In December 2021, the vehicle owner entered into a vehicle-finance agreement with Agud Leasing. Following the merger of Agud Bank into Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank and the leasing company’s change of name, he says his bank branch could not locate the loan. His central allegation is a failure in the transition: repayments could be collected, but he could not obtain the information and service needed to manage the loan. [1]

The difficulty was recorded in writing in April 2024. Two requests reviewed for this article sought information about the loan and the amount required to settle it. In the request dated 17 April, the vehicle owner wrote that contact with the lender had been lost after the merger and that his branch could not establish where the loan was being managed. He asked to repay it and sell the vehicle himself. [2]

The bank’s own 2023 ESG report links an increase in justified complaints partly to the Agud merger, particularly customers whose account transfers had not been completed. This is relevant background from the bank itself. It does not identify this loan or establish what went wrong in this particular transaction. [4]

Separate companies and a disputed link between records

Agud Bank merged into Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank. Agud Leasing changed its name to Mizrahi-Tefahot Leasing while retaining the same company number. The bank and its leasing subsidiary must therefore be distinguished, as must the banks’ merger and the leasing company’s name change. Corporate continuity does not answer whether customer information and service were properly maintained. [5][6]

The vehicle owner alleges that the records relied on a loan number instead of his national ID number, preventing the branch from locating the loan. The ledgers supplied to him use card numbers based on the transaction number, without his national ID number. The warning letter likewise refers to the transaction’s account identifier and does not state his national ID. A separate internal service printout contains the correct national ID, but it is a different document. It does not complete the identification in these records or explain what the branch could locate at the time of the original request. Establishing the transfer failure requires the records linking customer, transaction and loan identifiers. [1][7][8]

Requests to resolve the loan preceded enforcement

The vehicle owner says a request to defer payments after the outbreak of war was not processed because the loan could not be located under his identity. He later sought early repayment. He alleges that the bank and subsidiary placed the consequences on him rather than correcting the records and enabling settlement. The written requests establish that he sought information and repayment; they do not independently establish which system operation failed. [1][2]

The decisive records would show how customer, transaction and loan identifiers were mapped before and after the transfer, what the branch could access, and how the requests were handled before enforcement began.

The proceedings include decisions dismissing applications made by the vehicle owner, as set out below. This article records the dispute and reviewed material. It does not present negligence or fraud as already established. [3]

Procedural status

The objection to enforcement of the promissory note was dismissed on 31 May 2026. An application for permission to appeal in the vehicle-pledge proceeding was dismissed on 9 February 2026. The outcomes of all subsequent proceedings have not been established here. The alleged merger failure is not presented as a judicial finding.

Responses

No new response from the bank or leasing company was obtained in preparing this article. Positions recorded in documents and decisions are attributed to their sources.

Sources

  1. The vehicle owner’s account and filed objection: allegations, not judicial findingsPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.
  2. Written requests dated 14 and 17 April 2024, private copies reviewedPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.
  3. Decisions dated 9 February and 31 May 2026, private copies reviewedPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.
  4. Mizrahi-Tefahot 2023 ESG report, printed page 93
  5. Leasing company name-change certificate dated 1 January 2023, private copy reviewedPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.
  6. The bank’s description of subsidiaries transferred from Agud
  7. Leasing-company ledgers and internal correspondence supplied to the vehicle ownerPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.
  8. Warning before proceedings dated 28 February 2024, private copy visually reviewedPrivate source reviewed. The original is not published here to protect personal information.

Prepared and translated with AI assistance using the listed sources. No independent verification against bank or government systems was performed.