[lo_xyooj]

Yeah Nav update for $350 is price gouging by stealerships. I just recently bought my CPO and it was still running the version it came with the car. I just did my NAV update over the weekend for $50 and it took no more then 40mins.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by AudiA4

I didn't realize the rate would be different until he texted me late yesterday after I'd left the dealership. Regardless, the rate is just one factor.

Not talking rate. Talking term of the loan.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by SoDiezl350

You should find a forum member willing to swap wheels for a couple days + some beer.

Ever heard of Insurance Fraud and Bank Fraud?

[SoDiezl350]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Ever heard of Insurance Fraud and Bank Fraud?

How do you figure that would constitute fraud? Genuinely curious.

Let's say he swapped fresh RFTs onto it prior to turning it in and then decided that RFTs were simply rubbish and he wanted non RFTs. Would it still be fraud if he owned both wheel sets?

[AudiA4]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Not talking rate. Talking term of the loan.

I know what you meant. My point was I didn't know since I wasn't at the dealership to have a conversation about the available terms at that rate. But since you asked, 1.9 is available up to 72 months.

[AudiA4]

...as an update, I opted to go with CPO since the available 1.9 rate closed the total cost gap to an acceptable number.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by SoDiezl350

How do you figure that would constitute fraud? Genuinely curious.

Let's say he swapped fresh RFTs onto it prior to turning it in and then decided that RFTs were simply rubbish and he wanted non RFTs. Would it still be fraud if he owned both wheel sets?

Not if both sets owned. Borrowing from someone is Fraud. Many Insurance Companies require Auto inspection if car is used (often to just make sure car really exists). You think borrowing a car for a Inspection isn't Fraud?

Lying on a Loan Applucation is Bank Fraud. The CPO was needed for the lower rate, thus borrowing the tires is Fraud.

If you apply for a home mortgage, when asking about down payment, they ask is this given/loaned from a family member. Same reasoning.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by AudiA4

...as an update, I opted to go with CPO since the available 1.9 rate closed the total cost gap to an acceptable number.

Glad you got what you wanted, but not sure how the difference in 1.9% and 2.39% washes the $1800 out as my entire 60 month loan total interest is only roughly $1800 at 2.39%.

Take 1% of the total price and that is what the dealership made on just initiating the loan. That figure does not change regardless of CPO or not, so Dealer makes same OFF LOAN either way.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Ever heard of Insurance Fraud and Bank Fraud?

We've all heard of it, but it's irrelevant because there's no fraud there. You turn in the car with the tires that pass, and then you buy the car, and own it, and give the tires back to the swap partner. You loan papers and insurance policy do not contain guarantees that you won't ever change your tires.

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Not if both sets owned. Borrowing from someone is Fraud. Many Insurance Companies require Auto inspection if car is used (often to just make sure car really exists). You think borrowing a car for a Inspection isn't Fraud?

Lying on a Loan Applucation is Bank Fraud. The CPO was needed for the lower rate, thus borrowing the tires is Fraud.

If you apply for a home mortgage, when asking about down payment, they ask is this given/loaned from a family member. Same reasoning.

No one is saying use a different car for inspection. Get a different set of tires; put them on the car; BMW does lease turn-in/CPO inspection; BMW CPO's the car; OP buys the CPO; OP swaps back the tires. Not anything close to the scenario you are saying.

[AudiA4]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Glad you got what you wanted, but not sure how the difference in 1.9% and 2.39% washes the $1800 out as my entire 60 month loan total interest is only roughly $1800 at 2.39%.

Take 1% of the total price and that is what the dealership made on just initiating the loan. That figure does not change regardless of CPO or not, so Dealer makes same OFF LOAN either way.

I didn't say it wiped out the full $1,800. I said it closed the difference to an acceptable level. The rate I was quoted on non CPO was quite a bit higher. CPO has value, so I am willing to pay for that value. I just didn't want to pay more than I felt it was worth.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by tex2670

We've all heard of it, but it's irrelevant because there's no fraud there. You turn in the car with the tires that pass, and then you buy the car, and own it, and give the tires back to the swap partner. You loan papers and insurance policy do not contain guarantees that you won't ever change your tires.

