{"took":1776,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":19,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2815824","_score":30.262022,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX I received a recall letter from the XXXX manufacturer for my ( XXXX car ) this vehicle was financed through XXXX XXXX XXXX and I purchased from XXXX XXXX auto dealer ( XXXX, Ohio ) in XX/XX/XXXX. I called the number on the recall and was instructed to contact the local XXXX XXXX in my area which is XXXX XXXX XXXX. I did and was instructed to bring my vehicle in for remedy- and at that time would take about 2 weeks and the dealer would provide a loaner vehicle at the manufacturers cost. I took my vehicle in XX/XX/XXXX- it has been 1 year and they still have my vehicle- I have not seen my vehicle and I have made a whole year worth of payments without the vehicle I financed through XXXX XXXX. I have been in loaner vehicles every since. I found out there is a class action lawsuit pertaining to the recall with XXXX. I have made countless calls to my lender who does not care, and it is unacceptable. I made several complaints with the XXXX, FTC, NHTSA, and The Ohio Attorney Generals Office. I stopped my car payments as of XX/XX/XXXX and I notified my lender as to why. Can you please help me?","date_sent_to_company":"2018-02-15T21:53:53.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"43613","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2815824","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2018-02-15T21:37:40.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> I received a <em>recall</em> <em>letter</em> from the <em>XXXX</em> <em>manufacturer</em> for my ( <em>XXXX</em> car ) this <em>vehicle</em> was financed through <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> and I purchased from <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> auto dealer ( <em>XXXX</em>, Ohio ) in XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>. I called the number on the <em>recall</em> and was instructed to contact the local <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> in my area which is <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[30.262022,"2815824"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5228165","_score":26.362597,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"NorthStar Location on behalf of XXXX XXXX is needing us to speak to the company about form 4205 and making arrangements to have final debt resolved. \n\nNeed Form 4205 sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX MO, XXXX Have been having issue with getting the product we were supposed to have paid for in 2017 with car dealer and their financial partners. I was promised fair financing and a vehicle that wouldnt put myself and others in danger. I received a letter stating the vehicle was recalled due to class action and that I would need to submit a claim and await a decision. I had no control over the defectiveness of the vehicle nor the financial partner tying us to the defective vehicle beyond the loan paperwork. I had called in to the financial partner who is the lien holder in the situation and advised about the recall and need to workout a payment arrangement and they were originally not willing to help us in the situation unless I made payments on the vehicle which our contract was voided when the manufacturer voided the warranty and was forced to repay for the damages on the claim. Currently the only thing stopping the manufacturer from paying is me having the vehicle registered in my name, which I can not do because the paperwork sent to the financial partner was sent to the XXXX in XXXX XXXX and not to me to proceed forward with getting the vehicle registered. Previous attempts to have the buyback request completed and them paid or previous attempts to workout payment arrangements has been consistently a headache. I spoke with NorthStar Location who was thankfully able to work with Client Relations to have them forward the signed document I faxed from our local XXXX XXXX XXXX, but I only need it signed and returned, not forwarded or bounced or assumed just sent back to me, so I can complete the next step in getting them paid and it seems they and sometimes when I call North Star Location to resolve the matter they, particularly XXXX XXXX XXXX, has stated that the matter needs to be handled between XXXX and myself ( when XXXX sends me to them and via a verse ). Ive been asked why the manufacturer hasnt paid sooner and various other things that are beyond my control or really function or office and ministry, but what I can say is that it would be such a blessing if they would hear the circumstance and not try to make additional emotional damages when I call with a plan to resolve the matter, but treat me like someone trying to resolve an issue that I tried to previously fix when circumstances were beyond my immediate control.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-02-16T20:33:13.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"631XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5228165","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Northstar Location Services, LLC","date_received":"2022-02-16T20:11:41.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I received a <em>letter</em> stating the <em>vehicle</em> was <em>recalled</em> due to class action and that I would need to submit a claim and await a decision. I had no control over the defectiveness of the <em>vehicle</em> nor the financial partner tying us to the defective <em>vehicle</em> beyond the loan paperwork."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[26.362597,"5228165"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12908610","_score":25.262037,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I voluntarily surrendered a vehicle financed through Bridgecrest after experiencing multiple mechanical issues and manufacturer recalls. I was paying monthly for a warranty that I was later told would not apply due to the vehicles high mileage at the time of purchase. This made it impossible to use the warranty benefits I had been paying for. After the vehicle broke down, I reached out to the lender through calls, emails, and a formal letter, explaining my situation and requesting a resolution. Despite my efforts to engage them, I received no response from the lender, leaving me with no options for resolution. Upon further research, I discovered that the car had multiple recalls, which the dealership and lender failed to disclose to me at the time of purchase. I found these recalls online through a simple XXXX search, contradicting the lenders claims that the vehicle had no recalls. In addition, the co-signer on this account is a XXXX veteran. I believe Bridgecrest took advantage of our situation by failing to communicate consistently or respond to our concerns I called Bridgecrest on XX/XX/year> and also sent a formal letter on XX/XX/year>. I emailed them on XX/XX/year> explaining my situation and requesting assistance or resolution. I received no response. \n\nDespite my attempts to resolve the issue directly, the account was recently reported on my XXXX credit report, causing my score to drop significantly. I feel this is unfair and misrepresents the situation. I made timely payments on the loan as agreed, demonstrating my commitment to fulfilling my financial obligations. I ensured all payments were made on time, in good faith, despite ongoing issues with the vehicle. I am requesting that this account be removed or updated to reflect the circumstances of the surrender and Bridgecrests lack of support or communication. \n\nI believe this negative mark on my credit report is not only inaccurate but also unfair, given the lenders failure to address my concerns and the undisclosed recalls on the vehicle. I am requesting that the CFPB investigate this matter and assist in the removal of this inaccurate information from my credit report. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance in resolving this issue. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-10T02:02:42.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"275XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12908610","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2025-04-10T01:47:32.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Voluntary repossession"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I voluntarily surrendered a <em>vehicle</em> financed through Bridgecrest after experiencing multiple mechanical issues and <em>manufacturer</em> <em>recalls</em>. I was paying monthly for a warranty that I was later told would not apply due to the <em>vehicles</em> high mileage at the time of purchase. This made it impossible to use the warranty benefits I had been paying for. After the <em>vehicle</em> broke down, I reached out to the lender through calls, emails, and a formal <em>letter</em>, explaining my situation and requesting a resolution."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[25.262037,"12908610"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18220354","_score":22.138294,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Flagship Credit Acceptance financed my vehicle loan for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The loan opened on XX/XX/XXXX and had extremely high interest, and despite making payments I was barely reducing the principal. The vehicle later became unusable due to a manufacturer recall, and I was without the car while trying to resolve the recall issue. \n\nWhen I attempted to trade the vehicle in at XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Ohio ) dealership, I was told multiple times that Flagship was not reporting the loan at all and it did not appear on my credit. I contacted Flagship and they stated they report every 30 days, yet the dealership again later confirmed the loan did not show as existing. \n\nAfter the vehicle was totaled in a deer accident, I again needed financing and once again was told the bank did not seem to have the loan on file. Only much later Flagship suddenly reported the account and sent a letter saying the account was reported as of XX/XX/XXXX, which matches the Date Updated now on my XXXX  report. My XXXX  report shows : Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date Updated : XX/XX/XXXX Significant gaps in payment history reporting This delayed, inconsistent, and sudden reporting is misleading and affected financial decisions I made. I was also left with a remaining balance after insurance and GAP, and Flagship told me the case would likely be reviewed for full waiver due to the unusual situation. I was instructed to call back multiple times, stalled, hung up on, and then eventually told they would not waive it while interest continued growing. \n\nI am requesting investigation into Flagships reporting and servicing practices and I am requesting the remaining balance be waived and the account closed so I can move on from this situation. Their handling of this has been unfair, inconsistent, and harmful. \n\nI have documentation showing the reporting delay and my XXXX  credit report showing the sudden XX/XX/XXXX reporting update.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-22T16:23:49.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"456XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18220354","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FC HoldCo LLC","date_received":"2025-12-22T16:05:15.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Flagship Credit Acceptance financed my <em>vehicle</em> loan for a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. The loan opened on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> and had extremely high interest, and despite making payments I was barely reducing the principal. The <em>vehicle</em> later became unusable due to a <em>manufacturer</em> <em>recall</em>, and I was without the car while trying to resolve the <em>recall</em> issue."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[22.138294,"18220354"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1969006","_score":21.819754,"_source":{"product":"Consumer Loan","complaint_what_happened":"I have fulfilled my contractual obligations to the letter, but I must say that my relationship with Ally has been onerous, to put it mildly. In fact, the very name, \" Ally '', belies every single customer service encounter I have had with your institution. \n\nThe Ally Auto website touts, as a feature, the ability of a lessee to transfer the contract to another party. However, the bank has managed to insert roadblocks every step of the way. Beginning in late XXXX, a series of applicants were denied, in a long, drawn out process. ( Credit decisions with other bank institutions are typically rendered in minutes or hours, not weeks ). XXXX of their customer service representatives actually had the temerity to tell me that individuals might be denied if their credit history was \" too good ''! I found this to be an incredible admission. \n\nThe credit department finally accepted a credit application early XXXX, ( after I made it crystal clear that I was seeking legal remedies ), but will not allow the process to move forward due to a product safety recall on the vehicle which was issued by XXXX on XXXX XXXX, AFTER I initiated the lease transfer process. ( It should be noted that this is a voluntary manufacturer recall, as opposed to XXXX mandated by our government ). At the present time, General Motors has not provided a \" fix '' or remedy for this voluntary recall, and there is no scheduled date for the release of XXXX. I was told it could take at least 6 months or more. \n\nAlly has stood by their claim that they are held accountable which is why a lease transfer can not take place as long as this recall is outstanding on the vehicle. However, I have been assured by my legal counsel that the concept of \" vicarious liability '' ( between registrant and owner ) is not applicable in New York, which is where I, as well as my applicant are located.This is a XXXX ( safe enough for the but not for me? ). \n\nSince I have been a perfect paying customer, I have come to believe that these lease transfer obstructions are a deliberate, and quite obnoxious effort to undermine my attempts. Ally 's policies even prevent me from selling the car to a third party. I have been told from an industry professional that this is unprecedented in the industry. \n\nI have fulfilled all of my contract obligations, and am in my right to transfer the lease of this vehicle. There is nothing in my contract or on the Ally website that discloses reasons why a lease transfer can not occur except for the fact that an applicant could be denied. I would gladly fix the recall, with the exception that XXXX has NOT released a remedy yet ... \n\nI have written a letter and email to the CEO and President XXXX at Ally, I did receive a call from a rep. ( I missed the call ), which I have called back XXXX-4 times, left messages, and have not heard back in over 1 week. \n\nAlly is known for this ... I have seen it on many forums online, as well as someone else that I know who is in the same predicament. \n\nAdditionally, to buy the vehicle, Ally is adding their own fees into the buyout cost - I could n't even buy the vehicle and eventually re-sell it if I wanted too because it 's too expensive with their own feeds they add in ( about {$2500.00} ).","date_sent_to_company":"2016-06-14T15:17:40.000Z","issue":"Taking out the loan or lease","sub_product":"Vehicle lease","zip_code":"11426","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1969006","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","date_received":"2016-06-14T15:17:39.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The credit department finally accepted a credit application early <em>XXXX</em>, ( after I made it crystal clear that I was seeking legal remedies ), but will not allow the process to move forward due to a product safety <em>recall</em> on the <em>vehicle</em> which was issued by <em>XXXX</em> on <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>, AFTER I initiated the lease transfer process. ( It should be noted that this is a voluntary <em>manufacturer</em> <em>recall</em>, as opposed to <em>XXXX</em> mandated by our government )."],"sub_product":["<em>Vehicle</em> lease"]},"sort":[21.819754,"1969006"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13322508","_score":19.497755,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The vehicle included a {$2700.00} wrap-around powertrain warranty that was not properly disclosed as overlapping with the existing factory coverage. At the time of purchase, the vehicle had XXXX miles, which reduced the duration of the remaining warranty. This critical detail was not explained during the sale. \n\nSince XX/XX/XXXX, the vehicle has experienced a series of worsening mechanical and safety failures. These include erratic gear shifting, transmission fluid leaks, brake instability, delayed throttle response, and multiple electronic issues such as false collision warnings, GPS malfunction, and odometer flashing. By early XXXX, the vehicle became unsafe and inoperable. In addition, persistent fuel vapor entering the cabin created a significant health and fire hazard. \n\nI submitted over eight service requests, but XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX refused to perform valid warranty repairs. I received four formal denial letters from the manufacturer, many of which contained nearly identical, generic responses. I was even instructed to continue driving the vehicle despite an active transmission fluid leak, which posed a clear safety risk. \n\nDespite the vehicle being unusable, I have continued making monthly loan payments of approximately {$740.00}. The total financial burden I have incurred now exceeds {$43000.00}, which includes the cost of the vehicle, extended warranty, insurance, and other related losses. I also requested documentation regarding warranty coverage, repair findings, and recall XXXX, but received either vague responses or no information at all. \n\nI have filed formal complaints with the Arizona Attorney General under ID XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX , the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under Complaint Number XXXX, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . I have also submitted a mental health verification letter from a licensed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  directly related to this situation. \n\nThis case raises serious concerns involving warranty fraud, deceptive extended warranty sales practices, failure to disclose material information, potential violations of XXXX and civil rights protections, and significant public safety risks. I am requesting that the FTC initiate an investigation and hold the responsible parties accountable for financial damages, misrepresentation, and failure to honor federal warranty obligations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and related consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-04T04:58:37.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"85202","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13322508","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-05-04T02:49:52.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["By early <em>XXXX</em>, the <em>vehicle</em> became unsafe and inoperable. In addition, persistent fuel vapor entering the cabin created a significant health and fire hazard. \n\nI submitted over eight service requests, but <em>XXXX</em> and <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> refused to perform valid warranty repairs. I received four formal denial letters from the <em>manufacturer</em>, many of which contained nearly identical, generic responses."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[19.497755,"13322508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3400839","_score":19.488308,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"My vehicle ( a XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ), was repossessed 2 days before XXXX XXXX. This occurred after I repetitively sent letters to capital one indicating financial hardship due to automobile accident involving the seat belt and brake component of the vehicle and that the above vehicle was involved in a National recall for model years XXXX to XXXX. \nI also notified Capital one that I have obtained a lawyer to assist me due to the fact the manufacturer at that time was not able to fix the issue until sometime the next year and this along with a faulty engine qualifies the vehicle as a lemon. \nAfter realizing that the vehicle was repossessed, I immediately logged into the online portal. Upon indebt review of the account, I saw that of the original loan amount of {$27000.00}, I had a paid to date total of {$33000.00}, and of the {$33000.00} that was paid {$20000.00} was applied to interest and only {$12000.00} applied to the principal. \nAt no time upon accepting the auto loan with Capital one was I informed or notified that majority of payments would be applied to interest as opposed to the principal. Additionally there was an exorbitant amount of fees and charges being applied to the account in addition to reporting of late payments and repossession when there was none thus negatively impacting my credit score and history. Also at the initiation of the loan I was informed of an added bonus of Gap coverage for the vehicle since it was a brand new vehicle, to which I learned was never included at the time of engine failure in XXXX which required a brand new engine. \nCapital one sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which stated the vehicle will be sold after XX/XX/XXXX. About 2 weeks after I received a call from Capital one stating the vehicle was sold. When I requested the amount that the vehicle was sold for the representative declined to disclose that information. Fast forward to this year and review of my credit report I see that capital one had continued to report to all credit reporting agencies that I had an active auto loan the was months past due and horrifically reflected a balance as if the vehicle was still in my possession. There was also a failure on Capital One 's behalf to report the $ XXXX that was already paid to them in addition to the {$2700.00} that was paid to them on XX/XX/XXXX, which would have a ) brought my account current and b ) prevented the repossession from ever occurring. Lastly, in XXXX of XXXX I applied for economic hardship which would allow for lower payments to be made for a certain number of months not to exceed 12 months. However when approval was obtained the monthly payments was lowered slightly from {$630.00} a month to {$550.00} a month with a additional charge for notifying the lender of hardship and approval for lowered payments thus extending the loan term from 72 months at XXXX/monthly to 96 months at $ XXXX/monthly!!! \nIn summary, Capital One Auto finance uses deceptive marketing and financial practices when dealing with individuals with less than optimum credit and most disheartening they use predatory lending practices in the form of interest rates such as mine which was 26.98 %. \nApplying that high interest rate to monthly payments and late payments thus padding overall charges leading to inability to remain current with payments. The subsequent repossession of this vehicle also served as a removal of evidence for the lawsuit that was initiated for defects that XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted to not having a resolution for and in a email to me indicating that the company would reimburse me for renting a vehicle on a monthly basis due to the open recall whilst still liable for loan payments to Capital one. Thus ensuring there was no tangible evidence within my possession in the form of the vehicle to produce to investigators and lawyers.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-10-09T15:53:14.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"11207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3400839","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2019-10-09T13:56:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["My <em>vehicle</em> ( a <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  <em>XXXX</em> ), was repossessed 2 days before <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. This occurred after I repetitively sent letters to capital one indicating financial hardship due to automobile accident involving the seat belt and brake component of the <em>vehicle</em> and that the above <em>vehicle</em> was involved in a National <em>recall</em> for model years <em>XXXX</em> to <em>XXXX</em>."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"],"sub_issue":["Loan balance remaining after the <em>vehicle</em> is repossessed and sold"]},"sort":[19.488308,"3400839"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1739782","_score":18.84103,"_source":{"product":"Consumer Loan","complaint_what_happened":"I leased a XXXX XXXX XXXX VIN # XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX in XXXX, MD. The car was new with XXXX miles on odometer ; presently XXXX miles. After all leasing paperwork was completed to lease this car ; the salesman INFORMED ME AIR BAGS ARE NOT WORKING AND I WOULD HAVE TO BRING CAR BACK TO MAKE THEM OPERABLE. He said he had to KEEP all of my leasing papers ; no paperwork for me at all! \nEveryone at dealership was aware of airbag problem but me. To make it worse, the car has had problems since I have had it. This car would not even pass inspection so why was it on the lot for sale? I have asked repeatedly for my copy of the lease ; to no avail. XXXX person sent a XXXX page \" lease '' on letter size pages and parts were obviously obscured and it was n't readable. I received THREE different stories on airbags including \" oh so you 're the one who bought it ''. The COO, XXXX, basically said I was stupid and why did I buy the car! Was very rude, yelled at me ; offered me to bring car back and he would APPRAISE IT then find another car. He promised to call me back ; of course I have n't heard from him. The XXXX, XXXX XXXX, was very ANGRY towards me along with arrogant, rude, constanting interrupting me and uncompromising. Something would be said about a recall ; but this was not a recall! He said he called me several times ( no record in my call history ) but I have found that they lie easily. The XXXX actually called ME a liar! Legally, as of XXXX XXXX Federal Law mandated that every automobile have working air bags when sold INCLUDING new cars. In XXXX ( XXXX ) of XXXX Part XXXX : Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility establishes requirements for format and contents of manufacturer notification to owner who is first owner of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety and noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. As of XXXX XXXX, XXXX Federal law required XXXX information on certification label affixed to motor vehicle to provide consumer with information to assist with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This makes my car an illegal lease agreement and the sale null and void. I have tried working with American Honda Customer Service Liaison, beginning XXXX. The case number is XXXX. The \" arbitrator '' was always a man named XXXX and we never agreed even closely to rectifying the illegal sale. We spoke several times over a period of months but with no resolution. He was definitely a XXXX employee. The car malfunctions are too numerous to list here ; but the brakes grabbing unexpectedly, the car 's missing when accelerating, making noises while driving and after car is shut off, and that auto lights do n't always come on are the most serious safety hazards. Help!","date_sent_to_company":"2016-01-13T18:28:13.000Z","issue":"Taking out the loan or lease","sub_product":"Vehicle lease","zip_code":"218XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1739782","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP","date_received":"2016-01-13T18:28:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In <em>XXXX</em> ( <em>XXXX</em> ) of <em>XXXX</em> Part <em>XXXX</em> : Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility establishes requirements for format and contents of <em>manufacturer</em> notification to owner who is first owner of motor <em>vehicle</em> and motor <em>vehicle</em> equipment of a defect relating to motor <em>vehicle</em> safety and noncompliance with a Federal Motor <em>Vehicle</em> Safety Standard."],"sub_product":["<em>Vehicle</em> lease"]},"sort":[18.84103,"1739782"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8662808","_score":18.754745,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Capital One refuses to accept the statement from the merchant agreeing to the dispute I filed and has been holding my refund from the company through the process since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI have called XXXX times and get a different story as to why this case is not resolved as all parties are in agreement as to the money being returned to my account. I visited the Capital One XXXX in XXXX, XXXX on Monday just to be told again that there is no progress on the claim. I provided the letter from the merchant to the Oregon XXXX XXXX XXXX that states they are not contesting the dispute and that the money is already removed from their account. \n\nCapital One refuses to return my cash as required or to provide the provisional credit I am due. \n\nHere is the statement of the claim : REFUSAL OF A CAR DEALER TO RETURN DOWN PAYMENT AFTER THEY ALLOWED XXXX XXXX CONTRACT TO EXPIRE AND THEN USE THE SPOT DEAL TO KEEP THE DOWNPAYMENT AFTER 43 DAYS OF TRYING TO GIVE BACK THE CAR IN EXCHANGE FOR MY DOWN PAYMENT. 43 DAYS OF PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS GOING UNANSWERED. NOW AT DAY XXXX STILL WITHOUT A REFUND AND THEIR RESPONSE REFUSING TO RETURN THE MONEY EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE. \n\nTHEY ATTEMPTED TO SELL ME A XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WITH XXXX OF AN OPEN RECALL AND DO NOT DRIVE STATEMENT LISTED ON XXXX XXXX SYSTEM FOR DANGEROUS VEHICLE CELL BATTERIES THAT MY CATCH FIRE DURING THE CHARGING PROCESS. THEY ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR THE ERROR CODE FROM THE DASH DISPLAY ON XX/XX/XXXX AT XXXX TO HIDE IT FROM ME. THE SALESPERSON XXXX XXXX THEN LIED STATING THEY WERE JUST CHECKING THE MILEAGE. \n\nI TOLD THE APPROVED FINANCER, XXXX XXXX XXXX THAT THERE WAS AN OPEN RECALL FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE NEEDED NATIONAL RECALL AND NOT TO RELEASE THE FUNDING TO XXXX XXXX XXXX UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE MANUFACTURER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF THE WORK NEEDED. THEY AGREED AND WITHHELD THE FINANCING PAYMENT TO XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX WEEKS LATER XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY AND SCHEDULED THE CAR FOR SERVICE AND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BATTERY CELLS. THIS IS A XXXX WEEK JOB AND NO TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE AVAILABLE DUE TO THE RECALL SHORTAGE ON LOANER CARS. \n\nI INFORMED XXXX XXXX OF XXXX OF THE RECALL AND THAT THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED WAS LARGE AND HAD A PRICE COST OF XXXX FOR THE CELLS REPLACEMENT. THEY SENT ME A XXXX REPORT CLAIMING THAT I WAS LYING. I RETURNED THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PICTURE OF THE DASHBOARD FROM XXXX XXXX XXXX STATING I WAS ONLY PROVIDING FACTS AND NOT OPINIONS. THE SALESPERSON XXXX XXXX STATED, \" PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME OUT TO BE A BAD PERSON OR LIAR ''. \n\nONCE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORK WAS ACCEPTED BY XXXX XXXX XXXX, I CALLED XXXX XXXX XXXX  AND RELEASED THE FUNDING FOR THE LOAN. THEY AGREED. 2 DAYS LATER THE SALES XXXX FOR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CALLING EVERY XXXX MINUTE TO MY CELL PHONE TRYING TO CON ME INTO A DIFFERENT LOAN STATING I WAS LYING ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE. XXXX XXXX XXXX STATED IN WRITING THE DANGER OF THE VEHICLE TO DWELLINGS, THE DRIVER, AND ANYONE IN ITS VICINITY DUE THE LIKELIHOOD IT WOULD CATCH FIRE UNTIL THE RECALL # XXXX PART XXXX HAD BEEN PERFORMED. \n\nTHEY THEN WENT INTO SILENT MODE CUTTING OFF ALL CONVERSATION WITH ME AND REFUSING TO TAKE THE CAR BACK. FOR THE NEXT 32 DAYS I ATTEMPTED TO GET A NEW LOAN TO COVER THE EXPIRED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE XXXX ON MY OWN. I RECEIVED XXXX APPROVALS ONLINE FOR THE LOAN AND FORWARDED THAT INFORMATION TO THEM. THEY DID NOTHING TO ACCEPT THOSE OFFERS. THE LAST ATTEMPT TO FIX THEIR CAUSED PROBLEM, WAS TO OFFER XXXX XXXX XXXX TO THEM AS I HAD AN OPEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THEY THEN CHANGED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT AND PRICE OF THE FINAL AGREEMENT TO A HIGHER AMOUNT AND USED MY SIGNATURE FROM THE PREVIOUS CONTRACT TO ACCEPT THAT HIGHER AMOUNT. \n\nI TOLD XXXX XXXX XXXX TO STOP THE AUTHORIZATION AS THIS WAS PRICE SWITCHING FRAUD. THEY AGREED. I THEN CONTACTED THE POLICE REGARDING THE THEFT OF MY FUNDS AS THEY WERE HOLDING IT AS RANSOM FOR ME TO ACCEPT A HIGHER LOAN AND INTEREST RATE OF 24.9 % ALMOST 10 % HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTED FINANCE RATE. IUN WHICH THEY ADDED 2 OR 3 % ON THE BACK END OF FOR THEIR PROFIT. \nFOR EVERY LOAN THEY SAID THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO GET APPROVED AFTER THE FIRST ONE EXPIRED THEY SAID THEY ALL WERE REFUSED FUNDING. ACCORDING TO MY CREDIT REPORT FOR INQUIRIES DURING THIS PERIOD THERE WERE NO SUBMISSIONS BY XXXX OF XXXX TO ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANIES. THEY DID ATTEMPT ONE SUBMISSION TO XXXX XXXX FOR WHICH THEY CHANGED THE WRITTEN LOAN AMOUNT FOR A HIGHER CASH PAYMENT BACK TO THEM. THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF THE SIGNED AGREEMENT IS XXXX THE ALTERED CONTRACT IS FOR XXXX. THIS ALTERED CONTRACT WAS DONE ON XX/XX/XXXX - 35 DAYS AFTER THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE. \n\nAS OF TODAY, THEY ARE STILL REFUSING THE RETURN OF XXXX THEY HAVE BEEN SITTING ON FOR 55 DAYS. THEY HAVE NOW STATED THAT DUE TO ME TRYING TO RECOVER MY MONEY THROUGH RIGHTS AFFORDED ME WITH MY BANK AT CAPITAL ONE, THEY WILL NOT GIVE ME THE MONEY BACK UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY SEE FIT TO DO SO.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-31T10:09:43.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"972XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8662808","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-03-31T09:52:23.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I TOLD THE APPROVED FINANCER, <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> THAT THERE WAS AN OPEN <em>RECALL</em> FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE NEEDED NATIONAL <em>RECALL</em> AND NOT TO RELEASE THE FUNDING TO <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE <em>MANUFACTURER</em> TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF THE WORK NEEDED. THEY AGREED AND WITHHELD THE FINANCING PAYMENT TO <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. \n<em>XXXX</em> WEEKS LATER <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY AND SCHEDULED THE CAR FOR SERVICE AND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BATTERY CELLS."]},"sort":[18.754745,"8662808"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12661963","_score":17.770126,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, OH XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Ford Motor XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, MI XXXX RE : Formal Demand for Full Accountability and Joint Liability - Lease of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX To Whom It XXXX Concern : This letter serves as formal notice of breach and demand for full resolution in relation to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX leased under Account No. XXXX, which was returned in XX/XX/XXXX due to substantial and material defects originating from the manufacturing and assembly process. \nThe lease agreement signed at inception represented that the vehicle was in safe, defect-free, merchantable condition. However, the vehicle left the assembly line with a latent manufacturing defect, later the subject of a safety recall that Ford Motor Company failed to disclose at the time of lease signing. This constitutes a fundamental breach of the lease agreement from the outset. \nThe lease specifically warranted that the vehicle would be in good working condition and free from safety-related defects. However, the defect in question was present before delivery, and Ford Motor Company failed to disclose this as required under both state and federal law. \nPage XXXX On the date of the vehicle 's return, a formal notice was physically attached to the vehicle identifying the defect and exercising rights under the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe returning dealership acknowledged receipt of this letter. My action placed all parties on notice that the vehicle 's condition rendered the lease voidable. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX XXXX has continued to enforce the lease by applying penalties and derogatory credit reporting, while simultaneously disclaiming responsibility and shifting blame to Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company, in turn, has not issued any relief or accepted responsibility-despite its obligation to remedy defects known at the time of vehicle production. \nThis internal finger-pointing is a coordinated avoidance of liability and reflects bad faith. It violates : - XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. 2304 & 2310 ), - UCC 2-314 ( Implied Warranty of Merchantability ), - The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ( R.C. 1345.02 ), - The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. \nXXXX XXXX can not selectively enforce the lease while Ford Motor Company avoids liability. To do so is to treat the lease as valid only when it benefits the company, and invalid when it involves manufacturer accountability. This is legally and ethically indefensible. \nDEMAND FOR UNIFIED AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTABILITY I hereby demand that Ford Motor Company, in full coordination with XXXX XXXXtor Credit : 1. Acknowledge that the defect originated at the point of manufacture and constituted a breach of warranty from the outset.\n\n2. Accept full or joint liability for the lease breakdown.\n\nPage 2 3. Instruct Ford Credit to remove all adverse credit reporting, cancel all penalties, and properly record the lease surrender.\n\n4. Provide written confirmation within ten ( 10 ) business days that this matter is fully resolved.\n\nFailure to respond will result in immediate regulatory complaints and legal action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, UCC, FCRA, and XXXX  XXXX XXXXXXXX. All relevant records, including the original return notice and dealership acknowledgment, are preserved. \nNo further evasion or blame-shifting will be tolerated. This letter places the entire Ford XXXX  on notice of its joint accountability. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-23T05:41:47.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"45005","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12661963","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.","date_received":"2025-03-23T05:10:47.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>XXXX</em>, which was returned in XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em> due to substantial and material defects originating from the manufacturing and assembly process. \nThe lease agreement signed at inception represented that the <em>vehicle</em> was in safe, defect-free, merchantable condition. However, the <em>vehicle</em> left the assembly line with a latent manufacturing defect, later the subject of a safety <em>recall</em> that Ford Motor Company failed to disclose at the time of lease signing."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[17.770126,"12661963"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11460048","_score":17.013649,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint : Deceptive Financial Practices and Consumer Exploitation by CarMax To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this formal complaint against CarMax for engaging in unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial practices in violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). CarMaxs conduct has resulted in significant financial harm, emotional distress, and a violation of my rights as a consumer. \n\nSummary of Violations : Unfair Financing Practices ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Description : CarMax provided financing terms for a XXXX XXXX XXXX without disclosing the financial impact of unresolved safety recalls and repair obligations that they failed to address. \nXXXX XXXX : CarMax knowingly withheld critical information about the vehicles defects and recalls, leading to unforeseen financial burdens post-purchase. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX : Selling a vehicle with unresolved safety recalls while imposing repair costs that should have been covered under recall obligations. \nDeceptive Practices in Product Representation ( 12 U.S.C. 5536 ) : Description : The vehicle was marketed as certified and reliable despite known defects, including faulty tires, unresolved recalls, and a history of use as a loaner vehicle. \nXXXX XXXX  : Intentional misrepresentation of material facts to induce the sale. \nXXXX XXXX : Misleading marketing and false certification, resulting in financial harm to the buyer. \nExploitation of Financial Vulnerabilities : Description : By failing to address critical safety recalls and charging for repair costs, CarMax exploited regulatory loopholes, placing an undue financial burden on me. \nXXXX XXXX : Deliberate neglect of obligations to maximize financial gain at the consumers expense. \nXXXX XXXX  : Imposing unjustified financial costs through deceptive practices. \nIncident Details : Purchase Information : Vehicle : XXXX XXXX XXXX Purchase Date and Location : XX/XX/XXXX, CarMax, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Financial Impact : Significant out-of-pocket expenses for repairs directly tied to unresolved recalls and other defects. \nEmotional distress and lost time due to CarMaxs refusal to address these issues or provide a resolution.\n\nWhy CFPB Involvement Is Critical : CarMaxs practices undermine fundamental principles of fairness and transparency in financial transactions. The CFPB has a vital role in addressing deceptive practices that harm consumers and enforcing compliance with federal laws designed to protect financial rights.\n\nRequested Actions : Investigate CarMaxs Practices : Review their compliance with federal consumer protection laws, particularly regarding transparency in financing and disclosure of material defects. \nEnforce Penalties : Impose financial penalties commensurate with the harm caused to consumers. \nMandate Restitution : Require CarMax to reimburse affected consumers for unjustified repair costs, emotional distress, and any other financial losses.\n\nStrengthen Oversight : Recommend stricter regulations to ensure full disclosure of safety recalls and transparent financial practices in vehicle sales. \nSupporting Documentation : I have retained all relevant documentation, including the purchase agreement, repair invoices, recall notices, and correspondence with CarMax. These materials are available upon request to aid in your investigation. \n\nConclusion : I urge the CFPB to take swift action to hold CarMax accountable for their deceptive financial practices and to protect consumers from further harm. Your intervention is crucial to restoring fairness and transparency in the automotive sales industry. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or documentation. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX In XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a purchase and financing agreement with CarMax and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) for a XXXX XXXX XXXX , involving an initial down payment of {$3000.00}. Subsequently, I discovered multiple breaches of disclosure obligations, contractual duties, and statutory requirements. CarMax materially misrepresented the vehicles condition, concealing its prior usage as a loaner, unresolved safety recalls, and pre-existing defects, including an improperly maintained battery and defective interior components. These omissions directly contravened both federal and state consumer protection laws. \n\nDespite assurances regarding the vehicles fitness, CarMax failed to fulfill its warranty obligations, requiring me to bear out-of-pocket expenses for repairs, including those covered by manufacturer recalls. Moreover, CarMaxs negligent and deceptive actions resulted in additional financial harm, such as damage to my work uniforms due to improperly restored interior paint. These breaches demonstrate a reckless disregard for compliance with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and applicable vehicle safety standards. \n\nCompounding these violations, XXXX  engaged in predatory lending practices and systematic non-compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). XXXX misapplied payments, imposed unauthorized fees, and provided intentionally opaque and misleading billing statements. Despite my attempts to rectify these issues, XXXX refused to resolve disputes, failed to furnish clear documentation, and repossessed the vehicle without adherence to due process requirements under Illinois and federal repossession statutes. These actions inflicted significant financial, emotional, and reputational harm. \n\nRepeated requests for documentation and evidence related to billing discrepancies, repossession justification, and vehicle condition were ignored or delayed by CarMax and XXXX, obstructing my ability to pursue legal remedies. This demonstrates a pattern of obstruction and bad faith, further violating federal consumer protection laws and undermining the principles of fair dealing and transparency. \n\nI respectfully request the CFPB to conduct a thorough investigation into CarMaxs and XXXX  systemic violations of consumer protection statutes, including the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), FDCPA, and the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). Their deceptive practices, predatory lending, and willful non-compliance have caused substantial harm, necessitating remedial actions, restitution, and regulatory enforcement. I consent to the publication of this complaint to inform other consumers of these practices and to promote systemic accountability. \n\nViolations by CarMax : 1. Deceptive Trade Practices Law : Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) 5 ( a ) Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.\n\nSelling a vehicle with undisclosed defects, loaning it out without disclosure, and misrepresenting mileage and battery condition constitute deceptive practices.\n\nState Law ( Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ) CarMax 's failure to disclose material facts, such as loaning out the car and the condition of the battery, violates this law.\n\n2. Breach of Warranty Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( Uniform Commercial Code - UCC 2-314 ) A car must be fit for ordinary use. Selling a car with defective tires, rims, and a battery that fails shortly after purchase breaches this warranty.\n\nMagnuson-Moss Warranty Act Federal law governing warranties on consumer products. If CarMax failed to honor warranty obligations or misled you about the warranty, this law applies.\n\n3. Failure to Disclose Recalls National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act Selling a car with recalled tires without addressing the recall violates federal law. The cost of repairing recalls must not be passed to the consumer.\n\n4. Fraud and Misrepresentation Common Law Fraud Falsely claiming that the battery was new, concealing the car 's loaned status, and misrepresenting the mileage as being solely from the previous owner could constitute fraud.\n\nFalse Advertising Laws Any promotional material or oral assurances about the vehicle 's condition that were inaccurate violate false advertising statutes.\n\n5. Violation of the Used Car Rule FTC 's Used Car Rule Requires dealerships to disclose known mechanical defects and whether the car is being sold \" as is. '' Failure to disclose the loaning out of the car or prior damages violates this rule.\n\n6. Improper Repairs and Damage to Property Negligence Painting over leather instead of properly repairing it, leading to damage to your uniforms, constitutes negligence.\n\nBreach of Duty of Care CarMax has a duty to perform repairs in a professional and non-damaging manner.\n\n7. Violation of Consumer Leasing Disclosures Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Consumer Leasing Act ( CLA ) If CarMax failed to disclose loaning the car out or included deceptive financing terms in your purchase agreement, it may violate federal disclosure laws.\n\n8. Breach of Contract Selling a vehicle with unaddressed defects breaches the sales agreement if the vehicle was represented as fit and free from defects. \n\nPotential Violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Investigate Disputes Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Creditors must investigate disputes thoroughly. If you reported these issues, XXXX 's failure to address them could violate this law. \nUnfair Debt Collection Practices Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) If XXXX  is attempting to collect a debt arising from a deceptively sold car, they may be engaging in unfair practices.\n\nBreach of Contract and UCC Default Rules Your financial agreement with XXXX  is tied to the cars fitness. Selling a defective car undermines the basis for the financing agreement.\n\nSteps to Resolve the Issues 1. Document All Evidence Compile all conversations, emails, repair receipts, and reports related to the cars issues. Include dates, times, and the names of CarMax representatives you spoke with.\n\n2. Send Demand Letters Send a formal demand letter to CarMax and XXXX  outlining the issues, legal violations, and your request for resolution ( e.g., full repair, loan forgiveness, or compensation for damages ). Cite applicable laws and statutes.\n\n3. File Complaints File a complaint with the following agencies : Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : For deceptive practices. \nIllinois Attorney General : For state-level violations. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : To document complaints and escalate the matter. \n4. Seek Legal Representation Consult a consumer protection attorney to : Review the sales contract and financing agreement. \nEvaluate claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and deceptive practices. \nAssist with pursuing damages or negotiating a settlement. \n5. Dispute the Debt Notify XXXX  in writing that the debt is in dispute due to the defective and deceptively sold car. Request they suspend collection activity until the dispute is resolved. \n6. File a Civil Suit If CarMax and XXXX  fail to address your claims, you can file a lawsuit for : Fraud Breach of contract Violation of consumer protection laws Damages caused by negligence 7. Report to Credit Bureaus If XXXX reports you as being in default, file a dispute with the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). Provide evidence of the underlying issues. \n\nNext Steps If you'd like, I can assist with drafting demand letters, compiling evidence, or preparing a list of legal violations to include in your formal complaints or legal case. \nLegal Analysis of the Incident On XX/XX/XXXX, after finalizing the purchase agreement initiated on XX/XX/XXXX, you acquired a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CarMax, located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The transaction included a {$3000.00} down payment, and subsequent payments were required to be made to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), XXXX, whose address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, the contractual process and subsequent interactions were fraught with material misrepresentations, nondisclosures, and breaches of statutory and contractual duties by CarMax and XXXX, resulting in financial, reputational, and professional harm to you. \nDeceptive Misrepresentation and Non-Disclosure ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMax represented the vehicle as being in good condition, equipped with a new battery, and with all mileage attributed to the prior owner. It later became evident that these representations were false. The vehicle had been loaned out by CarMax prior to the sale, a material fact that was neither disclosed nor documented in the purchase agreement. Furthermore, the battery installed in the vehicle was determined to be the original unit from the prior owner, contrary to CarMaxs assertions. These omissions and misrepresentations constitute actionable fraud under common law and violate consumer protection statutes.\n\nBreach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( UCC 2-314 ) The Uniform Commercial Code imposes an implied warranty of merchantability on all goods sold by merchants, requiring the goods to be fit for ordinary purposes. The vehicles defective tires ( subject to a manufacturer recall ), damaged paint, faulty battery, and improperly repaired leather seat constitute breaches of this warranty. Furthermore, CarMaxs decision to charge you for repairs related to the recalled tires and other known defects violates UCC provisions and undermines the core purpose of implied warranties. \nUnfair and Deceptive Practices ( XXXX XXXX ) The practices of CarMax fall under the purview of federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( 815 ILCS 505/1 ). CarMaxs failure to disclose the loaning out of the car, misrepresentation of the vehicles condition, and subsequent inadequate repairs amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices, actionable under this statute. These actions also violate the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ). \nFailure to Honor Recall Obligations Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ), dealerships must repair or replace defective or recalled parts at no cost to the consumer. Charging you for the replacement of recalled tires directly contravenes this federal mandate. This failure further exacerbates CarMaxs liability and underscores its non-compliance with federal safety standards.\n\nBreach of Contract ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The purchase agreement inherently required CarMax to deliver a vehicle in accordance with the representations made at the time of sale. The failure to fulfill contractual obligationssuch as repairing the leather seat and ensuring the vehicles overall functionalityconstitutes a breach of contract, actionable under Illinois contract law. \nNegligence and Damage to Personal Property CarMaxs improper repair practices, including painting the leather seat rather than using appropriate restoration methods, caused damage to your uniforms and personal property. This constitutes negligence under Illinois tort law, as CarMax owed a duty of care to perform repairs professionally and breached that duty, resulting in foreseeable damages.\n\nApplicable Laws and Violations Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 2-314 Violation : Breach of implied warranty of merchantability.\n\nCause and Effect : Delivery of a vehicle unfit for ordinary use led to additional expenses and loss of income.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Violation : Unfair and deceptive practices.\n\nCause and Effect : Misrepresentation of vehicle condition and loaning history caused financial and reputational harm.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( 815 ILCS 505/1 ) Violation : Misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts.\n\nCause and Effect : Deceptive sales practices undermined the validity of the transaction.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax. \nNational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) Violation : Charging for repairs related to recalled tires.\n\nCause and Effect : Violation of federal safety standards caused financial loss.\n\nResponsible Party : CarMax.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Violation : Failure by XXXX  to investigate disputes and inaccurate reporting. \nCause and Effect : Damage to credit score and financial reputation. \nResponsible Party : XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAgencies and Actions Required Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : File a complaint against XXXX  for mishandling disputes and violating credit reporting obligations. \nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : Report CarMax for deceptive trade practices and non-compliance with federal regulations. \nIllinois Attorney Generals Office : File a complaint under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Report CarMaxs failure to honor recall obligations.\n\nLegal Representation : Engage a consumer protection attorney to pursue claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence against CarMax. Seek damages for financial loss, emotional distress, and reputational harm.\n\nConclusion CarMaxs conduct in this matter demonstrates a pattern of deceptive practices, contractual breaches, and statutory violations. XXXX  failure to provide proper notice and its role in exacerbating the harm through improper credit reporting adds to the complexity of this case. Immediate legal action, coupled with regulatory complaints, will be necessary to rectify these violations and secure appropriate remedies. \nLegal Analysis of the Incident On XX/XX/XXXX, post facto the initiation of the purchase agreement on XX/XX/XXXX, you acquired a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CarMax, XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The transaction involved a pecuniary down payment of {$3000.00} and subsequent payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), XXXX, of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This contractual engagement, however, was plagued with instances of dolus malus ( intentional fraud ), nonfeasance ( failure to act ), and culpa lata ( gross negligence ), culminating in material, financial, and reputational damage to you. \n\nXXXX. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Non-Disclosure ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMax engaged in XXXX XXXX by willfully misrepresenting the condition of the vehicle. They claimed the vehicle had a new battery and attributed all mileage to the previous owner, despite the vehicle being commodatum ( loaned out ) prior to the sale. This scienter ( knowledge of wrongdoing ) constitutes a prima facie case of fraud. The failure to disclose the vehicles loan history and the defective condition of key components, including the battery and tires, violated your right to bona fides ( good faith ) in the transaction. \n\nXXXX. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC 2-314 ), the seller is obligated to ensure that goods sold are fit for their ordinary purpose. The defects in the tires ( subject to manufacturer recall ), rims, paint, leather seat, and battery rendered the vehicle non conformis ( non-conforming goods ). The act of requiring you to pay for the recall repairs and failing to rectify these defects is contra legem ( against the law ). CarMaxs actions contravened its obligatio ex contractu ( obligation arising from the contract ). \n\nXXXX. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMaxs actions are actionable under Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ). Their mala fide ( bad faith ) conduct, including misrepresentations about the vehicles history, failure to disclose loaning, and subsequent inadequate repairs, violates the lex loci contractus ( law of the place where the contract was made ). These practices also fall under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce.\n\n4. Violation of Federal Recall Obligations ( Caveat Venditor ) Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ), dealers must repair or replace recalled components at no cost to the consumer. Charging for the replacement of defective tires ex delicto ( arising from a wrongful act ) is ultra vires ( beyond their authority ) and a clear infraction of federal law. This breach caused you pecuniary damnum ( financial loss ) and injuria ( injury ) by exposing you to unsafe conditions. \n\nXXXX. Negligent Repairs and Property Damage ( XXXX XXXX ) CarMaxs decision to apply paint to a damaged leather seat instead of performing proper repairs amounts to culpa lata ( gross negligence ). This action, actus reus ( a wrongful act ), caused further harm by damaging your uniforms and personal property. The dealerships res ipsa loquitur ( the thing speaks for itself ) failure to meet professional repair standards establishes their liability under Illinois tort law. \n\nXXXX. Breach of Contractual Obligations ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The purchase agreement required CarMax to deliver a vehicle consistent with its representations and suitable for its intended use. The inclusio unius est exclusio alterius ( inclusion of one thing excludes another ) doctrine applies, as the loaning out of the car was not disclosed nor included in the contract. The failure to honor their obligations constitutes a breach of contract, rendering CarMax reus ( liable party ).\n\nApplicable Violations and Laws Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC 2-314 ) Violation : Breach of implied warranty of merchantability ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : The vehicles defects violated its ordinary purpose, causing financial harm and loss of use.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nIllinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ) Violation : Misrepresentation and nondisclosure ( XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : Deceptive practices led to monetary loss and reputational harm.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nNational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) Violation : Failure to honor recall obligations ( caveat venditor ).\n\nCause and Effect : Charging for recall repairs caused economic harm. \nCulpable Party : CarMax. \nFederal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) Violation : Unfair and deceptive acts in commerce ( XXXX XXXX ). \nCause and Effect : Misrepresentation and concealment undermined the integrity of the transaction.\n\nCulpable Party : CarMax.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) Violation : Failure to investigate disputes and improper credit reporting ( negligentia ). \nCause and Effect : Credit damage due to XXXX  inaction. \nCulpable Party : XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nRecommendations and Agencies to Alert Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : Report XXXX  for failing to provide proper notices and mishandling your account. \nIllinois Attorney General : File a complaint for violations of state consumer protection laws.\n\nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : Report CarMax for deceptive trade practices and warranty violations. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Alert them regarding CarMaxs failure to address recall repairs.\n\nLegal Counsel : Engage an attorney specializing in consumer rights and automotive fraud to initiate legal proceedings ( actio legis ) against CarMax and XXXX. \n\nConclusion This matter involves egregious violations of statutory and contractual obligations by CarMax and XXXX, including dolus malus, culpa lata, and breaches of federal and state consumer protection laws. Immediate legal and regulatory action is warranted to rectify the harm caused, seek damages, and enforce compliance with applicable statutes.\n\nDetailed Analysis of Violations 1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability ( UCC 2-314 ) The Uniform Commercial Code requires that goods sold by merchants meet a standard of merchantability, meaning they must be fit for ordinary purposes. CarMax violated this principium by delivering a vehicle with defective tires ( subject to manufacturer recall ), a faulty battery, damaged paint, and improperly repaired seats. By charging for repairs related to these defects, CarMax acted contra legem ( against the law ) and caused financial harm to you. This breach allows for remedies under UCC 2-714, which provides compensation for buyers of non-conforming goods.\n\n2. Deceptive Practices Under the FTC Act and State Law CarMaxs actions fall under XXXX XXXX, as their misrepresentation about the battery, undisclosed prior loaning of the vehicle, and failure to disclose mileage discrepancies violate Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ). Similarly, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ( XXXX ILCS XXXX ) prohibits mala fide actions like these. The misrepresentation of the vehicles condition constitutes an actus reus, an intentional act that caused pecuniary damnum ( financial loss ). \nXXXX. Violation of Federal Recall Obligations The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 49 U.S.C. 30120 ) mandates that recalled components such as tires be repaired at no cost to the consumer. By requiring you to pay for the recall-related repairs, CarMax acted ultra vires ( beyond its authority ). This failure not only endangered your safety but also imposed undue financial burdens, making CarMax liable for statutory penalties and damages under federal law.\n\n4. Negligent Repairs and Personal Property Damage The application of paint to repair the leather seat, rather than proper restoration, is a clear instance of culpa lata. This negligence caused direct harm to your uniforms, suits, and other personal property. Illinois tort law provides recourse for such damage, holding CarMax XXXX ( liable party ) for failing to exercise due care ( onus probandi ) during repairs. \nXXXX. Breach of Contract and Misrepresentation The consensualis ( consensual agreement ) between you and CarMax was fundamentally breached. The undisclosed loaning of the vehicle, failure to repair defects, and false representations about the battery constitute material breaches. These breaches undermine the pacta sunt servanda principle, which binds parties to the terms of their agreements. The resulting harm, including damage to your credit and professional life, supports claims for compensatory and punitive damages. \nXXXX. Violations by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX  failed to fulfill its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) by not investigating disputes and improperly reporting credit information. Per XXXX, their failure to notify you of payment responsibilities, combined with repossession actions, exacerbates your financial harm. This constitutes negligentia ( negligence ) and dolus incidentalis ( incidental fraud ). \n\nCause and Effect Analysis Cause : CarMaxs intentional misrepresentation ( dolus malus ) and failure to disclose material facts.\n\nEffect : Financial loss due to unnecessary repair costs, harm to your credit score, damage to your personal property, and reputational harm. \nCause : XXXX  failure to investigate disputes and provide proper payment information. \nEffect : Credit damage and repossession of the vehicle, impacting your employment and financial standing. \n\nAgencies to Notify and Steps to Take Regulatory Complaints Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : File a formal complaint against XXXX  for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and improper debt collection practices. \nIllinois Attorney General : Report CarMax under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for deceptive practices and breach of warranty. \nNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) : Alert them to CarMaxs non-compliance with federal recall obligations.\n\nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : File a complaint citing violations of the FTC Act, including false advertising and failure to disclose loaning of the vehicle. \n\nLegal Counsel and Remedies Engage a consumer rights attorney to pursue claims including : Fraudulent Misrepresentation ( XXXX XXXX ) : Seek damages for financial loss, credit harm, and emotional distress. \nBreach of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Demand reimbursement for repair costs, damages to personal property, and other out-of-pocket expenses. \nNegligence ( XXXX XXXX ) : Pursue compensation for personal property damage due to improper repairs. \nViolation of Federal and State Laws : Seek statutory damages under UCC, FCRA, and consumer protection statutes.\n\nEquitable Remedies ( XXXX in XXXX ) : Demand the rescission of the sale contract, full reimbursement of payments, and removal of repossession from your credit report. \n\nConclusion CarMax and XXXX actions are riddled with dolus malus, culpa lata, and ultra vires conduct, violating federal, state, and contractual obligations. Through comprehensive legal action and regulatory reporting, you can seek restitution for the financial and reputational harm caused. These steps will enforce accountability, uphold your rights, and ensure proper remedies are pursued. \nRemedies and Consequences at Every Level To address the violations and harm caused by CarMax and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), the following remedies and consequences apply. Each level of remedycivil, statutory, regulatory, and equitableis tailored to the specific legal breaches. \n\nXXXX. Civil Remedies ( Contractual and Tort Violations ) Remedies Compensatory Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Compensation for actual financial losses, such as repair costs, uniforms damaged by improper seat repair, and payments made for defective parts like the tires and battery. \nWhy : The breaches of contract and negligence directly caused quantifiable monetary loss. \nExample : Reimbursement for costs incurred due to defective repairs and recall charges. \nConsequential Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Compensation for secondary damages, such as loss of income due to time off work or credit harm affecting future financial opportunities. \nWhy : CarMax and XXXX failures had a foreseeable impact on your financial stability and professional life. \nPunitive Damages ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Damages intended to punish CarMax and XXXX  for egregious misconduct and deter similar actions. \nWhy : Intentional misrepresentation ( dolus malus ) and gross negligence ( culpa lata ) warrant punishment beyond compensatory damages. \nExample : A court may award significant punitive damages for CarMaxs deceptive practices.\n\nConsequences CarMax : Monetary liability for damages, adverse publicity, and potential class-action exposure if systemic issues are uncovered.\n\nXXXX  : Financial penalties and reputational harm for mishandling disputes and improper credit reporting.\n\n2. Statutory Remedies ( Federal and State Consumer Laws ) Remedies Damages for Breach of Consumer Protection Laws ( Remedium Legis ) : What : Statutory damages for violations of federal and state consumer laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. \nWhy : These laws entitle consumers to monetary relief when deceptive or unfair practices occur. \nExample : Penalties for charging for recall-related repairs and failure to disclose vehicle defects. \nAttorneys Fees and Costs ( XXXX XXXX ) : What : Full reimbursement of legal fees incurred in pursuing claims under statutes like the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. \nWhy : Consumer protection statutes often include provisions for attorneys fees to encourage enforcement. \nCredit Report Correction ( XXXX in XXXX ) : What : XXXX  must correct negative entries on your credit report, removing repossession marks and false defaults. \nWhy : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires creditors to ensure accurate reporting.\n\nConsequences CarMax : Fines, mandated consumer reimbursements, and potential enforcement actions from agencies like the FTC. \nXXXX  :","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-04T14:52:42.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"60610","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11460048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","date_received":"2025-01-10T05:20:12.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The defects in the tires ( subject to <em>manufacturer</em> <em>recall</em> ), rims, paint, leather seat, and battery rendered the <em>vehicle</em> non conformis ( non-conforming goods ). The act of requiring you to pay for the <em>recall</em> repairs and failing to rectify these defects is contra legem ( against the law ). CarMaxs actions contravened its obligatio ex contractu ( obligation arising from the contract ). \n\n<em>XXXX</em>."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[17.013649,"11460048"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15160331","_score":16.944586,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding XXXX XXXX conduct during and after my XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy as a follow up to a previous complaint, noted in the attached screenshot. \n\nI will present my issues in order of occurrence to clarify the timeline of events. \n\nLoan & Payment History - I financed my vehicle through XXXX XXXX and made all payments on time prior to filing for bankruptcy in XX/XX/XXXX. At no point before filing was I behind on the original car payments. All my payments were fulfilled within the pay period allowed ( including the 10 day grace periods allowed ). \n\nBankruptcy Filing & Discharge - I filed for XXXX  XXXX bankruptcy, which included my auto loan with XXXX XXXX. The account was discharged in bankruptcy, meaning I was no longer personally liable for the debt. \n\nPost-Bankruptcy Conduct by XXXX - Despite the discharge, XXXX XXXX continued to charge me during and after my bankruptcy case. They did not negotiate redemption terms or move to lift the stay during my case. \n\nRefusal to Negotiate & Excessive Demand- When I attempted to address the account, XXXX refused to offer any reasonable settlement or payment arrangement. Instead, after my certified communication they demanded immediate payment of the full remaining loan balance, which was more than the actual market value of the vehicle at the time.By that point, the total payments I had already made on the vehicle from point of sale up until date of repossession exceeded its current fair market value. I was willing to negotiate with XXXX to settle the account for a fair amount, which is evidenced in the certified letter I sent to them in XX/XX/XXXX. Even with my communications, XXXX left no room for a fair payoff, leaving no room for negotiation and instead using threatening language to pressure me into signing paperwork that had already exceeded its legal timelines under bankruptcy law in order to bound me to their institution again in a seemingly predatory contract via their collection group, XXXX XXXX. They also did not have the automatic stay lifted to fairly move forward with their repossession of the vehicle. All of this information is evidenced in my previous complaint as seen in my attached screenshot. \n\nRepossession & Vehicle Status - XXXX  eventually repossessed the vehicle at approximately XXXX XXXX  on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX according to government officials months after my bankruptcy discharge. This action leaves room for presumption that the repossession was a retaliatory move, as I had filed a CFPB complaint regarding their conduct prior to the repossession.The repossession also occurred after the deadlines highlighted on the seemingly threatening demand letters had passed ; it's important to highlight that the vehicle had a few open manufacturer recall cases, as well as a stop sale issued by the XXXX in motion that made it unsafe and arguably ineligible for legal sale at that time. I believe this further complicates the legality of their repossession and resale. \n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX is now inaccurately reporting this account on my credit report as : * Loan status : Paid in full / {$0.00} balance * Account status : Open This is misleading and inaccurate because : * The account was discharged in bankruptcy not paid in full. \n* After discharge, the account should have been closed, not listed as open. \n* The repossession and sale of the vehicle post-discharge should not result in an open status or paid in full notation. \n\nThis misreporting negatively impacts my credit profile and fails to reflect the correct legal and financial reality of the account.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-08T23:24:39.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"10701","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15160331","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-08-08T23:24:16.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was willing to negotiate with <em>XXXX</em> to settle the account for a fair amount, which is evidenced in the certified <em>letter</em> I sent to them in XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>."]},"sort":[16.944586,"15160331"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9876115","_score":16.296062,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Since XX/XX/XXXX, a debt has been negatively reported on my credit account by Bridgecrest, despite my repeated requests for its removal. I must clarify that I do not, and have never had, an account with Bridgecrest. This letter is in response to your latest request for an updated address, which further underscores the fraudulent nature of the information being reported. The continued reporting of this debt is illegal and fraudulent, constituting clear violations of federal law. \n\nSpecifically, this situation references violations of the following : 15 U.S. Code 1681a ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) : This section pertains to reports containing information solely about transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. In this case, no such valid transaction or experience exists between me and Bridgecrest, making this report false and illegal.\n\n18 U.S. Code 894 - Collection of Extensions of Credit by Extortionate Means : This code prohibits the collection or attempt to collect any extension of credit by extortionate means. The continued false reporting of this debt, coupled with Bridgecrest 's attempts to collect on a non-existent account, could be construed as an attempt to use extortionate means to collect a debt. \n\nAccording to a consumer credit report from Bridgecrest dated XX/XX/XXXX, I allegedly owed a balance of {$13000.00}. The report also falsely claimed that the \" merchandise was taken back by credit. '' This statement is inaccurate, as the vehicle in question was inoperable due to brake mechanical issues that were no longer under warranty and had a Federal recall from the manufacturer. \n\nAs of today, XX/XX/XXXX, this inaccurate information is still being reported on my credit report, despite the fact that the contract with Bridgecrest is invalid. The persistence of this false reporting is damaging my credit and causing significant financial harm. \n\nActions Taken : XX/XX/XXXX : Noticed the negative reporting of the debt on my credit account by Bridgecrest. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Consumer credit report falsely claimed that I owed {$13000.00} to Bridgecrest and that the merchandise was taken back by credit. \nSince XX/XX/XXXX : Repeatedly requested that Bridgecrest remove the inaccurate information from my credit report, with no success.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-21T21:00:33.000Z","issue":"Electronic communications","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"77379","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9876115","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","date_received":"2024-08-21T20:49:07.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["According to a consumer credit report from Bridgecrest dated XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, I allegedly owed a balance of {$13000.00}. The report also falsely claimed that the \" merchandise was taken back by credit. '' This statement is inaccurate, as the <em>vehicle</em> in question was inoperable due to brake mechanical issues that were no longer under warranty and had a Federal <em>recall</em> from the <em>manufacturer</em>."]},"sort":[16.296062,"9876115"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1946225","_score":15.396313,"_source":{"product":"Consumer Loan","complaint_what_happened":"Prior to getting Pontiac G6 on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX from Drive Time, my husband XXXX XXXX, had a Hyundai Accent also from Drive Time that broke down at XXXX miles bought at only XXXX miles which wound up being an unsafe car that we had to trade in for a different 'quality vehicle '. Unfortunately through Drive Time 's XXXX program the car 's minimum miles already on all the qualified cars started at XXXX plus. \nWe liked the Pontiac G6 the best but the check engine light was on and we were told by the Sales person that it had been inspected but they had forgotten to reset it. We were reassured by her this was not a problem several times, which we now know is a BLATANT LIE and the main issue here. \nIronically this check engine light is a HUGE RED FLAG and we should have never been offered this vehicle as we have recently found out from our local mechanic at XXXX XXXX several months ago since that violates the Smog Laws and is illegal to sell any car with check engine light on in CA. \nThis transaction was illegal by California State Law and the Lemon Law on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. \nXXXX/XXXX/XXXX is the date I was signed onto Drive Time, joining my husbands account. The purpose was to refinance car to my credit union so we did not have to deal with unprofessional behavior from Drive Time ( breaking XXXX laws ) as they were already violating my rights and causing emotional stress. After coming onto the account which I was only doing to switch to my credit union to refinance, I found out there was a loop hole and my credit union did not take cars over XXXX miles and the XXXX was at XXXX miles at that time. \nTo add insult to injury then we found out how bad this nightmare really was and now my husband and I were stuck. I found out right after coming onto account that the Pontiac G6 was on XXXX Recall lists for Brake issues that could not be fixed due to lack of parts by manufacturer by a letter dated in XXXX XXXX. Drive Time was ABSOLUTELY no help and neither was XXXX they acted like recalls happen all the time and they were no big deal. The truth is, it 's a very big deal and at this time there was a multi-million dollar lawsuit happening against XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) and people were being killed by their cars, which only fueled the anxiety of driving the G6 Pontiac car they call quality. \nRepair Timeline : XXXX / {$250.00} XXXX Tread Tires XXXX / {$480.00} New tires ** XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$98.00} XXXX - New Battery XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$34.00} XXXX - Oil Change XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$76.00} XXXX - Alignment XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$520.00} XXXX - Drum Replacement XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$670.00} XXXX To pass Smog XXXX I join account to refinance w/her XXXX XXXX and is denied due to mileage overage loophole. \nXXXX Receive Recall Letter XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$31.00} XXXX XXXX Air Filter, Tire Pressure XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$820.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Control Arms XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$75.00} XXXX - Jump car not starting XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$200.00} XXXX Rental Car since XXXX unsafe to drive on highway XXXX / {$100.00} XXXX - Why Check Engine Light on? Evaluation XXXX/XXXX/XXXX / {$1300.00} XXXX ( XXXX - XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ) Repairs Throttle Body, Catalytic Converter, Spark Plugs, Cam Sensor, solenoid TOTAL Spent {$4700.00} After all the work done as of XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the car failed a Smog Test due to an incorrect catalytic converter which was just recently replaced by XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX who had XXXX of their outsource mechanics fix the check engine light and the XXXX code issues that showed up at the diagnostic done by XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX source. \n\nI took out a {$2000.00} loan on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to afford the {$1300.00} bill from XXXX XXXX XXXX and I am still left with a car that will not pass smog and now a mechanic suddenly claiming unaccountability. Please HELP!","date_sent_to_company":"2016-05-28T20:26:07.000Z","issue":"Taking out the loan or lease","sub_product":"Vehicle lease","zip_code":"90028","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1946225","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DriveTime","date_received":"2016-05-28T20:26:06.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I found out right after coming onto account that the Pontiac G6 was on <em>XXXX</em> <em>Recall</em> lists for Brake issues that could not be fixed due to lack of parts by <em>manufacturer</em> by a <em>letter</em> dated in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>. Drive Time was ABSOLUTELY no help and neither was <em>XXXX</em> they acted like <em>recalls</em> happen all the time and they were no big deal."],"sub_product":["<em>Vehicle</em> lease"]},"sort":[15.396313,"1946225"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3450665","_score":15.210508,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX from state of Indiana, later discovered PII and Temp tags from prior Consumer in glove department. The vehicle was registered in the state of Georgia and transported to Missouri with odomator and SSN fraud later discovered. \n\nApplication have not received Title or registration in state of Missouri since purchase on XX/XX/XXXX, Delivery. \n\nApplicant have filed both state and federal complaints on behalf of dealership Carvana Group LLC et al. \n\nApplicant have since filed a federal case in XXXX Missouri District Court. As of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX have sent the Manufacturer Certificate of Origin by Affidavit request along with PROOF OF OWNERSHIP along with other legal documents. \n\nApplicant have submitted documents certified mail with tracking to both Carvana Group LLC and XXXX pertaining to applicant OWNERSHIP. \n\nXXXX unlawfully repossessed Applicant personal household automobile known as XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX CST via third parties XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , TN who hired XXXX  XXXX XXXX in Missouri . \n\nApplicant contacted XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, concerning unlawful repossession. Agent was informed about certified mail sent to Carvana Group LLC and XXXX with tracking parcel mailed XX/XX/XXXX. Agent refused to give information to Applicant do to SSN does not match last 4-digits on an account Applicant is unaware of. \n\nApplicant does NOT have any written expressed consent contract signed with XXXX  or any longer with Carvana Group LLC since Vehicle was purchased and delivered with odometor Fraud and later discovered SSN fraud pertaining to Applicant SSA 89 form signed on behalf of request underwriter XXXX XXXX, employee of Carvana Group LLC. \n\nI was informed by underwriter per Carvana Group LLC legal team that a second sale purchase contract would need to be created do to compan error. I did not consented another purchase contract after company attempted on various occasions to swap vehicle do to recall and other issues discovered about vehicle one week after purchase. \n\nApplicant have attempted for several months to remain in good faith working with Carvana Group LLC. Applicant later discovered SSN and contract fraud was administered. Federal lawsuit have been filed in Missouri District Court and IRS 211 investigation was sent do to filed complaint with Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury.\n\nIn closing, Applicant filed state and federal complaints on behalf of identity theft, odometor fraud with Missouri State Highway Patrol Odometor Fraud Agent ( Sgt XXXX ) and U.S. Department of Transportation Odomoter Fraud Agent ( XXXX XXXX ). \n\nXXXX sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, informing Applicaht vehicle would be deleted from their records and also they were to inform all credit bureaus to delete records as well. Applicant since have received credit bureaus letters reflected the deleted account. \n\nApplicant submitted Affidavit and pertinent documentation to show PROOF OF OWNERSHIP to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX legal team of purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from Carvana Group LLC. Applicant later discovered vehicle Odometer Fraud and other contract concerning issues after  purchase and delivery. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, Applicant never received registration or title to purchased vehicle and later discovered per Carvana Group LLC underwriter XXXX XXXX was told by company legal team to recreate sales purchase contract after purchasing was already made and Delivery taken. \n\nApplicant have PROOF OF OWNERSHIP and company repossessed applicant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unlawfully without cause. XXXX a subsidiary of Carvana Group LLC and  Applicant do not have a contract, but the company repossessed applicant Family household vehicle that have been instrumental in getting applicant sibling to and from XXXX treatments on a weekly basis at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX. \n\nApplicant contacted XXXX to inquire about unlawful repossession and inform about OWNERSHIP and documentation. Agent refuse to speak any further to applicant since SSN DO NOT MATCH in their records. \n\nApplicant did not give written expressed consent to contract with XXXX. Applicant filed and recorded in XXXX XXXX county recorder of deeds a UCC 1 Financing Statement as the Secured Party Creditor who own the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a family household vehicle. Applicant have the MANUFACTURED CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN as sole owner.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-03T15:53:43.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"63136","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3450665","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Carvana Group, LLC","date_received":"2019-11-26T04:14:58.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I did not consented another purchase contract after company attempted on various occasions to swap <em>vehicle</em> do to <em>recall</em> and other issues discovered about <em>vehicle</em> one week after purchase. \n\nApplicant have attempted for several months to remain in good faith working with Carvana Group LLC. Applicant later discovered SSN and contract fraud was administered."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[15.210508,"3450665"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13935906","_score":13.976066,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Regarding : Deceptive Practices and Unfair Billing related to Early Lease Termination Company : XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Account # : XXXX VIN : XXXX Product/Service : Auto Lease ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX regarding deceptive practices and unfair billing related to the early termination of my auto lease.\n\nThe decision to terminate this lease was not voluntary, but became necessary due to severe and persistent safety-related defects with the vehicle. Since acquiring the vehicle, it exhibited numerous manufacturer-related issues, including a recent instance on XX/XX/XXXX, where the vehicle completely shut off while driving without warning, posing a significant safety hazard one week after I was assured it was safe to drive. I brought the vehicle in for repairs multiple times, but this critical issue remained unresolved. XXXX 's own engineers acknowledged this defect with no known solution nor do they have a timeline of when a remedy could become available. They suspect that it is software related and made worse by the remedy for the XXXX recall which was performed earlier in XXXX. In addition, I had asked XXXX to buy back the vehicle which they denied immediately within 24 hours. XXXX Customer Care was also limited in what they could provide me ; I had requested that they provide me with a letter stating the car was not to be given back to me until this software issue was fixed. My case manager was unable to do so and confirmed this is not something they can do with his direct supervisor. \n\nGiven the inherent safety risks and the inability to repair the vehicle, I was compelled to terminate the lease early. To do so, I proceeded to XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase a new vehicle. As part of this transaction, XXXX XXXX XXXX requested the lease payoff amount directly from XXXX XXXXl to facilitate the return of the XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I returned the vehicle in excellent physical condition and well under the mileage allowance. At the initial payoff request, I was present for the conversation with my salesman XXXX XXXX. The agent briefly spoke with me and told me I'd be responsible for any damages to the vehicle beyond normal wear and tear- which I agreed to and acknowledged. My sales XXXX, XXXX XXXX, was informed by XXXX  XXXX  that I'd be responsible for a disposition fee. He made me aware of this although I knew I would immediately contest it as this was not a normal lease termination. This dispute was sent to XXXX XXXX and XXXX Customer Care by certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nPrior to, during this termination process, and after I received explicit assurances from XXXX XXXX regarding my final financial obligations : I possess written chat logs from XXXX XXXX representatives explicitly stating that my final bill would be {$490.00} ( a standard disposition fee ) with \" no additional auction fees. '' Furthermore, on XX/XX/XXXX, after the remaining lease payments ( {$7700.00} ) were processed via a direct \" Payoff Information '' quote provided by XXXX  XXXX  to the dealership, my XXXX XXXX account internally reflected a {$0.00} balance, clearly indicating that all my contractual obligations were fulfilled. \n\nDespite these clear assurances and a confirmed {$0.00} balance, XXXX  XXXX is now unjustly attempting to bill me an additional unknown amount for \" auction losses '' and other charges that directly contradict their prior guarantees. I was made aware of this discrepancy on XX/XX/XXXX by mail. I contacted XXXX XXXX by phone and was told that what the person had told me on chat was \" incorrect '' and I was going to owe more than the {$490.00} but no one could tell me how much. I immediately asked to be connected to a supervisor. This supervisor was apologetic for the \" misunderstanding '' and offered me to escalate this to the internal escalation team. I proceeded with that escalation. When contacted by their escalation team on XX/XX/XXXX, they dismissed their own promises and records as \" human error '' and refused to take accountability, attempting to shift blame to the dealership, XXXX, and on anyone but themselves. They admittedly said that their employees gave myself and XXXX the incorrect information BUT I was still to be held liable for that. I immediately denied all and any errors made by their employees and maintained that none of that is my responsibility. \n\nI firmly maintain that I am not responsible for additional charges resulting from XXXX XXXX XXXX  internal errors or misleading statements. I relied on their explicit representations when making my decision to return the vehicle under these circumstances, which were forced by the vehicle 's unreliability. Their refusal to honor their own commitments and records constitutes a clear failure to accurately disclose final lease termination liabilities as required by the federal Consumer Leasing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f and Regulation M ) and also constitutes deceptive trade practices under Pennsylvania law XXXX \n\nThis case highlights how misleading information and a refusal to honor documented commitments, even when admitted as 'human error, ' can unjustly burden consumers. Federal consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Leasing Act, exist precisely to hold corporations accountable for such deceptive practices and to ensure accurate disclosures in consumer transactions. I urge the CFPB to enforce these vital protections.