Product: Vehicle loan or lease

On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract for an auto loan with Capital One Auto Finance through XXXX of XXXX XXXX. After reviewing the loan agreement, I identified multiple discrepancies and potential violations of federal and state consumer protection laws, including fraudulent misrepresentation, illegal interest charges, and improper lien enforcement. 

Key Issues Identified : 1. Failure to Provide Proof of Loan Ownership & Securitization Disclosure I formally requested a full chain of title and securitization records to verify that Capital One Auto Finance has the legal standing to collect payments. 
Capital One has refused to provide these documents, raising concerns that the loan may have been securitized and sold to investors, meaning Capital One has already been paid in full and no longer has a legal claim. 
Under Regulation AB ( G16 ), financial institutions must disclose securitization details, but Capital One has failed to do so. 

2. Unexplained & Improper Finance Charges My documented monthly payment ( {$510.00} ) does not match the recalculated payment ( {$770.00} ) based on the disclosed terms. 
I requested a detailed breakdown of how finance charges were calculated, including : APR application. 
Payment allocation ( principal vs. interest ). 
Interest accrual method ( daily, simple, or compound ). 
Capital One has failed to provide a full explanation of these discrepancies. 

3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Unjust Enrichment The contract falsely states that the security interest has been satisfied, yet Capital One continues to enforce it. 
If the loan was securitized and sold, Capital One may have already been paid and should not be collecting further payments. 
These actions may constitute fraud, unjust enrichment, and deceptive business practices under California Unfair Competition Law ( XXXX. & XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. ). 

4. Negative Credit Reporting Despite Dispute & Lack of Proof of Ownership Capital One has reported the account as Open, Charge-Off to credit bureaus without verifying its legal right to enforce the debt. 
I formally disputed the credit reporting based on Capital Ones failure to provide chain of title and proof of securitization, yet they refused to correct the record. 

5. Unfair Arbitration Clause & Consumer Rights Violations The loan agreement includes an arbitration clause that limits legal remedies and may violate California consumer protection laws. 
I requested confirmation that the clause complies with state laws, but Capital One has ignored this request. 



Actions Taken So Far : [ XX/XX/XXXX ] I sent a formal demand letter requesting proof of ownership, finance charge breakdowns, and corrective action for these violations. 
[ XX/XX/XXXX ] Capital One claimed they had not received my correspondence in their CFPB response. However, I have USPS-certified delivery confirmations proving they received it. 
[ XX/XX/XXXX ] I resubmitted my demands with supporting documentation, but Capital One continued to provide evasive responses without addressing the core legal issues. 



Despite multiple attempts to resolve this issue, Capital One Auto Finance has failed to provide transparency, misrepresented key facts, and continues to enforce a loan without proving legal ownership. I request regulatory intervention to ensure compliance with TILA, UCC, Regulation AB, and California consumer protection laws. 

- XX/XX/XXXX correspondence, in which Capital One Auto Finance threatens legal action regarding my account ending in -5563. This letter raises serious concerns, as it appears to contradict the arbitration clause included in my loan agreement. 

If Capital One is pursuing court action despite the arbitration clause, this may constitute a waiver of its right to enforce arbitration. Furthermore, this selective enforcement of contract terms could be considered an unfair and deceptive business practice under federal and state consumer protection laws. 



Contradiction in Arbitration Clause & Legal Threats Capital One Auto Finances XX/XX/XXXX letter explicitly states that my account will be referred to a law firm to begin legal proceedings in court. This directly contradicts the arbitration clause, which I was required to sign as a condition of my loan agreement. 

If Capital One intends to proceed with legal action in court, then it must also waive my arbitration requirement and allow me to bring my claims against Capital One in court as well. 

This contradiction raises the following legal concerns : Selective enforcement of contract terms may constitute an unfair and deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and Californias Unfair Competition Law ( Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. ). 
Pursuing litigation while restricting my ability to sue Capital One violates the fundamental fairness principles of the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ). 
By threatening legal action while simultaneously preventing me from pursuing legal recourse, Capital One may be in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ) and Californias Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. ). 



Demand for Immediate Clarification & Action Given the clear contradiction in Capital Ones position, I demand immediate clarification on the following : A written confirmation stating whether Capital One Auto Finance intends to enforce the arbitration clause or waive it by proceeding with legal action. 
If Capital One chooses to pursue litigation in court, an explicit written waiver of arbitration for all claims related to this dispute. 
If arbitration is to be enforced, a confirmation that Capital One will cease all legal threats and withdraw any court proceedings against me. 
A formal explanation for this discrepancy and how Capital One intends to rectify the contradiction in its enforcement of contract terms. 



Final Notice & Escalation Warning If Capital One fails to respond with a clear position within this complaint, I will escalate this matter by filing formal complaints with : Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Additionally, if Capital One refuses to waive arbitration while simultaneously threatening litigation, I will explore legal action for deceptive business practices and unfair contract enforcement. 

Failure to clarify your position will be treated as an acknowledgment of Capital One Auto Finances unfair and misleading practices.