Product: Vehicle loan or lease

To Whom It May Concern : I am writing in response to your recent letter to my previous complaint. I strongly disagree with your findings and conclusions, and I intend to refute the assertions made by Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC ( Flagship ) using clear legal precedent, factual discrepancies, and contractual obligations. Your response contains misleading claims, mischaracterizes key facts, and conveniently overlooks essential legal protections afforded to consumers. 

**1. Predatory Lending Practices** Your response dismisses the notion of predatory lending based solely on Flagships internal risk assessment model. However, the Federal Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and state-level consumer protection laws prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive loan practices. An APR of 22.54 % combined with excessively high monthly payments suggests a loan structure designed to trap consumers in a cycle of debt rather than a loan reflective of " market rates. '' The fact that I have been making payments consistently yet still owes nearly the original principal amount is a hallmark of predatory lending marked by unfair interest rates, hidden fees, and extended loan periods. Case law, including *In re Lafferty , 444 F.3d 775 ( 6th Cir. 2006 ) *, establishes that excessive interest rates and unfair terms can constitute a predatory loan in violation of both federal and state lending statutes.

**2. Misrepresentation of Payment Information and Due Date Changes** Your assertion that Flagship has provided adequate notice of payment due dates and failed to accommodate my requests for modification fails to address the contractual and statutory obligations Flagship owes to its consumers. Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), creditors are required to fairly evaluate consumer requests for modifications. Despite my attempts to change his due date, Flagship unjustly denied his request, and your letters account suggests a pattern of bureaucratic obstacles intentionally designed to prevent reasonable accommodation. Moreover, per TILA requirements, all material terms must be clearly and accurately disclosed. Flagships failure to properly communicate payment allocation and provide effective support to change due dates directly violates these statutory obligations.

**3. Late Fees and Deceptive Practices** Your admission of imposing recurring late fees on me demonstrates a violation of both the TILA and state usury laws. It is well-established in federal and state courts that late fees can not be excessive, arbitrary, or designed to maximize profit through consumer hardship. For example, in *Vargas v. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A., 2014 WL 1711542 ( C.D. Cal. 2014 ) *, it was held that disproportionate late fees and deceptive calculation methods constitute violations of consumer protection laws. Flagships practices of imposing unreasonable fees without taking into account my request for a due date change clearly qualify as such unfair practices. Your response 's suggestion that late fees are a natural result of his payment history is a blatant misrepresentation and an attempt to evade responsibility for predatory fee structures.

**4. Misleading Representations of Loan Amortization** The explanation of the simple interest loan and the application of payments towards interest vs. principal is both misleading and deceptive. The fact that my principal balance has barely decreased despite his consistent payments strongly indicates that Flagship 's allocation method is skewed to prioritize interest accumulation over reasonable debt repayment, thus entrapping him in a cycle of debt. This practice is not only unethical but has been deemed illegal in similar cases, such as *In re Ferrell , 539 B.R. 856 ( Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2015 ) *, where a creditors allocation of payments primarily toward interest rather than principal was found to be unconscionable and in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).

**5. Failure to Release Title and Obstructive Behavior** Flagship 's refusal to dismiss late fees and release the vehicle 's title upon reasonable request violates state lien laws and contractual good faith principles. I demand for the title release is valid, given the payments made. Flagships failure to accommodate this request contravenes established legal principles that prohibit the unjust retention of a consumer 's property as leverage for inflated fees. Courts have long held that a creditor 's retention of collateral, despite the consumers good faith efforts to fulfill contractual obligations, is a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ( *K.M.C. Co. v. Irving Trust Co., 757 F.2d 752 ( 6th Cir. 1985 ) * ).

**Conclusion and Demands** Flagships response grossly misrepresents its legal and contractual obligations while disregarding established consumer protection laws. The predatory nature of the loan, failure to properly allocate payments, unjust imposition of late fees, and refusal to accommodate reasonable requests for due date changes collectively constitute violations of federal and state law. Flagship must cease its deceptive practices immediately, dismiss all unwarranted late fees, and release the vehicle 's title to me. Failure to comply with these demands will leave us no option but to pursue all available legal remedies.

I expect an immediate response detailing the steps Flagship will take to rectify this situation. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX