replied 7 years ago.
2. Mitsubishi Outlander 2010 - $30,000 value. Prior car: Toyota Echo 2005 - 1 year into 5 year 'financing', following a 4 year lease - all with Toyota Credit Canada. All disclosed to leasing company in FIRST discussion regarding the entire deal. I don't know anything about these deals and specifically EMPHASIZED the 1 year FINANCING b/c I erroneously assumed that I would have equity in the vehicle after a 4 year lease 'anyway' YET had even continued to pay for 'yet an additional' year - under the 5-year financing arrangement. So, as he 'now acknowledges', he should have said right then and there - we "can't" 'trade in' the car and put it toward a new vehicle b/c 'first' the 5 year financing has to be paid out (i.e. the remaining $7000 lien, essentially). He acknowledges this error now; he refers to it as something that "slipped through the cracks". That was how he prefaced the entire discussion re: his 'colossal error' on the panicked phone call where he blindsided me and delineated only 'two' options for how we move forward, all of which involve ME paying for his error. Why didn't he say, "I screwed up, so let's share this error" or "I screwed up so I have to 'eat' the $7000 either by respecting the current deal OR I have to 'unwind' the deal completely and allow you to exit it b/c I should never have put it in motion, and it's financially untenable for you?" Instead, he positioned it as "my only remedy" is to pay out the difference which means consenting to a deal I simply cannot afford and would NEVER EVER have contemplated, financially. Yet he claims this is what I 'must do'.
New car came from Brampton Mitsubishi. We didn't qualify for credit through Mitsubishi, so the lease is through the leasing agent's company . It has been signed. Deposit given in cash ($840 = 1st month of lease and admin. fee). I have the receipt, along with the contract etc. (which states that the other vehicle was traded in for $3500 - right there - in the contract - since that's what he told me, and what I 'assumed' was the actual situation - I have no insight in the mechanics of these kinds of 'car switch' deals - I ASSUMED what he told me was correct re: the 'trade in' situation - he has 30 years experience and has done two leases for me before and a total of 22 LEASES through business referred to him through my family!).
Car handed over 1 week ago. Payment has gone from $179.84/month for the 5 year financing for the Toyota Echo to $545/month for the Mitsubishi Outlander (which assumed a $3500 trade-in for the Echo, so would have been $90 more per month without assumed trade-in value). These amounts are in aggregate - including tax. So that jump is very steep; I was already extremely uncomfortable.
Re: buy back and mileage etc., no idea.
4. Everything was extremely clear: I have an 8 month pregnant wife. We have two large breed Irish Setters. We have to have an SUV to travel once our first son is born in a little over a month. That's the reason we were getting the SUV. The Toyota Echo is in perfect working order, has been serviced regularly, was issued safety and emissions certificates for the trade in etc etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with the vehicle - even has 'new tires' bought 2 months ago, and new brake pads. Also, my leasing agent 'sent me' to meet a guy called 'Joe' to appraise my car. He inspected it etc. and offered $3500 'through' the leasing agent' - not to me directly i.e. I met him, he inspected the vehicle, then I heard from the leasing agent that the trade-in value assigned was $3500. So now that I actually KNOW he thought the car WAS 'fully paid for' and was ONLY offering me $3500 for a car that is WORTH $7000, that certainly ALSO gives you some insight in the trustworthiness of this individual. A Toyota Echo 2005 with 100,000 km can be sold on autotrader right now for at least $6000 to $7000; already verified this. But let's put that aside rather than further exacerbate my utter rage and disdain for what has transpired and for the parties involved who I view as entirely culpable.
So now that he has revealed his colossal incompetence, rather than offer to 'undo' the deal or respect the deal, or meet half way, his position is that 'I' must either do one of two things:
1. Pay $7000 into Toyota to remove the lien. Then 'Joe' can have the car for $3500, and then that $3500 can in turn be put toward the SUV, as per the 'assumed, current contract' which we have and have already signed.
2. I must pay the difference b/w the $3500 that 'Joe' was going to pay for the 'Toyota' - that way the lien is removed - and Joe can flip it for a 'substantial profit', as I'm now realizing, AND concurrently I must ALSO pay $90 MORE/month for my Mitsubishi under a 'new contract' I must now sign (which accounts for the other $3500 discrepancy in play).
Either way, I 'must' compensate $7000 for his error - which I never ever would have agreed upon.
I've spoken to MANY people in the automotive world, including Toyota Credit Canada. They say that what has happened is incomprehensible, and that it makes NO SENSE that a leasing agent would not verify that the one car in the equation had a $7000 lien on it when he had all the information on the car and was the middle man in the deal. Even the most basic of due diligence would have revealed this AND I explicitly and emphatically TOLD HIM 'up-front' - EVERYTHING. As I said, I, in my ignorance, actually assumed it was to my ADVANTAGE that I had paid out a 4 year lease AND 1 year of financing.
So there you have the tangled web of nonsense that he has put me in the middle of, and now he thinks the resolution is to further squeeze the vice he has placed my balls in.
I spoke with Toyota Credit Canada and they say that from their perspective, our Toyota is in our name still, we're still liable, and nothing has changed in terms of automated payments being disrupted. So essentially 'Joe' has a car that should be in our possession, since we are technically still paying for it. We have a new Outlander here, with a signed contract in place, that assumes a trade-in value for that 'Toyota' of $3500.
So how do we unravel this? Tell him we want our car back and here's the Outlander back? Can we legally 'demand' this? Can we say we'll keep the new vehicle under the signed contract we already have (so he eats that $3500 trade-in assumption that isn't applicable/correct but is right in the contract) AND we take back the old car, and then sell it ourselves? That means he only loses the $3500. Otherwise, he has to take back a 'new car' that now has 600 km on it (originally had 150km) and he has to deal with the loss in value? Not sure which is the lesser of two evils? What do you recommend? Either way, it's extremely apparent that he thinks he can manipulate us into taking on the full financial burden of an error that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with us. He is trying to force our hand to accept new terms of payment and a new financial arrangement that we would NEVER EVER in our wildest imaginations have accepted up-front, and 1 month before our first son is born, with associated financial expenses. Surely that is not legal?