Entrepreneur is Angry at Herself, but Also at the Leasing Company

An entrepreneur from western Slavonia called me and first told me that she had a hard time deciding to reach out, but she believes 'that she needs to share her experience with a leasing company so that readers can learn from her case and be more cautious when buying a car.' I asked her if we could mention her name and the name of the leasing company, but she firmly refused because she still has a few cars left to pay off.

She was noticeably angry while explaining why she feels wronged (she had previously sent me an email describing the situation, but I still called her) telling me that, just as the strongest poison is kept in small bottles, the devil is in the details, i.e., in the fine print of the words (of the contract). In general, she spoke about how she has been using leasing for car procurement for about a decade; the operational leasing is the most beneficial for her. After its expiration, an employee would usually buy the car, and that at a very good price. For example, the remaining value for the complete purchase of the car would amount to four thousand euros (not a premium brand) for a well-maintained, serviced vehicle that is five years old. This is, in fact, a good example of how a good worker in a company can be rewarded by selling a well-preserved, just 'run-in' car of a very solid brand at a favorable price.

Bound Hands

However, when signing new contracts with the leasing company in recent years, the rules have changed, and the entrepreneur was not even aware of it. In other words, she did not know what she signed because she did not read the fine print that is often shoved in as if the content of those words is marginal. Namely, the leasing company, thanks to those sentences written in small letters, could only decide which customer would buy the car after the operational leasing expired.

In other words, the entrepreneur’s hands were tied because she no longer had the right of first refusal (to pay off the remaining debt and buy the car for herself) and could not decide that an employee would buy the vehicle for the same remaining amount until the final payment. Now, the leasing company exclusively decided on this, which means that it could sell the car for a higher price than she would have received if she had retained the right to decide. For instance, instead of four thousand euros, which she would have paid to take over the car, the leasing company managed to sell the vehicle several times for double that value.

While we were talking, the entrepreneur’s anger was palpable. She spoke quickly, as angry people tend to do, but admitted that she was actually to blame for being deceived. She did not read the fine print, she had neither the desire nor the will, nor the time for it; after all, she believed it was unnecessary. She had been cooperating with that leasing company for about a decade, and until a few years ago, everything was fine, so that was in some way a reason for her to be less cautious than when signing a contract for the first time with someone.

Nitpicking Due to Damage

Moreover, the entrepreneur says that the leasing company has started nitpicking when assessing cars. When appraisers look for damages, they do not only look for potentially serious ones; they also look for scratches and barely visible dents (from, for example, falling nuts), and they charge for all of that, she claims, from at least four thousand to ten thousand kuna. Larger damages, those from collisions or breaks in parking lots, are usually repaired under mandatory insurance, but it does not cover micro-damages because it is not worth activating it for scratches, says the entrepreneur, and everyone, she adds, 'in the bodywork industry knows that such micro-damages are tolerated upon return.' But not in the leasing company she worked with.

Because of all this, the entrepreneur concludes her story, she decided to change the leasing company. She still has a few cars left to pay off to the old one and will definitely end her business cooperation with it. The new business partner, she says, has so far proven to be extremely correct, but she says she is cautious. She will never again allow herself not to read every detail of the contract, including the one written in fine print, even if 'for the next hundred years she collaborates with the new leasing company.' Because who knows how things can turn around…

POST SCRIPTUM

To reiterate what was stated in the main text: the entrepreneur wanted to tell her story so that others, not only entrepreneurs but also citizens as individuals, would be cautious when concluding contracts of any kind. This, along with the fact that she has not yet paid off all the cars to the old leasing company, is another reason why she did not want to go public with her name and surname, nor with the name of the leasing company she was angry with. In any case, all this information is known to the editorial office.