white the reason why they backed out of the deal. The crystal clear reason being that NMAC intervened and threatened the dealer to not complete this deal. Of note, when I recently called NMAC and spoke to a gentleman names XXXX about what happened with my dealer, XXXX stated that completing a deal like this was the dealers discretion. This is, of course not true. The XX/XX/XXXX explicitly shows that NMAC is directing dealers to not exercise any options where the lessees vehicle has a positive equity value. In addition, I contacted other Nissan dealers in my area, and they too confirmed what the memorandum states. One Nissan dealer even stated that Nissan is actually conducting audits using vehicle VIN numbers to ensure that no dealer engages with any lessee that has a positive equity value unless the lessee returns the vehicle or purchases the vehicle themselves at the stated residual value listed on the lease contract. Apparently, Nissan would somehow punish the dealer if they violated these directives. 
I find that this particular new rule is the most egregious, and even contradicts Nissans alleged goals of making a profit and keeping their vehicles on dealers lots so that they have something to sell ( to keep the lights on ). In the written deal that I had with XXXX XXXX XXXX Nissan, the dealer ( and Nissan ) would be able to make a decent profit. The dealer would turn around and sell my vehicle on their lot, which would sell in a short amount of time given the shortage of all cars and my vehicle being in excellent condition. However, NMAC and Nissan want to squeeze every cent out the vehicles for profit and greed.

Thus, in order to achieve the maximum profits out of us lessees, Nissan is trying to force all lessees to either just return the vehicles ( which would result in the highest profit margins for Nissan ) or purchase our vehicles at the residual payoff amounts ourselves ( not allowing anyone else to give you the money ). There is no doubt in my mind that Nissan recognizes that not every lessee will be able to afford to purchase their vehicles at the residual amounts themselves, thus forcing lessees to just give the cars back to ( y ) ou for maximum profit. This is my current situation. I am currently in the middle of XXXX XXXX bankruptcy, so I am unable to secure financing for this vehicle or any other vehicle at this time. I was hoping to apply whatever equity that existed in my XXXX currently towards a XXXX used vehicle. Because of Nissans greed, you have instituted these new rules and restrictions that is preventing me from these options that were available and exercised all the time until recently. There is a difference between losing money on a transaction versus squeezing every cent of profit from somebody. In my case and probably others, Nissan and the dealers would not lose money and fail to make a decent profit if I were allowed to trade the vehicle in on another vehicle ( Nissan dealer or non-Nissan dealer ) or allow me to sell the vehicle back to a Nissan dealer. As I told XXXX at NMAC during our phone conversation, I do not know if these new instituted rules and restrictions are unlawful or not, thus I have reported and filed a complaint regarding these practices with the Washington State Attorney Generals Office. It will be up to them to decide if these practices violate any Washington State laws. I also explained to XXXX at NMAC that I am not returning the vehicle to a dealer until we can come to an agreement about getting permission from Nissan to exercise one of the two options that should be available to me. I was told that I would have an additional ten days after XX/XX/XXXX before Nissan would attempt to exercise options such as repossession. I believe that the best and most ethical thing to do in my situation is to allow me to at least sell the vehicle back to the Nissan dealer as was originally arranged. I have been a loyal Nissan customer for years, and I have leased and purchased Nissan and XXXX cars in the past. Apparently Nissan cares more about achieving maximum profits above their customers. I hope that we can come to a positive resolution. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation