Netherton's Body Shop, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:I have reached an agreement with the business that is satisfactory to me.  Thanks, in particular, to Carol Escandell from Hann, who was reasonable and fair and very nice to deal with.
Regards,
[redacted]

This is in response to the complaint filed by [redacted] M [redacted] concerning the assessment of a disposition fee to her account. The charge of a Disposition Fee, is disclosed and made a part of the Lease Agreement in Box 7 of the Lease Agreement, she signed at [redacted] for the...

lease of a 2014 Jeep Compass through Hann Financial Service Corp. Ms. [redacted] may be confused as to the actual Lessor of the vehicle because, in accordance with instructions from Hann, she made her payments to [redacted]. Please note, Hann was a fully owned subsidiary of [redacted]; now [redacted] following the merger of the two banking institutions. A copy of the Lease Agreement is attached whereby Hann is named as the Lessor in Box 1c at the top of the Agreement. The Disposition Fee in question is a chargeable fee in the event the vehicle is not purchased at the end of the lease term. In this instance, the vehicle was returned, therefore the fee is valid and due. This fee is disclosed in the Agreement at Box 7 as Other Charges. As such, the fee is not based on the condition or mileage on the vehicle, or whether or not the Lessee re-leases with Hann; but rather a flat fee that is charged in all cases when the vehicle is returned at the end of the lease. I’m sorry the fee may not have been disclosed when the vehicle was originally leased; however it is an integral part of the lease financing. Charging this fee at the end of the term, and only if the vehicle is returned; allows for the collection of the fee if vehicle is returned and not in all cases where a vehicle may have been purchased by the lessee or a dealership. This process allows Hann to keep the monthly lease payment as low as possible. The account was assigned to a collection agency because the account was assessed this charge on November 16, 2016 and remained unpaid until after the assignment to the agency. Notice of the unpaid balance was forwarded to Ms. [redacted] on 12/1/2016, 1/3/2017 and 2/1/2017. Should you have any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

This is in response to the compliant filed by Mr. [redacted], concerning the charge for damage assessed to an automobile lease account between the consumer and Hann Financial Service. This account began as a 39 month lease of a 2012 Dodge Journey. The Lease Agreement between Hann Financial...

Service and [redacted] defines conditions that would be considered excess wear and tear. The vehicle was returned to Hann with excessive wear and tear damage in addition to unrepaired collision damage. In this instance, although the damage reported in the appraisal report provided to Hann is supported by photographs of the damage and depict a combination of substandard prior repairs and unrepaired damage, some of which has rusted, Hann has decided the amount of each of these separate instances is not significant. Therefore, Hann has removed the damage charge from the account.  We would also like to apologize for the service the client states she received from our vendor whom picked up the vehicle.

Mr. [redacted], this is not the forum to discuss settlement of the outstanding charges. As previously discussed the costs shown on the end term statement are within the terms of the lease agreement and Hann policy. Please contact me directly in order for us to a amicable resolution.

This is in response to the compliant filed by Mr. [redacted] concerning the third party purchase of the 2015 Jeep Renegade he is leasing from Hann Financial Service. The contract between Mr. [redacted] and Hann Financial is for a 39 month vehicle lease that is scheduled to mature on...

September 1, 2018. The terms of the lease agreement state the purchase price of the vehicle if Mr. [redacted] chooses to purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease term as the Residual Value of $16,041.20; plus a purchase option fee of $300.00. Hann extends the right to purchase the vehicle at the stated cost to the originating dealership, based on that dealership’s involvement in setting the terms of the lease. The other lease end option available to Mr. [redacted] is to return the vehicle to Hann. If this option is chosen, there is a $450.00 that would be assessed to the account and the vehicle would be subject to inspection for over mileage and excess damage after the vehicle is returned to Hann possession. The option to purchase by a third party, which applies to any other dealership, or individual designed by Mr. [redacted], is subject to a 20% increase in the sale price. The higher sale price is set because of an increase in the market value of this vehicle, based on year, make and model, since the inception of the lease. Hann assumes the vehicle is within the mileage limitations and condition as set by the contract. Hann is obligated to sell the vehicle to Mr. [redacted] at the amount by the contract terms, however, there is no obligation to sell the vehicle to a third party at the contracted amount. Accordingly, Mr. [redacted] is not being penalized or charged the increased sale price. Mr. [redacted] can choose to purchase the vehicle himself from Hann and then sell it to a third party, once the title is transferred. However, because the vehicle is Hann property; Hann has the right to sell the vehicle to any third party at the current market value for the vehicle. Should Mr. [redacted] or you have any additional questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

This is in response to the compliant filed by [redacted], concerning the vehicle  return process and charge for damage assessed to an automobile lease account between the consumer and Hann Financial Service. This account began as a 39 month lease of a 2012 Dodge Journey. The Lease...

Agreement between Hann Financial Service and Ms. [redacted] defines conditions that would be considered excess wear and tear. The vehicle was returned to Hann with excessive wear and tear damage in addition to substandard repaired collision damage. I apologize for any communication difficulties that the consumer may have experienced in scheduling the return of the vehicle. Hann prides itself on being responsive to our customer’s needs and this lapse is not typical. Our transport carrier was also contacted at the time the vehicle was being scheduled for return and was advised the carrier had left several unreturned messages for Ms. [redacted].   The vehicle came into Hann possession on the November 19, 2015; with no transport damage noted. The damage appraisal was performed by [redacted] on behalf of Hann on November 25, 2015 and included photographs of the damage areas noted in the report. Please note the report lists the work needed to affect the repairs, not a list of damage parts. The repairs previously done to the vehicle were not properly or completely performed and utilized market parts that are not acceptable replacement parts pursuant to the terms of the Lease. Due to the amount of time that has lapsed from the time this account was assessed; the account has been assigned to outside counsel for collection of the outstanding balance. It is my understanding that this matter will be or is the subject of open litigation, therefore no additional statement can be made at this time.

Because Hann is now represented by counsel on this matter; any and all discussion of settlement must be made through counsel.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Hann's response "Due to the amount of time that has lapsed from the time this account was assessed; the account has been assigned to outside counsel for collection of the outstanding balance. It is my understanding that this matter will be or is the subject of open litigation, therefore no additional statement can be made at this time." makes no sense to me.  Too much time has passed for them to clear up the matter, but not to litigate against me?   I still maintain that Hann did not allow for me to view the car, to get a 2nd appraisal on what they considered to be substandard work or get a payoff amount.  Their bill was sent to me in December of 2015.  I waited to file this claim with the Revdex.com because I was hoping to clear it up without having to take this route.  My calls to their HQ in New Jersey were rerouted and messages were left unreturned. While I was awaitng a return phone call, I started receiving mailings from a law firm with language that they were attempting to "collect on a debt".  To be quite honest, I thought it was a scare tactic, and not something that Hann was actually going to turn over to litigation.  Again, I was still awaiting a call back from the company at this time. I further ascertain that if upon speaking with someone at Hann, I got the impression that these charges were in fact, valid, I would have asked for a payoff amount for the car.  Even though I know the payoff amount would have been higher than the 6400 bill, I potentially would have made the decision to purchase the vehicle in lieu of paying $6400 to go to absolutely nothing.  I was not offered that opportunity.  
Regards,
[redacted]