Rent‑to‑own car buyer hit with surprise “depreciation deposit” after accident

The dispute

A customer who bought a Dongfeng Venucia (东风启辰) new-energy vehicle via a rent‑to‑own (以租代购) scheme was asked to pay a 2,600 yuan “depreciation guarantee” before her insurer would pay out for repairs, raising fresh questions about hidden costs in China’s alternative auto‑financing market. It has been reported that Ms. Chao (晁女士), unable to pass a bank credit check, accepted a four‑year rent‑to‑own plan in September 2024 with a 17,500 yuan down payment and monthly payments of 3,499 yuan; the loan, including interest, totals roughly 180,000 yuan.

What happened at the time of the claim

On March 19 Ms. Chao had an accident and repair estimates came to about 13,000 yuan. The franchised dealer (so‑called 4S shop) and the insurer both said the leasing company must sign for the claim. But when Ms. Chao went to the lessor she was told to put up 20% of the claim — 2,600 yuan — as a depreciation deposit. She also complains she was not clearly told at sale that insurance would cost 4,400 yuan rather than the roughly 3,000 yuan quoted by the salesperson; it has been reported that the agent did not make those extra charges explicit.

The leasing company’s position

The unnamed leasing company says the contract is lawful and that vehicle ownership remains with the company during the lease, so the deposit is a contractual protection against post‑claim devaluation and will be returned in full without interest when the contract is settled. It has been reported that the company made a one‑off exemption to waive the 2,600 yuan in this case, but the firm warned it will generally enforce the clause going forward — a compromise that did not satisfy Ms. Chao, who wants the rule removed altogether.

Why this matters

Rent‑to‑own has expanded in China as an option for buyers with thin credit histories, offering low up‑front costs but often complex terms. Who really owns the car during the term? Who bears risk when there’s an accident? Regulators and consumer advocates have in recent years pressed for clearer disclosure in other finance sectors; this case highlights the same fault lines in auto finance, where contractual fine print and point‑of‑sale representations can diverge. It has been reported that the original report appeared on Phoenix Tech (ifeng), with a platform notice that the item was uploaded by a user account.