Residual Value Settlement in Leasing: Why the Biggest Risk Only Emerges at the End

A recent case illustrates how sensitive this issue is: At the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart at the end of 2025, a dispute arose over the so-called residual value compensation upon lease return. The leasing company originally demanded around €9,500, but in the end, the lessee only had to pay about €4,160.

What’s behind it?
A classic issue in leasing – and at the same time one of the biggest sources of conflict.

The Problem Is Structural

Anyone leasing a vehicle thinks in terms of monthly payments: predictable, clear, calculable.
Until the return.

Because that’s exactly when it comes into play: the residual value settlement – meaning the difference between the condition a vehicle is contractually expected to be in and the condition in which it is actually returned.
That sounds logical. But in practice, it often only works on paper.

When “Wear and Tear” Suddenly Becomes Expensive

Reality often looks like this: An appraisal lists scratches, dents, and signs of wear – and translates them into monetary value. This can quickly add up to several thousand euros in additional charges.
The issue is not only the amount, but the interpretation.

Because:

• What still qualifies as normal use?
• Where does “excessive wear” begin?
• And who actually decides that?

Even courts regularly deal with exactly these questions and often conclude: Not every defect automatically justifies a payment.

The Real Issue: Illusory Certainty

Residual value is not a fixed price – it’s an assessment.
And assessments, even when based on expert opinions, are never entirely objective.
That is precisely the dilemma: A system based on interpretation inevitably creates uncertainty.

At the same time, closed-end leasing is often marketed as highly predictable: fixed payments, clear calculations, no surprises. But this sense of security is deceptive.
A significant portion of the risk is simply shifted – to the end of the contract. Only upon return does it become clear whether the calculation truly adds up or whether additional costs arise that no one could precisely predict beforehand.

The Uncomfortable Question

If a model repeatedly leads to disputes, if even courts have to refine the rules, if costs only become visible at the very end – why is it still the standard?

There Is Another Way

There are leasing models that avoid exactly this problem.
In open-end leasing, for example, the vehicle is marketed at the end rather than “assessed.” This eliminates the traditional residual value settlement.

What this means in practice:

• no retrospective interpretations
• no disputes over wear and tear
• no unexpected additional charges

Instead: transparency across the entire lifecycle.

Conclusion: The Risk Is Not Accidental

Residual value settlements are not isolated incidents.
They are a structural issue in the traditional leasing model.

The question, therefore, is not whether they occur, but whether you choose a model in which they can arise at all. And this is exactly where a second look is worthwhile – especially at how we might rethink leasing fundamentally.

Would you like to know how to avoid risks at the end of a contract and which alternative makes sense for your fleet? Feel free to contact us – we’ll be happy to advise you personally and transparently.

Source:

openPR. (2026, 10. März). Leasing-Streit um Minderwertausgleich: OLG Stuttgart stärkt Leasingnehmer. https://www.openpr.de/news/1306116/Leasing-Streit-um-Minderwertausgleich-OLG-Stuttgart-staerkt-Leasingnehmer.html