Many consider leasing to be the modern and straightforward way to use a vehicle, as the advantages are clear: you drive a new car, pay a fixed monthly rate, avoid high upfront costs, and don’t have to worry about major repairs or the eventual sale. The calculation seems simple: the term, costs, and financial risk are clearly defined and manageable in advance. For private individuals and small business owners in particular, this is a key reason why they are increasingly opting against the traditional vehicle purchase and in favor of a leasing model.
Unfortunately, people often underestimate that the “financial showdown” doesn’t begin during the lease term, but rather when the vehicle is returned. This often leads to a conflict that can be surprising, stressful, and, above all, costly for the lessee as a customer.
The “big surprise” comes at the end
When the vehicle is returned, it is routinely appraised. An initial inspection is usually conducted either by the leasing company—i.e., the lessor itself—or by a private expert. During this process, visual and technical issues are documented and recorded in a return report. Based on this, so-called depreciation values are then determined.
But what exactly are these “depreciation charges”? Primarily, they are an industry-specific term. Depreciation is intended to reflect the financial loss incurred by the lessor due to the vehicle’s condition upon return. In theory, viewed abstractly, this sounds reasonable. In practice, however, these assessments often result in substantial payment demands against the lessee, even though the vehicle was returned in very good condition. Amounts in the range of several thousand euros are not the exception but rather the rule.
Wear and tear or damage?
At the end of the lease term, the vehicle is inevitably returned with normal signs of wear and tear, as the use of the vehicle inevitably leads to wear and tear. Since the lessee pays for the use of the vehicle, so-called contractual wear and tear is generally not the lessee’s responsibility to compensate for, but is already covered by the lease payments. In contrast, the lessor may assert claims for compensation in cases of excessive wear and tear or specific damage, such as that resulting from an accident, improper handling, or exceptional strain.
In practice, however, the distinction between normal wear and tear and damage subject to compensation is often—deliberately—not consistently applied. Disputes frequently arise over scratches, stone chips, paint damage, or signs of wear in the interior, which are grouped under the neologism “depreciation.” For the legal layperson, this is generally difficult to verify. The impression arises of a blanket devaluation of the vehicle at the lessee’s expense, which is inconsistent with the vehicle’s actual well-maintained condition upon return.
High payment demands from the lessor are often unjustified
If the lessor then demands a typically high four-figure sum after the vehicle is returned, lessees find themselves in financial distress and struggling to explain the charges.
Legal practice shows that a significant portion of these claims is contestable. Often, individual items can be completely rejected or at least significantly reduced in amount.
As part of a legal review, we examine in particular whether the disputed items actually constitute damages subject to compensation or merely constitute normal wear and tear under the contract. Of particular relevance are the respective contractual provisions, especially regarding vehicle return and the assessment of damages, which must be subjected to a concrete review. It is precisely the combination of technical assessment and legal classification that regularly opens up avenues for successfully defending against such claims.
In many cases, it turns out that the lessor’s claim for payment is not owed in the amount claimed. A thorough legal review by a specialized attorney can help reduce the claim to a reasonable and justifiable amount—and prevent “major trouble at the end.”
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.