If you resign from your job, is your employer allowed to saddle you with a bill for thousands of euros for the remaining term of your lease car? Recent case law shows that it is sometimes allowed, often not, but only if it is reasonable and well-substantiated. Because we recently received a reader’s question about this topic, we will delve deeper into it once more.
A lease car is one of the most popular perks of a job. But who ever thinks about what happens if you resign while the lease contract is still running? You better do, because returning your lease car prematurely can be very costly.
The employer concludes the contract, pays the monthly costs, and arranges contact with the leasing company. As an employee, you have no direct relationship with the leasing company, but for private use, you do have the additional tax liability and sometimes an own contribution to the employer. As long as the employment relationship continues, there is no problem. But as soon as you refuse, the situation can become legally complicated. Many employment contracts or car policies contain a buy-out clause: anyone who leaves before the end of the lease period pays (a part of) the remaining costs. Such buy-out sums can add up significantly, from a few thousand euros to well over €20,000.
Negotiating for a new job
Anyone who has a lease car in their current job and is considering a new job would be wise to review the lease terms of their old employer before the job interview. If you have an ongoing lease contract with a buy-out clause, discuss with your new employer whether they are willing to take over the car or those costs. This is not unusual; compare it to study costs, which are also often taken over by the new employer when switching jobs. An open conversation about this can save thousands of euros and prevent trouble afterwards. Never blindly sign a car policy or driver agreement.
Good Employer and Good Employee Conduct
An employer and employee must behave as a good employer and a good employee. This principle can be found in the Civil Code. A good employer uses clear lease policies. If he includes a buy-out sum for the lease car upon termination, he does not use these buy-out arrangements as a business model. The employer informs employees in advance about possible costs and checks the invoice from the leasing company. Where necessary, he challenges the leasing company to reduce costs.
A good employee carefully reads the car policy before signing and asks questions if anything is unclear. If he refuses, he returns the car neatly and undamaged. He accepts reasonable costs if he refuses himself. The key question always remains: what is reasonable in the given circumstances?
Leasing Companies Charge for Damages
Leasing companies typically charge for damages upon early termination, such as the difference between the book value and the market value upon sale of the car, supplemented with remaining fixed costs, administrative costs, and possibly loss of discounts or bonuses.
An employer who then wishes to pass these costs on to his departing employee, must demonstrate that this is the actual damage. If the case goes to court, it is notable that judges reject damage items that are insufficiently substantiated or have nothing to do with real damage, such as management costs, loss of profit, or VAT surcharges. A judge always requests a detailed calculation. In many lawsuits, the actual damage amounts to a few thousand euros, while employers sometimes charge double or more.
Structural Problem Identified by the Association of Business Drivers
The Association of Business Drivers (VZR), with over 35,000 members the interest organization for business drivers, sees the number of complaints increasing. According to VZR director Anton Pluim, 52 percent of car policies now include a buy-out clause. “An estimated 70,000 business drivers face a buy-out arrangement. We see buy-out sums ranging from €10,000 to even over €30,000. People lose sleep over it and feel let down by their employer,” says Pluim. “It is not a marginal phenomenon, but a structural problem.”
Electric Car Drivers in Trouble
The VZR also notes that electric car drivers are increasingly facing difficulties. More and more employers oblige their employees to drive electric vehicles, but upon early termination, they pass on the full lease costs to the employee. According to the VZR, this is not only unreasonable but also legally shaky: the employee is not a party to the lease contract and therefore cannot simply be held liable for damages arising from an agreement between two companies. The VZR therefore helps drivers with legal advice and counter-calculations. In many cases, the amount is significantly reduced because employers cannot adequately substantiate their claims.
The VZR awards the ‘Car Policy OK’ quality mark to employers with fair and clear car policies. From 2026, stricter requirements will apply to this quality mark. Policies with a buy-out clause will no longer be eligible. In two cases, a buy-out sum may still be agreed upon: only if the employee consciously chooses a more expensive car than the agreed budget (more than 5 percent overspending) or if the car is part of the salary package (an employment-condition car). But then the buy-out amount must be precisely fixed in advance, so that employees know exactly where they stand when changing jobs. “Transparency and freedom of choice are paramount,” says Pluim.
What Does the Judge Say?
Recent case law on lease car buy-out arrangements upon resignation shows a remarkably consistent picture. Judges are not insensitive to business reality; an employer can indeed suffer damage if an employee leaves prematurely. However, they strictly scrutinize how that damage is recovered.
The common thread? Judges seek balance. Only written, reasonable, and well-substantiated agreements hold up.
– Deficient communication or arbitrary surcharges are penalized.
– Judges attach great importance to the employer’s duty of information: they must clearly explain in advance what a lease clause means in practice.
– For example, an employee who had to pay almost €10,000 had that amount significantly reduced because he had never been informed of the financial consequences.
– Good employer and good employee conduct prove to be not only legal obligations but primarily a matter of decency and transparency.