Hann Financial Service Corp.

While Hann understands your position, the fact that the car was returned early with low mileage is irrelevent as it does not relieve your obligation to maintain the vehicleUnfortunately, both bumpers sustained serious damage, which if repaired when the incident happened would not be an issue nowPlease realize that Hann has already conceeded $off the cost of the damage pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement.In an effort to resolve the account Hann will accept the sum of $as payment in full, but will not consent to any further reduction

I am in receipt of your email of February 28, concerning the disposition fee associated with the termination of your lease of a Honda Pilot I offer my apology if your interactions with our staff were discourteous and will address the matter appropriately with the parties involved As to your inquiries regarding the disposition fee, I can provide you with an explanation A disposition fee of $is a lease end charge assessed by the lessor, Hann Financial in this situation, to offset a portion of the costs associated with transporting, appraising and ultimately liquidating a returned lease vehicle If you refer to your lease contract, you will find this sum clearly disclosed in Box as one of the principal terms of the agreement As to the conversation of January 19, regarding the remaining sums due Hann, I cannot provide a definitive answer as to whether the $disposition fee was or should have been discussed The fee is assessed only in those instances where a leased vehicle is returned for liquidation If the conversation undertaken by the Oasis salesperson specifically requested the balance of remaining payments or did not clarify that the vehicle was being returned to Hann for liquidation (car dealers often purchase such vehicles for their own used car inventory), then the matter of the disposition may not have been broached Our records do note that Oasis requested a quote for the purchase of the Honda Pilot you returned into their possession In any case, I will review the matter closely with our customer service department as an opportunity for improving the termination process and appreciate your bringing the issue to light Regarding your interactions with MessrsL [redacted] , I can only offer my apologies that the exchange left you so dissatisfied While the fee in question is undoubtedly valid and conspicuously disclosed on your contract, such facts do not excuse a telephone interchange that leaves any party feeling disrespected – so, again, I apologize We are copying the Revdex.com on this reply, but lack the contact information for your attorney Regarding your request for financial consideration, we find that the assessment of the disposition fee was appropriate given the return of your leased vehicle for liquidation and it remains, therefore, un-waived I hope this communication provides you with the information you have been seeking and regret that such an explanation was not promptly and courteously delivered previously

The transport carrier is an independent company and required to report any transport damage to Hann. In this instance, no report of a transport incident has been received. Hann is now in receipt of the pictures taken by the consumer in front of the garage at their home. A comparison of the photos taken by the [redacted] and the consumer’s photos shows the damage is in existence prior to the vehicle leaving the consumer’s property. Further, the type of damage demonstrated in the photos is not consistent with transport damage.

I am rejecting this response because:
Simply responding to with a paraphrased excerpt from the contract is not taking any of my facts into considerationWe are taking a significant amount of miles and( months used)which is the most abrasive amount of abuse a car can endureIt is immoral and unethical to dismiss the facts! I should have made myself a contract to hide behind to protect myself from a big business taking advantage of me

I am rejecting this response becauseThe damage to the windshield and chips to the paint was cause in the transportation of the vehicle from long island to new jersey The was very minor chips to the exterior and no damage to the windshield when the car left my property I have sent in picturess to prove this to the email address which given to me by Hann Financial.I expect a solution and a settlement to this shortly I am only responsible for the deposition fee and overage in miles think
Regards,
*** ***

This is in response to the complaint filed by *** *** on behalf of *** *** concerning the damage charge on the end term statement for the Jeep Liberty leased through Hann FinancialMr*** complains that the damage charge is high and the damage is the result of wear and tear
However, the Lease Agreement clearly states damage conditions that would be the Lessee’s responsibility to repair and should have been resolved prior to the return of the vehicleThe term “wear and tear” refers to a used condition and not to an allowance for damageThe Lease Agreement details conditions that would be considered “damage”; which includes, but is not limited to, chips or cracks in the windshield or other glass on the vehicle, sidewall damage to the tires and damage to the paint All of the conditions mentioned exist on the vehicle and are documented in the photos of the vehicle taken during the inspectionThe damage charge was taken directly from the damage appraisal report, which was performed by an independent licensed appraisal company; and reflects the repairs necessary to restore the vehicle to an undamaged conditionBecause the damage listed in the report is evident in the photos, costs to repair are within industry standard to repair, and credit of a $damage allowance was already applied to the account, no change to amount charged is warranted

I am rejecting this response because: It is not accurate*** auto leasing from whom the vehicle was obtained and returned to, was in total agreement with me and has received many unusual complaints regarding their customers whom have used Hann Financialhas done excellent repair work in the past for me and continues to do so. De-Ko's work in the past was never an issue with other financial institutions. I do not accept poor quality repairs and would never continue to use any such establishment had I received inferior products or poor quality repairsMy insurance company did pay a substantial amount to repair the vehicle and it was worth every penny of itI would not hesitate to use in the future, however both *** Auto and myself will never use Hann financial again

This is in response to the complaint filed by *** *** relative to end term damage charges assessed to his leaseaccount for a Honda OdysseyThe vehicle appraisal report conducted on behalf of Hann Financial when the vehicle was returned notes that the vehicle was returned with
some unrepaired damage in the back bumper and that the vehicle was subject to previous repairs which were of such poor workmanship and quality that left the right side of the vehicle a different paint color and texture then the rest of the vehicle. The Lessee is responsible for the car and maintenance of the vehicle over the lease termIn this instance the Lessee presented the vehicle for repairs to a body shop of the Lessee’s choosing and accepted the poor quality of repairs that were performed. The receipt for the repair work that Lessee forwarded to Hann after the issuance of the end term statement noted repairs done by DE-KO, Incof 1114- 36th Street, Brooklyn, NY nine months prior to the returnIt does not indicate that any insurance carrier authorized or paid for the repairsBecause MrEsposito accepted poor quality repair work, he is responsible for the current condition of the vehicle Please note this account has been assigned to outside legal counsel for collection of the outstanding balance of the accountAny further or additional questions should be directed to the attention of our attorney

Review: Account #26619870858 I leased a 2015 Chrysler 200 from a local dealer but was never notified by a sales person or credit department of the $450 disposition fee. One month prior to the end of our lease I turned the car in. The car was picked up by an independent carrier and the report receipt stated there wasn't any damage as was correct. The minor scratches that we did have were totally repaired by a long established body shop and paid for by our insurance company under our comprehensive provision. Pictures were taken prior to the car being returned by the body shop showing no damages (for their protection). A short time later we received a bill for approximately $1600 plus. We reported this bill to our lawyer who contacted your lawyer but never received the courtesy of an answer. We were never late on a payment and did not go over the miles. We were actually 5,000 miles under limit. I called your RUDE end-of-lease manager to discuss the fraudulent charges and got no where. Within two months your company and/or they reported my $450 disposition fee to the credit bureau causing my FICA of 809 to fall to 700. It was reported as a write off to the bureau which was inappropriate. I have since mailed a $450 check to cover the disposition fee. My lawyer will handle the additional fraudulent charges. I understand that Hann is no longer involved in the auto leasing business and rightfully so. I respectively expect your company to correct this matter with the credit bureau to prevent further legal action. D Koval

In response to your complaint a review of the lease and end term charges was conducted. The investigation found that the statement generated on November 14, 2014 is accurate. Pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement the Lessee is responsible for: (1) the care and maintenance of the...

vehicle during the lease term; (2) payment of a Disposition Fee of $450.00 in the event the vehicle isreturned at the end of the lease term; and (3) an assessment for any unrepaired damage or over-mileage charges when the vehicle is returned. The Lease specifically states that there is no credit allowance for any unused mileage. The lease also contains a $500.00 damage waiver. Accordingly, when the vehicle was returned to Hann possession, it was inspected and found to have sustained unrepaired damage in the amount of $1,171.20, (this amount is subject to Sales Tax). The appraisal reportshows significant damage to both the front and back bumpers.  The end term statement issued on November 14, 2014 includes charges for the Disposition Fee and damage; which were then offset by the one overpayment and the damage waiver, leaving a remaining balance of $852.09. Because the statement is accurate and all available credits have been applied, no further adjustment to the statement balance can be provided. Hann is always willing to work with our customers to an amicableresolution, please contact our office to make reasonable payment arrangements.  Thank you.

While Hann understands your position, the fact that the car was returned early with low mileage is irrelevent as it does not relieve your obligation to maintain the vehicle. Unfortunately, both bumpers sustained serious damage, which if repaired when the incident happened would not be an issue now. Please realize that Hann has already conceeded $500 off the cost of the damage pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement.In an effort to resolve the account Hann will accept the sum of $700.00 as payment in full, but will not consent to any further reduction.

The transport carrier is an independent company and required to report any transport damage to Hann. In this instance, no report of a transport incident has been received. Hann is now in receipt of the pictures taken by the consumer in front of the garage at their home. A comparison of the photos taken by the [redacted] and the consumer’s photos shows the damage is in existence prior to the vehicle leaving the consumer’s property. Further, the type of damage demonstrated in the photos is not consistent with transport damage.

I am in receipt of your email of February 28, 2015 concerning the disposition fee associated with the termination of your lease of a 2012 Honda Pilot.  I offer my apology if your interactions with our staff were discourteous and will address the matter appropriately with the parties...

involved.  As to your inquiries regarding the disposition fee, I can provide you with an explanation.   A disposition fee of $450.00 is a lease end charge assessed by the lessor, Hann Financial in this situation, to offset a portion of the costs associated with transporting, appraising and ultimately liquidating a returned lease vehicle.  If you refer to your lease contract, you will find this sum clearly disclosed in Box 7 as one of the principal terms of the agreement.  As to the conversation of January 19, 2015 regarding the remaining sums due Hann, I cannot provide a definitive answer as to whether the $450.00 disposition fee was or should have been discussed.  The fee is assessed only in those instances where a leased vehicle is returned for liquidation.  If the conversation undertaken by the Oasis salesperson specifically requested the balance of remaining payments or did not clarify that the vehicle was being returned to Hann for liquidation (car dealers often purchase such vehicles for their own used car inventory), then the matter of the disposition may not have been broached.  Our records do note that Oasis requested a quote for the purchase of the 2012 Honda Pilot you returned into their possession.  In any case, I will review the matter closely with our customer service department as an opportunity for improving the termination process and appreciate your bringing the issue to light.   Regarding your interactions with Messrs. L[redacted], I can only offer my apologies that the exchange left you so dissatisfied.  While the fee in question is undoubtedly valid and conspicuously disclosed on your contract, such facts do not excuse a telephone interchange that leaves any party feeling disrespected – so, again, I apologize.   We are copying the Revdex.com on this reply, but lack the contact information for your attorney.  Regarding your request for financial consideration, we find that the assessment of the disposition fee was appropriate given the return of your leased vehicle for liquidation and it remains, therefore, un-waived.   I hope this communication provides you with the information you have been seeking and regret that such an explanation was not promptly and courteously delivered previously.

Review: My husband and I traded in two vehicles on January 19, 2015 to Oasis Chevrolet. My husband had a 2013 KIA Rio and I a 2012 Honda Pilot. The car salesman called into both financial companies and got the final figures for final payoff for both vehicles as well as my husband and I spoke to each financial company and was made aware as to what the final payoffs were. We asked if there would be any additional charges and both companies said no except for any damages that exceeded the limit once the car was inspected by KIA and Honda. KIA not only disclosed a disposition fee but waived it. Hann Fianncial was asked if there was a disposition fee and both my husband and I and the car salesman had been told "there is no disposition fee, this is the final payoff unless there are damages to the vehicle that exceed what is forgiven." This is where my disgust for a lack of a better word HORRIBLE customer service department comes into play.

The first letter we received showed an outstanding balance of the remaining payments as well as a $450 disposition fee. We forwarded this to our salesman at Oasis and he was taking care of this. About two weeks later he advised us that Hann Financial was looking to recuperate $450 as a disposition fee. He was quite appalled as well as we were that the $450 was not included in the final figure. I received numerous letters since showing the remaining payments had been paid by Oasis Chevrolet and still reflecting a $450 disposition fee. I started calling Hann Financial to get some answers and I had the "pleasure" of speaking with Michael Lykes on February 25, 2015 at 3pm. He was arrogant, curt, matter of factly and could not answer what a disposition fee was. I explained how that was never disclosed and I would like some answers and how I would like to speak to his supervisor. He told me "I don't have a supervisor he's a vice president." Whatever, I'd like your superior. I was transferred to Tom [redacted]. I left a detailed voicemail and received a call back from Tom [redacted] on February 26, at 12:30. Again I was treated with the same lack of courtesy. Maybe I'm wrong but working in a customer service department should require some sort of social skills as well as respect. I was rudely spoken to when I asked what a disposition fee was as well as wanting to know why it was not disclosed. I asked if there is any way for this fee to be waived or reduced since it wasn't disclosed and Tom said " I will not reduce or waive your disposition fee just because you're asking me to." He was even ruder and downright nasty and proceeded to HANG UP ON ME. I am enclosing links to some bad press Hann Financial has received as well as Tom [redacted] being quoted in two of the articles. I have never in my life been treated so poorly by a customer service representative and have already contacted the Revdex.com as well as my attorney.Desired Settlement: I would appreciate for the $450 to be waived.

Business

Response:

I am in receipt of your email of February 28, 2015 concerning the disposition fee associated with the termination of your lease of a 2012 Honda Pilot. I offer my apology if your interactions with our staff were discourteous and will address the matter appropriately with the parties involved. As to your inquiries regarding the disposition fee, I can provide you with an explanation. A disposition fee of $450.00 is a lease end charge assessed by the lessor, Hann Financial in this situation, to offset a portion of the costs associated with transporting, appraising and ultimately liquidating a returned lease vehicle. If you refer to your lease contract, you will find this sum clearly disclosed in Box 7 as one of the principal terms of the agreement. As to the conversation of January 19, 2015 regarding the remaining sums due Hann, I cannot provide a definitive answer as to whether the $450.00 disposition fee was or should have been discussed. The fee is assessed only in those instances where a leased vehicle is returned for liquidation. If the conversation undertaken by the Oasis salesperson specifically requested the balance of remaining payments or did not clarify that the vehicle was being returned to Hann for liquidation (car dealers often purchase such vehicles for their own used car inventory), then the matter of the disposition may not have been broached. Our records do note that Oasis requested a quote for the purchase of the 2012 Honda Pilot you returned into their possession. In any case, I will review the matter closely with our customer service department as an opportunity for improving the termination process and appreciate your bringing the issue to light. Regarding your interactions with Messrs. L[redacted], I can only offer my apologies that the exchange left you so dissatisfied. While the fee in question is undoubtedly valid and conspicuously disclosed on your contract, such facts do not excuse a telephone interchange that leaves any party feeling disrespected – so, again, I apologize. We are copying the Revdex.com on this reply, but lack the contact information for your attorney. Regarding your request for financial consideration, we find that the assessment of the disposition fee was appropriate given the return of your leased vehicle for liquidation and it remains, therefore, un-waived. I hope this communication provides you with the information you have been seeking and regret that such an explanation was not promptly and courteously delivered previously.

Review: Hann and the dealerships they work with are all misleading and fraudulent.

I Lease a new car from the dealer, sales rep promises me if I lease a new car with them I can return my car back with $0.00 in damage fees and gives me a paper stating no damages to the car. 1 month later I get a huge bill from HANN for $3,500. Hann now claims they have nothing to do with Honda or the dealer. I get harassed with phone calls every day.Desired Settlement: have the dealer pay for the bill Hann is trying to get from me.

