Date Received: 2021-07-02
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue: Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX myself and my mom XXXX XXXX XXXX co-signer purchased a brand new XXXX XXXX XXXX manual transmission. I purchased the XXXX XXXX at XXXX and the XXXX XXXX service contract at {$2400.00}. Annual percentage rate of 21.85 % which broke down into 75 payments of {$550.00}. The XXXX was way too expensive but I made it work for about 2 years. I was teaching at XXXX XXXX XXXX and went to XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX of XXXX and on my way home the manual transmission would not change gears, I could not stop, my clutch went straight to the floor when I turned the Jeep on. Sunday 's no XXXX dealerships were open in XXXX NC. I was scared to death because I had to get home, I was working my XXXX job that evening. I made it home safely thank XXXX. The vehicle was still under factory warranty of which I was still blamed for what happened and was asked to purchase a new clutch because mine had some grooves, due to the grinding which I had to grind the gears when the clutch goes to the floorboard. I asked several people including XXXX XXXX at XXXX, is this a defect? Does this happen often? I was told that what I experienced is something that doesn't occur until there are about XXXX, XXXX miles driven. The XXXX went in for service from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I was still responsible for making payments while I didn't have my XXXX. I got my Jeep back and it did not feel safe at ALL. I called Chrysler Capital and asked to be release from my purchase contract, or to have the opportunity to turn it in and get a different vehicle. I was harassed with phone calls from XXXX salesmen to get the brand new XXXX XXXX which would increase my payments by over {$300.00} per month. I attempted to refinance my Jeep to help with lowering my monthly investment, no luck. I felt extremely unsafe since I had a daily driving commute 50 miles each way, and I really tried to catch up on my payments worked 2 jobs, tried to negotiate something with XXXX so I could keep it even if I felt not safe. Jeep was repossessed XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX months after I lost both jobs due to XXXX. The vehicle was sold at a private sale on XX/XX/XXXX, {$10000.00} was deducted from the over {$23000.00} prior balance that has been reported on my credit reports. Well thats not the math that Chrysler Capital used. The initial purchase price was {$22000.00}?? So, 2 years of payments my balance goes up?? Now I just received a letter stating that Chrysler Capital sold my finance contract to XXXX XXXX XXXX on Thursday XX/XX/XXXX after I was given documentation that the Jeep was sold during a private sale for {$10000.00}? I am continuously getting hard credit inquiries by Chrysler Capital, because I have been working really hard to bringing my credit score up, but can't get anywhere when I am dealing with almost monthly hard credit inquiries by Chrysler Capital. Review the documents attached the back of the purchase contract clearly indicates that if XXXX XXXX is purchased that cost would go towards any deficiency. No, it wasn't. This should not even be legal, everything from the finance charge, terms, the defect and no offer to get me into something safer and cheaper after I lost both sources of income due to something out of my control.
Company Response:
State: SC
Zip: 295XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-02
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Was not notified of investigation status or results
Consumer Complaint: I have contacted XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX since XXXX asking for proof of validity of a debt. They have not provided any proof that debt belongs to me and will not respond to any letters that I have sent. I have contact all three credit bureaus and the creditors themselves. The account also looks like it has been re-aged because I did not open anything with XXXX XXXX in the month of XX/XX/2021. The amount reporting on my credit report is {$240.00}.
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 28211
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-02
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue: Billing problem
Consumer Complaint: This company have been causing me grievances since XX/XX/2020 just by having a loan with them. In the beginning they failed to properly copy my name from my financial contracts into my account. Then later they stop reporting my timely payments to the credit bureaus. And now they are harassing me for loan payments when they have been educated from my insurance company that my vehicle is totaled from a flood. This company shouldn't be allowed to harass their customers using our credit report as a negotiation chip. They obviously are not obligated to realize I did financed my vehicle for income and I have gotten a replacement which means I have a new loan obligation. Which means why are they insinuating that I am a man that is not credible to make good on his payments?
Company Response:
State: LA
Zip: 70816
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-02
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was result of identity theft
Consumer Complaint: I am a victim of identity theft. The following accounts were opened without my knowledge, consent or authority. I have no idea how the theft took place, nor do I have knowledge of the suspects. I did not receive any money, goods, or services as a result of the identity theft.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 333XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Old information reappears or never goes away
Consumer Complaint: This account was for an auto loan that was refinanced more than 2 years ago. During the refinance process I was told that this auto loan would not appear on my credit profile after it was refinanced with XXXX XXXX. Currently, I have two auto loan appearing on my credit profile and I was told by Santander that I would not continue to see reporting for them. My current auto loan is with XXXX XXXX, not Santander.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 300XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account information incorrect
Consumer Complaint: From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, Santander Consumer USA furnished information of an auto loan to all 3 CRAs that contained systemic errors, In many instances, the errors should have been readily apparent because the data for the account was internally inconsistent. Moreover, Respondent received error reports from all 3 Credit reporting agency 's that described these errors in the companys data files. In addition, Santander Consumer USA internal audits show that it was aware of these errors as of XXXX. Despite being on notice of these errors, Santander Consumer USA continued to make them for years including XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. Several of Santander Consumer USA errors related to its use of the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) field in its furnishing data. I contacted all 3 credit reporting agency as well as Santander Consumer USA and explained Section 605 ( a ) ( 5 ) of the FCRA requires that negative information such as late payments must be removed from a consumers credit report after that information is seven years old. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 5 ). The date by which such information must be removed is determined by the date on which the account first became delinquentthe date of first delinquency. This provision allows me the consumer to rebuild their credit following a long period of delinquency. I explained to Santander Consumer USA through mailed letters and phone calls that they are Reporting Incorrect Date of First Delinquency in all 3 of my credit profiles between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, Santander Consumer USA furnished a DOFD during this time period, the DOFD furnished by Santander Consumer USA equaled the Date of Account Information ( DOAI ) for the account. The DOAI is the date on which Respondent pulled information from its system of record each month in order to send to CRAs. When furnishing in the XXXX XXXX format, furnishers like Santander Consumer USA must provide the DOAI so that date is updated each month until the company stops reporting on a tradeline. Even if the DOFD did equal the DOAI at one point for a particular account, it is extremely unlikely that the DOFD would equal the DOAI for t wo or more months. A CRA informed Santander Consumer USA that it was reporting DOFDs that were more recent than previously reported DOFDs on derogatory accounts -- an error that could result from using the DOAI in the DOFD field. Santander Consumer USA received these reports from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX and again in XX/XX/XXXX and early XXXX. when Santander Consumer USA reported a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, the company also reported an account status showing a serious delinquency ( e.g., account was charged-off or at least 90 days delinquent, or the vehicle was already repossessed ). The DOAI is typically close in time to the date of furnishing because account information is ordinarily pulled for furnishing purposes shortly before it is transmitted to CRAs. By contrast, it would be extremely unusual to have a DOFD close to the date of furnishing on a seriously delinquent account. Santander Consumer USA also furnished inconsistent information regarding whether the account in question were open or closed and whether it was carrying a balance or obligated to make future payments. To the extent that the company inaccurately reported whether the account were open or closed or that i owed money that they did not actually owe, these errors have negatively impacted my credit scores and access to credit. between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, Santander Consumer USA furnished information indicating that accounts were paid in full, charged off, along with contradictory information suggesting the tradelines were still open. The company received error reports from a CRA highlighting this inconsistency from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Santander Consumer USA also reported that the auto loan had a current balance and simultaneously furnished contradictory information, such as also furnishing information indicating that the accounts were paid in full. The company had received error reports from a CRA since XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX advising of this error. Prior to XX/XX/XXXX, Respondent did not consistently, for all its retail installment contract and lease portfolios, clearly and conspicuously specify to me an address where i could notify the company that information the company furnished was inaccurate. Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of FCRA prohibits a furnisher from furnishing any information relating to a consumer to any CRA if it knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Santander Consumer USA furnished my credit information to CRAs that contained inaccurate information about my credit accounts. In many instances, Santander Consumer USA knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the information was inaccurate because this information was internally inconsistent. In many other instances, the company furnished a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, which was extremely unlikely to be accurate for tradelines furnished over multiple months for multiple accounts. Moreover, the company continued to furnish this inaccurate information even after it had been notified about these types of errors by CRAs. Santander Consumer USA violated 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of FCRA requires furnishers to promptly update and correct information they have furnished to a CRA that they determine is not complete or accurate. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ). As detailed above, in numerous instances from at least XXXX XXXX to at least XXXX XXXX Santander Consumer USA furnished to CRAs information relating to consumers that was not complete or accurate. Santander Consumer USA furnished information that was inconsistent with its internal account information and inaccurate. In many other instances, Respondent furnished a DOFD that equaled the DOAI, which was extremely unlikely to be accurate for tradelines furnished over multiple months for multiple accounts. Santander Consumer USA received multiple error reports from at least one CRA that allowed it to determine that the information it furnished was not complete or accurate, and Respondents internal audits showed at least one of the errors listed above. Despite this knowledge, Santander did not promptly update or correct the incomplete or inaccurate information it furnished. To the contrary, in many 11 cases Santander continued reporting inconsistent information for years after being alerted to its errors. Therefore, Santander violated section 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ).
Company Response:
State: NC
Zip: 28105
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: After several attempts to get the account removed from my credit profile after learning of the class action settlement. There was a 33 state predatory lending class action settlement against Santander Consumer USA where Santander agreed to relieve loans and help repair the people credit affected by there actions. According to the agreement, my debt is to be forgiven and the account status updated to positive or the account removed from my credit profile. Because of what they agreed to in the settlement, this has now become a violation and need to be corrected within days of receipt of this complaint.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 77407
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXXhas decreased my credit score 52 points in 2 months. The XXXX score update was decreased 26 points after simply settling an old charge-off account. The score update on XX/XX/2021 has also decreased 26 points after XXXX recently completed a dispute investigation I filed a months ago. The account in question is Chrysler Capital for an auto loan. XXXX credit report states that the reason for the decrease was a RECENT late payment. I have not had a late payment reported in nearly 4/5 years. It is very concerning that XXXX can continue to post inaccurate information on my credit report, and nothing is done to make them stop, or at least correct the issue. There is no justifiable reason that Paying and settling an account should result in the 52 point decrease in my credit score. Consequently, I am more concerned with the inaccurate information they are reporting. I simply do not have any recent late or derogatory accounts. XXXX will not let me dispute this error because they just updated the information incorrectly.
Company Response:
State: GA
Zip: 30248
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Subissue: Problem with fees charged
Consumer Complaint: They closed the account and saying I still owe when on the back of the contract it states my obligations were secured with a security interest.
Company Response:
State: MO
Zip: 63033
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2021-07-01
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Information belongs to someone else
Consumer Complaint: I've been disputing fraud accounts on my credit report since XX/XX/2020. I keep sending multiple sets of letters to the bureaus and the creditors so the excuse of " we didn't get it '' doesn't happen. Furthermore, each letter is certified mail with tracking and each letter shows signed and delivered and yet the bureaus are still not taking any actions. The accounts are not showing in dispute nor are they removed from my report. The accounts always show up with different name variations and different account number variations and yet the bureaus seem to ignore the trend and let these fraud accounts affect my credit score. I have requested the investigation to be initiated and also verifiable proof to be submitted should the account claim to be mine. Not only have I not received any mail showing the verifiable proofs needed to justify the accounts to be on my report, I haven't even received any letters at all stating the investigations have begun. Per the FCRA and federal law, the process is supposed to be 30 days. 200 days later, I'm still here shelling out money for certified mail with no end in sight and no results to show. This is my last option before I take this up with my lawyers and sue for full compensations and damages incurred. Finally, it seems that when these complaints are submitted, the bureaus are using the excuse that they " can't confirm my identity '' to get away with taking no actions on my credit report. Please investigate this as well.
Company Response:
State: OH
Zip: 43219
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2021-07-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A