\n\nI have already briefly discussed this matter with legal counsel, who advised me that I am not responsible for these unjust charges. Once a formal bill is sent to me claiming I owe more than what was explicitly promised by a XXXX XXXX employee ( {$490.00} ), legal counsel will officially be retained and proceed with official engagement.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-06T23:21:19.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"19320","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13935906","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-06T22:42:25.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Termination fees or other problem when ending the lease early"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The decision to terminate this lease was not voluntary, but became necessary due to severe and persistent safety-related defects with the <em>vehicle</em>. Since acquiring the <em>vehicle</em>, it exhibited numerous <em>manufacturer</em>-related issues, including a recent instance on XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, where the <em>vehicle</em> completely shut off while driving without warning, posing a significant safety hazard one week after I was assured it was safe to drive."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[13.976066,"13935906"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13196792","_score":13.709419,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Open app Your location XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NY XXXX XXXX dealer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX weeks ago DO NOT GET A CAR FROM HERE PLEASE READ BEFORE PURCHASING!!! I leased a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Last year it had a recall for the hybrid battery which my car didnt start because it had to be replaced. I had it towed in XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX was my advisor. She would never call to give me updates so I called every couple of weeks. The only update I would get is I dont know how long it will take for the manufacturer to send the new battery and they dont give us any updates. A few months go by and I decide to open a case up with Jeep themself. I get a case number and XXXX is now helping me expedite this fix. I then received a letter from Chrysler Capital saying they are now repossessing my car for unpaid storage fee. XXXX was charging storage fee on my car for a recall on my hybrid battery change. I didnt receive any notice of this. My car is now in the pound for a mistake that they did!!! My case manager XXXX said he has never heard of anything like this. I pay all my bills on time and been a customer for years. When I call star to find out what is happening they have no solution. If I was told my car was fixed I would of picked it up the same day but nor me or my case manager were ever updated. This place is a scam and now I have another case open to fix this issue. I have been waiting since XXXX for my car. This is truly unacceptable and a disaster. I will not recommend this place to anyone. XXXX was no help in anything I dont even see why she still works there. They even lied about the day I dropped off the car but lucky I have the towing receipt. I honestly dont know whats going to happen next and I am so stressed out. They dont help with anything and they made this easy situation into a nightmare. I just wanted my battery to be replaced and ended up getting my car repossessed. This is insane. DO NOT buy from them they are not a reliable business. This place needs to be investigated and I will be trying to get the news and lawyers involved as I see others have experienced similar bad service from them. I am not going to sit around and get bad credit over something that wasnt my fault at all. \n\nEdit update : I went in and spoke with XXXX the service manager. He continues to say they never charged storage fees on my vehicle. When I have proof amount and received phone confirmation from Chrysler capital that they were charging storage fees. This also still doesnt explain to me why my car is still not fixed. Instead of him saying I will do research on my department to see who was charging storage fees, he just brushed it off like this was only my problem. Chrysler capital towed my car because star was charging storage fees point blank. Something is going on in the service area that is not legal. They need to be investigated because a long time customer should not have to worry about losing her car because of a mistake that they did. I have a case with Chrysler capital and they will look into all of this. I asked why XXXX is not fired if she has so many negative reviews and his respond was she has a family. YOUR customers have a family. I have a family this is outrageous. I use my car for work and even tho it was towed it still was not fixed make that make sense.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-26T16:33:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13196792","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-26T16:02:24.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The only update I would get is I dont know how long it will take for the <em>manufacturer</em> to send the new battery and they dont give us any updates. A few months go by and I decide to open a case up with Jeep themself. I get a case number and <em>XXXX</em> is now helping me expedite this fix. I then received a <em>letter</em> from Chrysler Capital saying they are now repossessing my car for unpaid storage fee. <em>XXXX</em> was charging storage fee on my car for a <em>recall</em> on my hybrid battery change."]},"sort":[13.709419,"13196792"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13503836","_score":13.067582,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally dispute the validity of my auto loan with Exeter Finance ( Account XXXX. XXXX ) which was originated in partnership with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under circumstances that I believe involve predatory lending, misrepresentation, and deceptive practices. \n\nI was referred to the dealership by an independent contractor who promised guaranteed approval regardless of my credit, with no down payment, no payments for the first two months, and no insurance required for 30 days. He filled out the entire online application on my behalfI was only asked to provide my full name, social security number and home address. He completed and submitted all other details of the application himself, I was never asked to provide employer information or proof of income at any point. The dealership did not verify any of the application details, nor did they require income documentation, a valid drivers license, or proof of insurance prior to finalizing the sale. \n\nI was also pressured by the independent contractor to arrive at the dealership quickly, as he told me it was important to get the deal finalized before the other finance manager arrives. While I did not fully understand the urgency at the time, in hindsight it appears that this was done to ensure the deal was handled by specific employees within the dealership, willing to approve transactions that would not have been approved or allowed to go through under standard ethical procedures. Indicating it was being pushed through in a way that bypassed proper oversight suggesting not only unethical behavior but a coordinated effort with the dealership to push through high-interest, improperly vetted loans outside of normal scrutiny. \n\nI was told via text by XXXX, one of the salesmen at the dealership, that my approval limit was {$23000.00} {$24000.00}. Later, I was also told that my payments were going to be around {$400.00}. However, the total amount financed on the vehicle was {$53000.00} and my monthly payments came out to {$730.00}. The vehicle itself had an online listed price of {$21000.00}, and the final loan included a finance charge of {$27000.00} at an interest rate of 28.13 %. I was not given the opportunity to see or test drive the car prior to signing, and I was rushed through paperwork after-hours with no contract copies provided until nearly two months later. \n\nThe signing process itself was also highly irregular. The dealership 's financing manager assisting with my purchase was XXXX XXXX. I was asked to input my signature on a digital signature pad, and she rapidly clicked through all the contract pages, applying my signature to each one without allowing me any opportunity to review the documents because they were closed and needed to go home. The entire signing process was completed way too fast, I spent no more than 10 or 15 minutes at the dealership to complete the purchase, which is extremely concerning. For comparison, my last vehicle purchase took several hours to properly review and sign financing documents and review all warranty options available. \n\nHad I known at the time that the total loan amount would exceed $ XXXX than double what I was told I was approved forI would never have agreed to the purchase. The speed and manner in which I was rushed through the paperwork strongly suggests an effort to conceal key loan terms and prevent informed consent. \n\nI signed my paperwork on XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX XXXX PST. The customer copy of my contract was not even generated until XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX GMT, and I did not receive a copy of anything I signed until XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX PST. \n\nThe day after receiving the vehicle, I found the air conditioning system was broken. I immediately contacted the dealership and later brought the vehicle in for service, where I ran into the financing manager who stated arent you glad I sold you that great warranty now?! Youre totally covered!. But I was later told by the service department that the warranty I was sold was basic with very little coverage. I was told the repair would cost upwards of {$3000.00} and it was not covered under the warranty I had been sold or by the dealership.I then no contacted Exeter Finance to report the issue. A representative from your company advised me to pause payments until the matter was resolved, suggesting that the dealership might be liable and that I may be allowed to return the vehicle and obtain another one. I followed these instructions in good faith ; however, I quickly began to be bombarded with calls from the lender asking for payments. \nI have also obtained a manufacturer bulletin ( XXXX ) dated XX/XX/XXXX, which confirms that the dealership was aware of common A/C system issues in XXXX XXXX XXXX vehicles, including failures to achieve proper cooling and the need for UV dye-based leak detection. Upon reviewing the vehicles XXXX XXXX  service history report, at no point was the vehicle inspected after this recall letter came out. It is now clear that the dealership either failed to-follow this required diagnostic procedure or deliberately avoided disclosure of the issue. \n\nFollowing the initial A/C diagnosis, I was forced to return to the dealership again after the check engine light activated. The dealership had previously dismissed this entirely and even told me that the cause was \" probably a loose gas cap, '' despite the fact that my specific model XXXX XXXX XXXX does not even have a gas cap. The service staff informed me that there was \" nothing to be concerned about, '' and that no repairs were needed. They suggested I simply purchase an aftermarket OBD scanner to clear future codes myself. When I scanned the vehicle on my own, I discovered the actual error codes were related to the EVAP system, including both \" small leak '' and \" large leak '' Permanent codes XXXX and XXXX, indicting serious issue directly tied to the-malfunctioning A/C system. This further demonstrates the dealership 's misrepresentation and failure to disclose known concerns prior to delivering the vehicle to me. It also appears the dealership may have rushed the transaction intentionally, potentially to avoid allowing time for these known A/C issues to be detected. \n\nIn addition, I have since learned that the dealerships General Sales Manager, XXXX XXXX approved my dealwas terminated for allegedly pushing through multiple fraudulent loans using XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), some of which were reported by identity theft victims. \n\nBased on all the information stated above, I am formally disputing the validity of this loan agreement and asserting that it was originated through deceptive and improper practices. I did not enter into this agreement knowingly, voluntarily, or with full and accurate information. The dealership and its representatives misrepresented material facts, failed to verify key documentation, and structured the loan in a way that grossly inflated the vehicles cost far beyond its actual market value. \n\nI have documentation, text message records, and other evidence supporting all the claims made in this letter, and I am prepared to provide them upon request or in the course of a formal investigation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-14T07:54:57.