Business

Response:

I apologize for not responding sooner; apparently the message from 7/20 was not received. Mr. [redacted] leased a 2012 [redacted] CR-V from Hann as the assignee of [redacted] on February 26, 2012. Once the assignment is complete Hann becomes the only Lessor on the Lease Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement the Lessee is no to return the vehicle to any dealership; and Hann does inform or reminds all Lessees of this provision six months before the then of the lease term. There is no agency relationship between Hann and the dealership as the consumer implies. Mr. [redacted] was contacted prior to the end of his lease term by a dealership in the hope of selling or leasing a new vehicle to Mr. [redacted]. Apparently Mr. [redacted] did enter into a new agreement and the 2012 [redacted] CR-V, that was property of Hann, was left at the dealership for them to return to Hann on Mr. [redacted] behalf. It should be noted that this is done by the dealership as a customer service; and not at the direction of Hann. The inspection performed by the dealership states that it is subject to final inspection by the lease finance company and does not establish an accurate condition of the vehicle. The inspection performed by [redacted] on behalf of Hann was conducted by a NY licensed vehicle appraiser and constitutes the final inspection of the vehicle. Pursuant to NY Motor Vehicle Leasing Law, the consumer is entitled to have the vehicle inspected by a NY Licensed Vehicle appraiser 20 days prior to the return of the vehicle or within 10 days of receiving the final statement from Hann. Mr. [redacted] was provided with notice, as required by law, of his right to obtain his own appraisal, but chose not to take advantage of this option. Since this complaint was filed, Mr. [redacted] also retained counsel to assist him with this issue and a settlement between the parties was reached whereby Hann agreed to accept $1,600 in lieu of the full amount due. The settlement has been paid and the account closed. Please contact me should you have any additional questions or concerns about this account.

Review: Lease a 2012 Jeep Liberty lease ended and the are charging they claim were damages that exceed normal wear and tear. The car was in great condition when returned and have pictures to prove this. It was normal wear and tear, they r claiming the windshield had chips and that needed replacing and other normal wear and tear. The car was approx 3400 over the mile which is approx 660 in charges plus the deposition fee of 450. There was already 500 credit or damages,I feel as I am only responsible for 450 plus 660 =1110.00 in charges minus 500 for a total of 610.00.Desired Settlement: Responsible for 610.00 only

Business

Response:

This is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] concerning the damage charge on the end term statement for the 2012 Jeep Liberty leased through Hann Financial. Mr. [redacted] complains that the damage charge is high and the damage is the result of normal wear and tear. However, the Lease Agreement clearly states damage conditions that would be the Lessee’s responsibility to repair and should have been resolved prior to the return of the vehicle. The term “wear and tear” refers to a used condition and not to an allowance for damage. The Lease Agreement details conditions that would be considered “damage”; which includes, but is not limited to, chips or cracks in the windshield or other glass on the vehicle, sidewall damage to the tires and damage to the paint. All of the conditions mentioned exist on the vehicle and are documented in the photos of the vehicle taken during the inspection. The damage charge was taken directly from the damage appraisal report, which was performed by an independent licensed appraisal company; and reflects the repairs necessary to restore the vehicle to an undamaged condition. Because the damage listed in the report is evident in the photos, costs to repair are within industry standard to repair, and credit of a $500.00 damage allowance was already applied to the account, no change to amount charged is warranted.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response becauseThe damage to the windshield and chips to the paint was cause in the transportation of the vehicle from long island to new jersey. The was very minor chips to the exterior and no damage to the windshield when the car left my property. I have sent in picturess to prove this to the email address which given to me by Hann Financial.I expect a solution and a settlement to this shortly . I am only responsible for the 450 deposition fee and overage in miles. think

Regards,

Business

Response:

The transport carrier is an independent company and required to report any transport damage to Hann. In this instance, no report of a transport incident has been received. Hann is now in receipt of the pictures taken by the consumer in front of the garage at their home. A comparison of the photos taken by the [redacted] and the consumer’s photos shows the damage is in existence prior to the vehicle leaving the consumer’s property. Further, the type of damage demonstrated in the photos is not consistent with transport damage.