No one is saying use a different car for inspection. Get a different set of tires; put them on the car; BMW does lease turn-in/CPO inspection; BMW CPO's the car; OP buys the CPO; OP swaps back the tires. Not anything close to the scenario you are saying.

Yes you can change tires in future. Borrowing tires to get coverage and cheaper rate is Fraud. Check with a lawyer. Or better yet, simply ask the Dealer or BMWFS if this is acceptable. Perhaps you can ask a Dealer to take the tires off a Loaner car for 2 hours to pass the CPO. If it's not Fraud, they should be happy to do it.

GET REAL.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Yes you can change tires in future. Borrowing tires to get coverage and cheaper rate is Fraud. Check with a lawyer. Or better yet, simply ask the Dealer or BMWFS if this is acceptable. Perhaps you can ask a Dealer to take the tires off a Loaner car for 2 hours to pass the CPO. If it's not Fraud, they should be happy to do it.

GET REAL.

You don't get it. When you turn in the car, those tires don't belong to you anymore--they belong to BMWFS. Then the dealer sells you back the car, and they belong to you again, and you can do whatever the hell you want with them.

You could change your mind and not buy the car, and those tires are not yours anymore (or the person you traded with). Asking the dealer to swap out tires for inspection is totally different. If you want to change the facts to make it fraud, go right ahead; that doesn't make your case for you.

YOU go check with a lawyer--not fraud in any way, shape or form.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by tex2670

You don't get it. When you turn in the car, those tires don't belong to you anymore--they belong to BMWFS.

Agree

Originally Posted by tex2670

Then the dealer sells you back the car, and they belong to you again, and you can do whatever the hell you want with them.

Correct.

Originally Posted by tex2670

You could change your mind and not buy the car, and those tires are not yours anymore (or the person you traded with).

Correct.

Originally Posted by tex2670

Asking the dealer to swap out tires for inspection is totally different. If you want to change the facts to make it fraud, go right ahead; that doesn't make your case for you.

Both are Fraud. Attempt to commit Fraud to obtain better bank rate and to qualify for service you do NOT qualify for. Plan and simple. If you don't get it (As usual for you and legal issues) not my problem.

Originally Posted by tex2670

YOU go check with a lawyer--not fraud in any way, shape or form.

You are incorrect if you believe that.

[DHS]

You have been paying for the car every month during the term of the lease and now you need to spend $3,600 so you can continue to pay for the car. Something just not right about that.

[Beek]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

Yes you can change tires in future. Borrowing tires to get coverage and cheaper rate is Fraud. Check with a lawyer. Or better yet, simply ask the Dealer or BMWFS if this is acceptable. Perhaps you can ask a Dealer to take the tires off a Loaner car for 2 hours to pass the CPO. If it's not Fraud, they should be happy to do it.

GET REAL.

The choices you've offered make it sound so black or white in a world that is mostly grey. Would it still be fraud if they did a straight up trade with a one month satisfaction guaranteed I'll take em back if you are not completely happy clause? And then after a month, SURPRISE! someone was not satisfied. I know I'm reaching a bit here but ...?

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by Beek

The choices you've offered make it sound so black or white in a world that is mostly grey. Would it still be fraud if they did a straight up trade with a one month satisfaction guaranteed I'll take em back if you are not completely happy clause? And then after a month, SURPRISE! someone was not satisfied. I know I'm reaching a bit here but ...?

It really is black and white. Others are trying to make it grey.

If you are borrowing tires (or any parts) to pass a CPO Inspection without the intention of keeping them on the car it is Fraud. Fraud will void the CPO and Bank Fraud (a Federal Crime no less) to get a better rate. You do realize that any lie on any bank loan is punishable and prosecuted, especially as loans went bad over the last decade.

Period.

Black and White....not Grey.

Cannot say it any clearer.

Anyone who cannot grasp that simple concept had better shop for lawyers as they will probably need one at some point in their lifetime.

[Beek]

No one is borrowing anything in an even trade and satisfaction guaranteed or I will take it back deals are not uncommon. I will stipulate that Prosecutor's have great discretion and can bring whatever charges they wish to pursue, I will further stipulate it would be possible to be charged with a crime in the situation being discussed here. I will also state a Judge or Jury could find one who has been charged with said crime guilty at their discretion. If I understand your position, if action A has been taken then action B is the only possible reaction, my position is there are too many variables to make that conclusion.

[AudiA4]

Originally Posted by DHS

You have been paying for the car every month during the term of the lease and now you need to spend $3,600 so you can continue to pay for the car. Something just not right about that.

Incorrect. I took over someone else's lease in the final year. CPO has value to me, so I'm willing to pay - up to a point - for that added insurance. It's also a uniquely equipped car. There's nothing amiss here.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by Kabrich

It really is black and white. Others are trying to make it grey.

If you are borrowing tires (or any parts) to pass a CPO Inspection without the intention of keeping them on the car it is Fraud. Fraud will void the CPO and Bank Fraud (a Federal Crime no less) to get a better rate. You do realize that any lie on any bank loan is punishable and prosecuted, especially as loans went bad over the last decade.

Period.

Black and White....not Grey.

Cannot say it any clearer.

Anyone who cannot grasp that simple concept had better shop for lawyers as they will probably need one at some point in their lifetime.

Right. Because all consumer car loan documents contain borrower representations as to the source and condition of the tires on the vehicle, and the manner in which the dealer conducted the pre-sale inspection. Why don't you show us exactly where in the loan application and approval process the lie occurs that gives rise to criminal liability? I bought a CPO vehicle--and I didn't have to make any representations about the condition of the car--just my credit. And if the OP turned the car in with tires that had the right treadwear, again, where's the misrepresentation? I haven't leased a car in a while--is there a line item that says "Did you promise to give the tires back to someone else?"

People were prosecuted for bank fraud for lying about their assets, income, ability to repay, and what the loan funds were going to be used for; not about what tires were on their car.

In fact, you could tell the dealer "I'm not going to pay for new tires from you; I know someone that has tires that will qualify, and I'll put those on the car for lease turn in, and once I buy the car back, I'll swap them back off." There's not a thing that they could or would do about it; CPO warranty doesn't cover treadwear, and once you remove any part (tires, steering wheel, lighting, etc.), it's not covered under the CPO warranty. It's effectively no different than modding your car, removing the mods, turning the car in at the end of the lease, having the dealer certify it as CPO, buying the CPO, and then re-installing your mods.

As you stated, it's absolutely black and white, not gray. You are correct--you cannot state any clearer that you completely do not understand what you are saying.

[White340]

I thought BMW was deeply discounting lease returns for customers? I remember reading that some people were offered 8k off residuals to take the car. Have you looked at selling prices for similar cars (i know you probably want to buy yours out, but just to get a comparison).

[AudiA4]

Originally Posted by White340

I thought BMW was deeply discounting lease returns for customers? I remember reading that some people were offered 8k off residuals to take the car. Have you looked at selling prices for similar cars (i know you probably want to buy yours out, but just to get a comparison).

I've never heard of this. BMWFS - to my knowledge - never sells ANY car to a customer (or original leasee) for anything other than residual. I did "buy" the car through the dealer at a bit of a discount, but closer to $2,000, not $8,000. That would have been an absolute steal. I did a TON of shopping for any other options before opting to buy my own. If there were any deals like that, I would have found them. My research confirmed that the price of my car was reasonably in line with the market.

[Kabrich]

Originally Posted by White340

I thought BMW was deeply discounting lease returns for customers? I remember reading that some people were offered 8k off residuals to take the car. Have you looked at selling prices for similar cars (i know you probably want to buy yours out, but just to get a comparison).

Originally Posted by AudiA4

I've never heard of this. BMWFS - to my knowledge - never sells ANY car to a customer (or original leasee) for anything other than residual. I did "buy" the car through the dealer at a bit of a discount, but closer to $2,000, not $8,000. That would have been an absolute steal. I did a TON of shopping for any other options before opting to buy my own. If there were any deals like that, I would have found them. My research confirmed that the price of my car was reasonably in line with the market.

I am the one who purchased for more than $8k off in the other thread. It was a unique situation which I detailed in the thread.

BMWFS does jot sell to a Customer below residual. Period.

They do sell to Dealer below residual.