Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Problem with additional add-on products or services purchased with the loan
Company: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX2026, I traded in my XXXX XXXX XXXX and entered into a lease for a new XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX through XXXX of XXXX. Shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle, I began experiencing multiple issues within approximately the first XXXX miles, including a check engine light/TSB-related issue, drivability/vibration concerns during acceleration, infotainment/XX/XX/XXXXXXXX concerns, and an early tire replacement expense after a road hazard incident. Because these issues appeared so early into the lease, I contacted the dealership and later opened a XX/XX/XXXXXXXX case while attempting to understand what options existed regarding potential unwind, buyback, or other resolution discussions. During this process, dealership personnel repeatedly informed me verbally and through communications that only XXXX XXXX had authority to handle any unwind or buyback-related resolution. Based on those representations, I spent substantial time pursuing the matter through XXXX XXXX. However, after escalating the matter with XXXX, I was later informed that XXXX itself could not independently unwind or reverse the transaction because those decisions ultimately rested with the dealership. This created a major contradiction that persisted throughout the dispute process. The dealership repeatedly directed me toward XXXX while XXXX later indicated the dealership itself controlled or needed to approve any unwind or buyback-related resolution. While I was attempting to navigate these conflicting instructions, my previously traded XX/XX/XXXX was ultimately sold by the dealership, effectively eliminating my ability to return to my prior position while I was still actively attempting to resolve the matter. At the same time, dealership personnel were still engaging in restructuring discussions involving my previously traded XXXX. On or around XX/XX/XXXX 2026, after spending several hours at the dealership, I was presented with a proposal where I would repurchase my own previously traded XX/XX/XXXX for approximately {$32000.00} while also absorbing roughly {$8000.00} in negative equity from the XXXX, approximately {$6000.00} in XX/XX/XXXXrelated add-on products, plus additional taxes and fees. This proposal itself created additional confusion and contradictions. On XXXX hand, dealership personnel repeatedly claimed they could not unwind or reverse the transaction because it was already finalized. On the other hand, they simultaneously spent hours discussing alternative restructuring arrangements involving reacquiring my previously traded XXXX. Despite later portraying the XXXX reacquisition discussions as unrealistic or against their recommendation, the dealership still prepared and presented detailed restructuring figures involving substantial negative equity and add-on products. What made this even more concerning was that shortly afterward, while I was still actively pursuing resolution through XXXX XXXX based on the dealerships repeated statements that only XXXX could authorize an unwind, the dealership ultimately sold the XXXX to another buyer for approximately {$30000.00} after previously attempting to sell it back to me for approximately {$32000.00} plus negative equity, add-on products, taxes, and fees. During the XX/XX/XXXX restructuring discussions, dealership personnel also represented that XX/XX/XXXX-related products were already associated with my lease obligations. I was told these products had effectively already been paid for or included in the lease structure and would carry over into the restructuring proposal involving the XXXX. Shortly afterward, I began receiving XX/XX/XXXXrelated paperwork and recurring charges, including approximately XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$190.00} payments labeled as warranty orXX/XX/XXXXcharges. These communications appeared shortly after the lease transaction and referenced warranty/payment-related products. Because dealership personnel had already represented thatXX/XX/XXXXproducts were tied to my lease obligations, I reasonably believed the XX/XX/XXXX paperwork and charges were legitimate and connected to my transaction. I specifically contacted dealership staff seeking clarification regarding the XXXX paperwork and charges. Rather than clearly informing me the documents were fraudulent or unrelated to my lease, I was told dealership staff would investigate the matter further and get back to me. However, I never received meaningful clarification, documentation, cancellation information, or a clear explanation regarding the account, products, recurring charges, or whether the account was legitimate. I also independently called the phone number listed on the XXXX paperwork seeking clarification. During that call, I was informed that the account/payment related to XX/XX/XXXX warranty products. Because dealership personnel had already represented that these exact products were associated with my lease obligations, this further reinforced my understanding that the XXXX communications and charges were legitimate and tied to the