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"92677","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13503836","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","date_received":"2025-05-14T07:41:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with the interest rate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have also obtained a <em>manufacturer</em> bulletin ( <em>XXXX</em> ) dated XX/XX/<em>XXXX</em>, which confirms that the dealership was aware of common A/C system issues in <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>vehicles</em>, including failures to achieve proper cooling and the need for UV dye-based leak detection. Upon reviewing the <em>vehicles</em> <em>XXXX</em> <em>XXXX</em>  service history report, at no point was the <em>vehicle</em> inspected after this <em>recall</em> <em>letter</em> came out."],"product":["<em>Vehicle</em> loan or lease"]},"sort":[13.067582,"13503836"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11794512","_score":9.333791,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am disputing the way my credit card ( cc ) company improperly handled a billing dispute. \n\nOn/about XXXX I filed a dispute w my cc for a charge that occurred XX/XX/XXXX for {$510.00}. My claim was that the merchant sold and billed me for goods that were not as described as I learned after purchase that the item was defective and some of those defects were unrepairable. At no time did I ever receive possession of the item I was billed for. The item was a used vehicle, which had failed VA state inspection ( info not disclosed on sellers website ), and had XXXX active recalls ( info also not disclosed on sellers website ). I only became aware of the failed inspection when I went to the dealership to test drive the vehicle. This in and of itself was a disservice b/c we live an hour away. We likely would not have driven to this dealership had this safety information been properly disclosed. This is deception. The rejection sticker was located on the windshield. We wanted to take the care to our mechanic to do a pre-purchase inspection. The dealer said we could only drive the car w/in a 5 mi radius and we had a XXXX time limit to test drive. After returning from the short test drive, the seller assured us that nothing was wrong with the car except a tire needed replaced and the tint on the back windshield was too dark. They assured us that with these fixes the car would pass inspection. With that assurance, a written agreement was entered w the caveat the car passed inspection. A good faith deposit was placed w the promise all issues would be remedied. This agreement was valid thru XXXX, when we would return to pick up the car and pay the remaining balance owed. \n\nXXXX I learned the vehicle had XXXX open recalls. I called the manufacturer who informed me there was only a remedy for XXXX. The open item imposed a significant safety risk which could result in the car catching fire while driving. That posed a significant concern, especially considering the car was being purchased for my teenager as his first car. I immediately called the dealership to discuss and was NEVER able to talk to a manager. I was able to talk to supervisors and the secretary. They all told me only the manager could provide options up to and including a full refund of our good faith payment. After talking to the dealer, I also learned that the vehicle still hadnt passed inspection! Despite calling daily with no resolve, on XXXX the last day of our agreement, since the manager still hadnt returned my calls and the car still hadnt passed inspection, we decided to take the hour drive to the dealership to handle in person ( we only did this b/c of the written agreement we had and we did not want the dealer to keep our deposit when they defaulted on the agreement ). I called/emailed to let them know we were on our way. Enroute a supervisor told me that they sold the car and we missed out. Of course I was devastated and demanded to know why the manager never called me to discuss our options. I was told that they felt they didnt need to call to me as they believed I didnt want the car due to the recalls and inspection issue. Whether I did or didnt was not their choice to make B/c a deposit was placed on the car and I was entitled to my money back. As a result of the car being sold while having a written contract thru XXXX, I told them they breached our sales agreement and I was entitled to a full refund. \n\nAfter communicating all of this to my bank, they still wanted me to attempt to resolve the issue directly. On/about XX/XX/XXXX I was only able to get the merchant to give me a partial refund of {$370.00}. I reported this to my bank and told them that although I reluctantly agreed to the partial refund, I vehemently didnt agree that the merchant should keep any part of my money. The partial refund posted XX/XX/XXXX. The merchant 's reason for keeping the difference was just b/c they felt they didnt owe me anything and they were a business. This reason is so ridiculous as they still sold the car, so there was no loss. The irony is that they sold the car for {$1500.00} less than what they were selling to me for. If anything I should have been given this reduced offer if I chose to proceed with the sell, but the mgr never even called me to discuss my options. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX The bank continued with the claim for the remaining balance of {$140.00} and provided me a provisional credit ( the difference between {$510.00} and {$370.00} ). However, after receiving the {$370.00} partial refund from the merchant ( XX/XX/XXXX ), the bank then awarded my account the full {$510.00} chargeback. They then reversed it, and awarded my act w the credit of {$140.00}. They wrote me a letter ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) stating that unless the merchant can provide a reason why Im not entitled to the full amount the decision was in my favor. The matter was considered closed. \n\nNow the basis that brings me to my dispute with CFPB : XX/XX/XXXX, without any prior written notice of action the bank reversed its provisional credit of {$140.00} and charged my acct. my same. The same day, my act was also hit with a separate charge from the merchant for another {$140.00}. I learned of this on XX/XX/XXXX and immediately called the bank. The supervisor told me that one was a credit and the other a debit, that I was reading it wrong. He told me to wait a few days for the transactions to post and that I was overreacting. I requested to cancel my cc anyway as I knew my acct was fraudenty charged by the merchant w/o my knowledge, consent, and w/o the card being present in the environment. The bank supervisor agreed to close the XXXX, but refused to put a fraud claim on the transaction from the merchant. He believed the reversal {$140.00} from the bank was actually a credit and the charge of {$140.00} was an offset, and that all would balance out, and that I just needed to wait. B/c I was unable to file a dispute/fraud claim on my own using the online platform I was at the mercy of the bank and forced to wait, even though I knew in my core, something was wrong. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX and XXXX I called the merchant to find out why it charged my cc when the bank reversed its previous decision & awarded them the {$140.00} from the original dispute. My first call was no answer after calling several times. On the XXXX, I left a message with the secretary as she said a manager would call me back. \n\nI called the bank again XXXX to dispute the {$140.00} from the merchant ( although I also disagreed with banks reversal of their {$140.00}, that is not what this separate issue was about ). I was then allowed to submit my claim w their security operations. XX/XX/XXXX the bank sent me an affidavit to complete/sign and upload to the portal. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX after unsuccessfully loading the form, I called the bank to report my issues and was told they cancelled my fraud claim and I had to file a billing dispute w customer service, which I did. They directed me to not complete the form. The irony of this is that I tried to do this XX/XX/XXXX, when I first discovered the charge and was initially denied by the bank. \n\nI also sent a written request to the bank asking to see the evidence submitted by the merchant ( re : XXXX dispute ) and the date of their response submission. I am concerned by the date of the reversal dated XX/XX/XXXX, being more than 20 days after the banks XX/XX/XXXX decision. The merchants response appeared untimely. A few days later I received a letter from the bank enclosing their explanation for the reversal of their {$140.00} credit to my act. In it I noticed they used the chargeback code XXXX which is for refund not received. I have always maintained w the bank that this transaction was being disputed b/c I was sold a defective product that was intentionally undisclosed, this is Theft by deception based on merchandise sold not as described w defects, as well as breach of contract. I was clearly defrauded by this transaction. For the bank to submit a chargeback code for not receiving a refund after I did in fact receive the partial refund, is a gross negligent error! As I never argued the merchant promised to give me a full refund. In fact, I disclosed they only offered a partial refund. My dispute was to be made whole for the entire {$510.00} transaction, this was per the language of the banks letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Further, the {$370.00} refund by the merchant had already posted to my act before the bank even submitted the chargeback to the merchant. So what was the basis for them using the erroneous XXXX coding? \n\nXXXX I made a payment for {$1900.00}. I specifically called in to allocate {$1200.00} towards a promotional balance that I had on the acct, which then left the remaining owed {$610.00} ( orig owed/purchase amt was {$1800.00} ). The remaining payment went to the other outstanding balance on the card. The remaining balance was {$140.00}, which was the amt in dispute and no pmt required. The min. pmt was {$0.00} b/c they never sent me a bill for the month of XXXX. I only received a bill for XXXX and XXXX. The total amt owed XXXX was {$2600.00}. If I paid {$1900.00}, and of that {$1200.00} was directly allocated ( by me ) to the promo balance, that leaves {$720.00} to apply to the remaining existing balance minus the disputed {$140.00} charge from XX/XX/XXXX. I was not obligated to pay this due to the open dispute ( per the language in their letters to me ). The amt I paid was intentional. Since there was no min pymt due, any amt I allocated to the promo balance should have remained, and not re-designated by the bank, which happened here. The bank issued me a {$50.00} credit ( which they say was from my dispute ) that they applied to the promo balance which it wouldve reduced to {$560.00}. Instead, they reduced my allocation pmt ( without my consent/knowledge ) to payoff the {$140.00} remaining running balance and then the bank increased my promo balance to {$700.00}. This is NOT okay! Per their own language Youre not required to make a payment toward the disputed amt & we wont assess any related fees/interest, on the disputed amt during our investigation. The bank completely went against its own statement/policy! To date XX/XX/XXXX, I have not received a formal notice from the bank explaining why they did this to me. \n\nMy acct was either, erroneously double-billed on XX/XX/XXXX for the same transaction which began XXXX, or the merchant in-fact wrongfully & fraudulently charged my acct on XX/XX/XXXX an additional {$140.00}, for the same amount the bank ultimately credited back to them when it reversed the previous credit. Either way there is an additional {$140.00} charge to my acct that is unexplained. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I received so much run-around from the bank about how to properly dispute its completely frustrating. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX letter dated from the bank saying after its investigation it was awarding me {$50.00} for the XXXX dispute in my favor and again considered the matter closed. It then re-allocated and changed my promo balance from {$610.00} to {$700.00} an increase of {$90.00}. I never gave the bank authority to reallocate my promotional payment. Since I was disputing the {$140.00} charge from XX/XX/XXXX, I wasnt required to make a pmt for that amt until the dispute was finalized and it separate in my recurring bill balance, which is separate from the promotional balance. At no time should that amt have been rolled into my promotional balance as that was a completely different transaction. And the bank wrongfully merged the two balances together. This, too is deceptive business practices. But this time, by the bank! I was never notified in advance of this action. To-date XX/XX/XXXX, I have received NO communication from the bank as to why they made this change WITHOUT my consent or knowledge. \n\nI usually pay my bill in full monthly when there is a balance. My acct has always been in good standing. I have XXXX credit. I have held this card for several years and have a $ XXXX credit line and have NEVER had any issues on my act. I purposely did not pay my acct off in full as I wanted to see how the bank was going to handle the XX/XX/XXXX dispute on my bill. This bank did not act in good faith with my better interest and made repeated gross negligent actions against my account without properly communicating whether in writing or thru the customer service phone line. To my knowledge the dispute XX/XX/XXXX ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ) for {$140.00} is an active dispute pending resolution as I do not recognize this new transaction from the merchant.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-28T02:23:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"201XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11794512","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-01-28T01:11:06.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This agreement was valid thru <em>XXXX</em>, when we would return to pick up the car and pay the remaining balance owed. \n\n<em>XXXX</em> I learned the <em>vehicle</em> had <em>XXXX</em> open <em>recalls</em>. I called the <em>manufacturer</em> who informed me there was only a remedy for <em>XXXX</em>. The open item imposed a significant safety risk which could result in the car catching fire while driving. That posed a significant concern, especially considering the car was being purchased for my teenager as his first car."]},"sort":[9.333791,"11794512"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":19,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":19}]}},"product":{"doc_count":19,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":9},{"key":"Lease","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Consumer Loan","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Vehicle lease","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":19,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan","doc_count":3},{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with the interest rate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off","doc_count":2},{"key":"Termination fees or other problem when ending the lease early","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Taking out the loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Electronic communications","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Voluntary repossession","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":19,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":19}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":15},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":19,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":19}]}},"company":{"doc_count":19,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation","doc_count":2},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Carvana Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"DriveTime","doc_count":1},{"key":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FC HoldCo LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Northstar Location Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":19,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NY","doc_count":4},{"key":"OH","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":19,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":6},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":19,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}