I find this risky on the part of Renault. We still have the ENAC principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptio_non_adimpleti_contract... ). When Renault locks the electric car, they are reneging on their contractual obligations. So given that they want to recover the money, how will that work ? In court you can say "I'm not paying for (a) the period that the car was disabled, ever (b) nor am I paying anything until the car is re-enabled", and that's a defensible position. Given that the car costs exactly the same (in loan repayments) to Renault, whether it's driving or locked down, this seems beyond stupid. I wonder who their legal advisor is.

Reneging on contractual obligations is something you should only ever do if you're not expecting any payments anymore.

(Of course this would be the situation in Northwest Europe, I'm not sure how this works in the US, so YMMV. And of course, you can bet it's unlikely in the extreme a collection agency will see it like this). This does not constitute legal advice, and I am especially not advising anyone to do anything. I am just voicing a concern. Contact a lawyer before you do anything (there is free legal representation for people having trouble with payments to financial institutions in most locations, use it).