transaction. As a result, I unintentionally enrolled or continued with theXX/XX/XXXX-related payment arrangement because I believed I was dealing with warranty/XX/XX/XXXX products dealership staff had already represented as part of my lease obligations. I did not understand the matter to be a separate, unrelated, or fraudulent third-party issue because the dealerships own statements made the communications appear consistent with the products they claimed were already tied to my lease. Later, after complaints and disputes escalated, the dealership attempted to characterize the XXXX matter as unrelated phishing activity. I believe this characterization is misleading and materially incomplete because it ignores several key facts : * Dealership personnel had already represented that XX/XX/XXXX products were tied to my lease. XX/XX/XXXX The XXXX paperwork and charges referenced warranty/payment products that appeared consistent with those representations. * When I specifically asked dealership staff about the paperwork and charges, they did not clearly deny its legitimacy or explain that it was unrelated. XX/XX/XXXX I was told they would investigate the matter, but no meaningful clarification or follow-up was ever provided. XX/XX/XXXX The phone number on the XXXX paperwork confirmed the account related to XX/XX/XXXX warranty products. XX/XX/XXXX The recurring charges appeared shortly after the vehicle transaction and during ongoing discussions involving add-on products tied to the lease. This created a situation where the dealerships own statements and conduct made the alleged phishing communications appear legitimate. If the XXXX matter was truly unrelated, then the dealership failed to promptly and clearly explain that when I directly raised concerns and requested clarification. If the XX/XX/XXXXproducts were not actually attached to my lease obligations, then the representations made during the restructuring discussions were misleading. If the products were attached to the lease, then the dealerships later attempt to dismiss the entire XXXX matter as unrelated phishing does not adequately explain the overlap between the paperwork, recurring charges, and warranty product representations. I also believe it is important to note that the dealerships later responses relied heavily on hindsight framing while minimizing the information available to me at the time events actually occurred. The dealership now portrays the XX/XX/XXXXmatter as though it was obviously unrelated from the beginning, despite the fact that their own employees had already represented XXXX products as existing lease obligations and failed to clearly resolve the issue when I specifically sought clarification. Additionally, the dealership later attempted to portray me as a safety concern or threat based on emotional text messages sent after the XX/XX/XXXX restructuring discussions. However, this characterization also conflicts with their later conduct. Even after those messages, dealership staff continued directly contacting me regarding routine maintenance and service scheduling for the XXXX, including communications as late as XX/XX/XXXX regarding scheduling the vehicles first maintenance appointment. At the time of those later communications, I initially believed dealership staff may have been contacting me regarding the ongoing dispute or possible resolution efforts because the matter remained unresolved. However, onceXX/XX/XXXX complaints and regulatory complaints escalated further, the dealerships position shifted toward portraying me as someone they could no longer communicate with because of alleged threatening behavior tied to messages sent weeks earlier. If the dealership genuinely believed I posed a serious safety threat based on those earlier communications, it is difficult to reconcile why dealership staff continued voluntarily contacting me afterward regarding ordinary service matters nearly XXXX weeks later. This inconsistency contributes to my concern that the later threat narrative was emphasized primarily after formal complaints and regulatory scrutiny increased. The dealership also later stated there was no written, text, or recorded documentation regarding certain concerns I raised involving drivability/vibration and infotainment/CarPlay issues. However, absence of documentation in dealership records does not establish that concerns were never raised. Throughout this process I repeatedly communicated concerns verbally while attempting to obtain service, clarification, and guidance regarding the vehicle and dispute process. My complaint is not primarily about ordinary repair dissatisfaction or a simple warranty issue. My concerns involve contradictory representations regarding unwind authority, misleading or confusing statements surrounding XX/XX/XXXXrelated products and recurring XX/XX/XXXXcharges, contradictory explanations between dealership personnel and XXXX XXXX, restructuring discussions involving substantial negative equity and add-on products, failure to provide meaningful clarification after I directly requested information, and overall potentially deceptive or unfair consumer handling practices related to the lease transaction and associated financial products.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation