End of Lease Inspection Report - Accident Declaration

NathanT039266 wrote: ↑ I would look into the original lease documents. Most will have a clause that states any accidents over x dollars need to be reported to the leasing company. If they were small accidents that were under that value I'd say nothing.

zabuza wrote: ↑ Had my first end of lease inspection today by Autovin and just checked the inspection report. They only found instances of normal wear & tear, so no repairs are necessary prior to returning the vehicle. However, I noticed the report has a section that states "Lessee Declaration - Has the Vehicle Been in an Accident - NO".

Well, the vehicle *has* been in two accidents. I wasn't asked this and figured the purpose of the inspection was also to evaluate repairs.

Should I contact Autovin advise them to correct the report? How does that change their assessment, if the vehicle already passed inspection?

Any advice or information is highly appreciated. Thanks!

vkizzle wrote: ↑Don't say anything!

Yodums wrote: ↑ Returned 2 cars within the family with accidents on each and AutoVIN also put down neither cars were in accidents. I know for my inspection, the inspector asked me which parts were replaced and I told him everything. He still put that, so I'm not sure what that field might be used for. In any case, the cars were returned without any issues. May want to follow-up directly with Financial Services for clarification.

xjesterxx wrote: ↑ It doesn't typically change anything because the lease end value is guaranteed at almost all major car manufacturers, regardless of accident history. The only caveat here is if you had an accident and the vehicle was repaired to a sub-standard state. If the appraiser eye balled it and signed off then everything should be fine.

Just to give you an idea... There are people who just drop the car and keys at the dealership in the night, no appointment, no inspection, nothing. It would take a lot more time and money for the manufacturer to go after you for undisclosed damage history (and having to prove that something is wrong with the vehicle that needs to be fixed / is your obligation) than just selling the car at auction and moving on.

zabuza wrote: ↑ Yeah, I just make the assumption that if the vehicle's worth less as a result of the accidents, they'll look for any possible reason to shaft me to cover losses. Instead, they'll probably look to shaft someone else.

zabuza wrote: ↑ Yeah, I just make the assumption that if the vehicle's worth less as a result of the accidents, they'll look for any possible reason to shaft me to cover losses. Instead, they'll probably look to shaft someone else.

vkizzle wrote: ↑ Technically, you are the one that is shafting someone, by repairing your vehicle out of pocket with your mechanic buddy; keeping it off the claims history.

xjesterxx wrote: ↑ More likely the manufacturer will get shafted because they will have to disclose the accidents when the vehicle goes to dealer auction.

Remember that the manufacturer itself cannot retail to customers... They have to sell off to dealers first.

"A customer is required to disclose [any accidents] when they turn the vehicle in – it is part of the turn-in report," said Thomas Tetzlaff, spokesman for Volkswagen Canada, in an e-mail. "We require this information because we, in turn, are required to disclose this information to the next customer."

zabuza wrote: ↑ Nope, I claimed and had it done at my mechanic's because I was there and I trusted him to do a good job (and he did). That's the only reason I was worried at all.


Right - which is why I think they mark the accident declaration "no" even though they know parts were repainted. That's the only way it makes sense to me. Check out this quote from a Volkswagen Canada spokesperson I got from a Globe and Mail article:



It's a bit of a strange statement, since they obviously have the means to know whether or not a car was in an accident. Why would they trust the previous driver's word? The only thing I can think of is that it's a loophole which gives them an out not to disclose it to the next guy.

vkizzle wrote: ↑ If that were the case, it will show up on carproof.

skeet50 wrote: ↑ I see it as a weakness in the inspection process. The inspector reviewed the car and determined that the car was not in an accident, and declared that it wasn’t. Did you have to sign the inspection report anywhere declaring that the information was true and accurate or that you agreed with the findings?

skeet50 wrote: ↑ That’s good. You will be in the clear should the next buyer scream should they discover the vehicle has been in an accident. The lesson here is never wonder how CarFax reports can be inaccurate when an in person inspection report can also be inaccurate.

Thanks for sharing your experience. My take away is to always, always, always have a used car inspected, regardless of what third party reports state.