Isn’t the bank fee essentially the fee the financial institution charges to lock in the residual? There is no equivalent fee on a purchase. We are paying for that locked in value at the end of the lease term, it’s not some gift from the finance company.
Why would they need to give people warning or notification about something that wasn’t even something that was contractually agreed upon to begin with?
Let’s be honest, most people that are attempting to get out of their leases right now are either looking to take their equity and pocket it or are just going to be applying the equity to a new vehicle to help lower the price being they are super inflated.
By not allowing third party buyouts they are forcing their current customers to follow up with the same manufacturer dealers in an attempt to sell them a new vehicle and then make money on the trade.
They want their own franchise stores to win versus an opposing dealership or Carmax / Vroom etc.
Nothing wrong with that. Part of the business lol
1 Like
Funny how a lender is able to do this WITH SOMETHING THEY OWN!
There’s literally no recourse here. Like there’s nothing valid that could be said in favor of continuing to allow third party buyouts. In fact, I’m surprised all lenders haven’t done this yet.
1 Like
I would guess that the big 3rd party companies will try though. If their very existence is threatened, they might as well spend their last dimes on legal fees😁
“hey court, owners/lease financing companies are not allowing us to purchase their wholly-owned assets at tax-free rates”…that’ll go well.
They are probably are trying to analyze the short term gain vs long term loss of customer loyalty possibility. Look at how much money someone like BMWFS throws at customer retention with their generally massive loyalty incentives. They probably know they need to walk a fine line on irritating customers who are all generally easily irritated anyway🤪
Didnt say theyd win…who knows on that front (no one knows the outcome of a lawsuit in advance with 100% certainty), but why not try if thats your last resort…
I am certainly no lawyer, not by any means, but I do know that they can try and make a case that for years and years the sale to a third-party was not ever blocked.
The above does happen all the time in certain other areas. The contract a homeowner has with their homeowners association is a good example. If the association allows 100 houses to have overgrown lawns for 10 years and doesn’t send a letter to any of them, then all the sudden decides to send a letter to someone new in the neighborhood for an overgrown lawn, it won’t hold up in court.
1 Like
No kidding - I love the fact that I don’t have to sweat an accident since the car’s tanking value isn’t a concern. That alone is reason enough to lease since it’s happened to me twice in the last few years (perhaps I’m just an accident magnet and people like to hit my cars in parking lots).
1 Like
But none of that has gone away. You still have the exact same ability to purchase the car for the rv, per the terms of the contract, now as you did before.
2 Likes
Ive even gotten lucky and leased loaners that had the (un)fortunate circumstance to have had a minor fender bender while in dealer service before I leased it😊.
1 Like
Again, I’m very surprised you guys are defending this clearly monopolistic, anti-competition stuff.
Correct, but to pull the equity out (that IMO you have paid for the right to do) you now have to pay taxes, where you didn’t before. I have no argument that the captives don’t have the right to do it, I am sure their lawyers made the contracts as beneficial as possible but it’s just another aspect of leasing that has changed for the worse.
So if I buy a house and after 5 years decide to sell it and take my profit can the bank say “yeah, you need to sell it back to us, since technically we hold the note. and if you sell it you have to move to one of our other owned homes you can’t buy anyone else or you can just make the rest of your payments.”
There really was no reason for these companies to change something like this for short term gains. Except they are very shortsighted and will drive their customers to a better maker. So in this case my friend will buy a Toyota, not lease, as seinfeld said out of spite not about the money 
.
Wondering if this will give a black eye to leasing like open end leases once did.
I am not for or against the policy. I’ve accepted it, However, I don’t see anything wrong with the common courtesy of notifying the customer of changes. It might not be regulated like insurance products where the customer gets 60-90 days notice.
It might encourage them to hurry and sell if you send letters in the mail. Atleast a toast message within the portal or somewhere in the online account would have been nice.
I get that it’s wasn’t stated in the contract, however, I can’t be so angry at others for feeling disappointed
You do understand the difference between “BUY” and “LEASE” right? There is also the wording of the contract, what you are actually getting out of the contract, etc.
Most contracts include wording along the lines not-enforcing a rule doesn’t nullify it. Now in your example, if they don’t enforce something for 10 years, then go after 1 person, yeah, that won’t hold up. But if they go after everyone it will. Same thing here, the finance companies are not singling out individual consumers, they are applying it to all of their operations, therefore there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Unless your contract says that 3rd party is allowed, which I doubt, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.
In a specific case I am aware of, it didn’t. Fortunately it didn’t involve me😜. I spend like a gazzilion hours a week on my lawn😎
Same here…I honestly really don’t care. Selfishly, Ive already liquidated all I am planning on liquidating🤑
That said, the subjective effects on customer retention and loyalty do seem to be something that manufacturers (by way of their financing arms) would almost certainly at least spend a few minutes considering.
1 Like
Except when you buy a house, you hold title and it’s your asset. When you LEASE a car, its owner (the bank) holds title, and is free to do with it as it pleases. spite whomever you want, lease whatever you want, but again, you’re wrong here. it’s not your car to do with as you desire.
5 Likes