Review: The company mailed me a letter charging me an overpriced amount for my returned vehicle. That letter also came more than 3 weeks after they had the car already so I wouldn't be able to properly dispute the charges. When calling customer service the Collections Manager named[redacted] promptly told me that he will not honor my right to fight the charges with my own appraisal, and that I should file a complaint and go to Arbitration. He then hung up on me. Beside for the rudeness of hanging up on me he flatly admitted that he is not honoring my right because it was't convenient for him. Arbitration will cost more money and this is blatant intimidation. I fully believe that this is a company mandate on how to bill customers and collect any money possible. Intimidation was the cause for two collection agencies recently being fined and shut down. No one should be treated this way.Desired Settlement: I believe that since my rights have been violated I should not be required to pay any fee that I am being charged. It is my belief that I should have no obligation to the company based on their behavior in denying my rights to dispute the claim within the time frame, the billing practice of mailing invoices at the end of the required period so we get them after the period is over, attempted collection, and the rude treatment by the manager. Furthermore, I feel that the [redacted] and the Revdex.com should open an investigation into the company and its practices.

Business

Response:

Re: [redacted]This is in response to the complaint filed by[redacted] concerning end term lease charges associated with his lease of a 2011[redacted] Odyssey from [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] claims that the statement was forwarded to himthree weeks after the vehicle was returned. Mr. [redacted] left the vehicle at adealership, despite specific instructions from [redacted] not to leave the vehicle inthe possession of any third party, including any dealership, without the priorconsent and authorization from [redacted]. The time between the leaving of thevehicle and [redacted] taking possession is due to the fact that [redacted] was not advisedas to the location of the vehicle until after the vehicle was left. On learningthe whereabouts of the vehicle, [redacted] arranged for the transportation of the vehicleto take possession. The vehicle came into [redacted] possession on August 5, 2014.The appraisal was conducted and the statement was prepared and mailed on August13, 2014, which is less than three weeks and within the time frame set byapplicable statutes. Records from the [redacted] confirm that the statementwas received by Mr. [redacted] on August 15th. Mr. [redacted] did notcontact [redacted] in response to the statement but rather in response to a follow upphone call from [redacted] on September 3, 2014. The time allowed by [redacted] forthe consumer to perform a second appraisal ended on August 29; 14 days afterreceipt of the statement. Because the time lapsed and no other appraisal has beensubmitted, the appraisal performed onbehalf of [redacted] is final and binding on the parties.

Review: They are claiming an inferior repair on minivan. The repair was done by a local reputable authorized repair shop which was paid by my insurance company. The work done and materials used were in keeping with the standards set by Honda. The vehicle looked as if it was brand new and I was extremely satisfied with the repair, as was my leasing company. I feel they are trying to extort money from me for no substantiated reason.Desired Settlement: Stop trying to extort money from me. My leasing company even tried to stop them from harassing me because they felt the repairs were done properly.

Business

Response:

This is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted] relative to end term damage charges assessed to his leaseaccount for a 2011 Honda Odyssey. The vehicle appraisal report conducted on behalf of Hann Financial when the vehicle was returned notes that the vehicle was returned with some unrepaired damage in the back bumper and that the vehicle was subject to previous repairs which were of such poor workmanship and quality that left the right side of the vehicle a different paint color and texture then the rest of the vehicle. The Lessee is responsible for the car and maintenance of the vehicle over the lease term. In this instance the Lessee presented the vehicle for repairs to a body shop of the Lessee’s choosing and accepted the poor quality of repairs that were performed. The receipt for the repair work that Lessee forwarded to Hann after the issuance of the end term statement noted repairs done by DE-KO, Inc. of 1114- 36th Street, Brooklyn, NY nine months prior to the return. It does not indicate that any insurance carrier authorized or paid for the repairs. Because Mr. Esposito accepted poor quality repair work, he is responsible for the current condition of the vehicle. Please note this account has been assigned to outside legal counsel for collection of the outstanding balance of the account. Any further or additional questions should be directed to the attention of our attorney.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: It is not accurate. [redacted] auto leasing from whom the vehicle was obtained and returned to, was in total agreement with me and has received many unusual complaints regarding their customers whom have used Hann Financial. De-Ko has done excellent repair work in the past for me and continues to do so. De-Ko's work in the past was never an issue with other financial institutions. I do not accept poor quality repairs and would never continue to use any such establishment had I received inferior products or poor quality repairs. My insurance company did pay a substantial amount to repair the vehicle and it was worth every penny of it. I would not hesitate to use De-Ko in the future, however both [redacted] Auto and myself will never use Hann financial again.