Dealer Changed lease

[kdryden99]

I'm looking to takeover a lease. After passing the credit check the dealer tells me that the previous owner has a lower monthly rate since he traded in his old car. Since I am taking over the lease I can not take advantage of the lower rate so it will cost me a bit more than what the present owner is paying. Has anybody ever experienced this? Can the dealer do this? From what I understand, this is not coming from the dealer but rather the manufacturer's finance department. Any help and info will be greatly appreciated.

[ggti]

je ne comprend pas l'histoire du rate VS Trade. ca la pas de rapport

par contre si le premier acheteur avait laisser un TRADE et qui avait economiser des TAXES, le credit de taxe lui appartient et tu ne peux pas en beneficier.

Ex:
1) paiement de l'auto original sans trade = 400 + taxe = 459.90$
2) si le premier proprio avait un credit de taxe ( ex: trade d'une valeur de 3000$ + taxes = 3449$ ) donc 449$ de credit

si la voiture a été louer 48 mois (449$ / 48 ) = 9.35$/mois donc le premier acheteur sauvait 9.35$/mois

MAIS si il transfert sa location a quelqu'un d'autre le credit ne peux pas s'appliquer ! c'est comme ca

sur le contrat de location tu as le paiement plus les 2 taxes

400 +5 % + 9.5 % = 459.90$ si ta pas d'echange ca va etre comme ca ta pas le choix. Le dealer a la responsabilité de te transferer la location et non d'appliquer les taxes.

au pire si tu pense que tu te fait fourrer regarde le paiement AVANT taxe sur L'ANCIEN contrat VS le nouveau contrat de transfert

[shag]

Nope. Which manufacturer/financial institution? Is it a new car lease or a used car lease?

[kdryden99]

je ne comprend pas l'histoire du rate VS Trade. ca la pas de rapport

par contre si le premier acheteur avait laisser un TRADE et qui avait economiser des TAXES, le credit de taxe lui appartient et tu ne peux pas en beneficier.

Ex:
1) paiement de l'auto original sans trade = 400 + taxe = 459.90$
2) si le premier proprio avait un credit de taxe ( ex: trade d'une valeur de 3000$ + taxes = 3449$ ) donc 449$ de credit

si la voiture a été louer 48 mois (449$ / 48 ) = 9.35$/mois donc le premier acheteur sauvait 9.35$/mois

MAIS si il transfert sa location a quelqu'un d'autre le credit ne peux pas s'appliquer ! c'est comme ca

sur le contrat de location tu as le paiement plus les 2 taxes

400 +5 % + 9.5 % = 459.90$ si ta pas d'echange ca va etre comme ca ta pas le choix. Le dealer a la responsabilité de te transferer la location et non d'appliquer les taxes.

au pire si tu pense que tu te fait fourrer regarde le paiement AVANT taxe sur L'ANCIEN contrat VS le nouveau contrat de transfert

C'est quelque chose dans ce genre. C'est une voiture neuve. Le présent proprio paye 600$/mois taxes incl. L'institution m'averti que si je prend le location, le présent proprio avait ramener une voiture donc il profiter d'un mensualité réduit que moi je ne pourrais pas prendre avantage de cette réduction est que mon mensualité serait de 660$ taxes incl au lieu de 600tax incl. C'est juste que je ne veux pas me faire fourrer par le concessionnaire. Merci pour ton aide

[D_Accord]

smells like he's trying to pull a quick one.

The beauty of a lease takeover is that you pay the exact payments that the initial leaser negotiated. Tell the douche that you're going to come back with a lawyer and sort this out and possibly go further and see if you can open an investigation and see how many people got screwed over

[kdryden99]

smells like he's trying to pull a quick one.

The beauty of a lease takeover is that you pay the exact payments that the initial leaser negotiated. Tell the douche that you're going to come back with a lawyer and sort this out and possibly go further and see if you can open an investigation and see how many people got screwed over

That's what I thought also but it doesn't seem to be the case. The dealer is saying that all he does is fill out the papers, and that it's the manufacturer/financial institution that handles the actual contract/transfer. When I asked if the monthly could be negotiated, the dealership said no since it's the Manufacturer who put this in place. One thing I didn't mention was that the dealership is located in ontario and the original lease was made in victoriaville where the owner originally lived. The present owner is currently looking into the situation also but I doubt we're both going to get anywhere. One option is for me and the current owner to handle this between me and him. I just dont want the current owner to get screwed also.

I understand the manufacturer and the reasoning behind the increase even though I don't like, it does kind of make sense except for one thing, the present owner saved 60$/month for 48 months due to the trade in but gets rid of the lease after 24 months so the rest of the trade in what happens to the 60$ for the last 24 months? It's like it just disappears...

[CRNKY]

they're full of shit, walk away, don't negotiate, don't bother, just walk away and find another car not connected to that dealer

[@cUr@-TL]

^^ Did any of you even bother reading ggti's post ?

[CRNKY]

^^ Did any of you even bother reading ggti's post ?

no because chrome translated it into near giberish so I skipped it what I can figure out of it is that the finance company gives a break to first owner because he traded in a car but can't transfare it to second owner. yet the dealer still makes money out of the traded in car and still have somebody paying the lease to the finance company instead of just handing it back and they have to try and resell.

[MrSpace]

smells like he's trying to pull a quick one.

The beauty of a lease takeover is that you pay the exact payments that the initial leaser negotiated. Tell the douche that you're going to come back with a lawyer and sort this out and possibly go further and see if you can open an investigation and see how many people got screwed over

exactly!!! thats why all the different incentives on leasebusters...

people that did not gibe anu cash have higher monthly so they offer a large lump sum compared to the ones that have small payments because they had a large deposit

Sent from my GT-I9100M using Tapatalk 2

[shag]

Walk the hell away. Deal don't smell too good...

[kdryden99]

je ne comprend pas l'histoire du rate VS Trade. ca la pas de rapport

par contre si le premier acheteur avait laisser un TRADE et qui avait economiser des TAXES, le credit de taxe lui appartient et tu ne peux pas en beneficier.

Ex:
1) paiement de l'auto original sans trade = 400 + taxe = 459.90$
2) si le premier proprio avait un credit de taxe ( ex: trade d'une valeur de 3000$ + taxes = 3449$ ) donc 449$ de credit

si la voiture a été louer 48 mois (449$ / 48 ) = 9.35$/mois donc le premier acheteur sauvait 9.35$/mois

MAIS si il transfert sa location a quelqu'un d'autre le credit ne peux pas s'appliquer ! c'est comme ca

sur le contrat de location tu as le paiement plus les 2 taxes

400 +5 % + 9.5 % = 459.90$ si ta pas d'echange ca va etre comme ca ta pas le choix. Le dealer a la responsabilité de te transferer la location et non d'appliquer les taxes.

au pire si tu pense que tu te fait fourrer regarde le paiement AVANT taxe sur L'ANCIEN contrat VS le nouveau contrat de transfert

Apres avoir verifier c'est exactement ca. Le proprietaire precedant a ramener un vehicule qu'il avait financer donc le concessionaire a donner une rabais au niveau du pst, mais vu qu'il transfert sont location je ne peux plus profiter du rabais. Cette explication vient directement du manfacturier siege sociale et non une decision fait par le concessionaire. Merci Pour votre aide