Product: Vehicle loan or lease

CFPB Complaint Against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services ( MBFS ) Subject : Unfair Lease Denial Due to Assumptions About Credit Report Updates Complaint Details : On XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a Mercedes-Benz lease at Mercedes-Benz XXXX XXXX through Mercedes-Benz Financial Services ( MBFS ) . My application was denied due to alleged charge-offs, an inaccurate XXXX late payment from XXXX, and other negative itemssome of which were the result of identity theft. I was informed that I would receive a denial letter listing the reasons. 

After reviewing the letter, I filed disputes with CFPB, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to correct the inaccurate information. Additionally, I submitted an identity theft report as part of my disputes. As a result : XXXX XXXX removed the charge-offs. 
XXXX removed me as an authorized user from a credit card I was unaware of XXXX had previously admitted to an error regarding a 30-day late payment from XX/XX/XXXX and had already agreed to remove it. 

Once these inaccuracies were resolved, my credit profile improved. 



Second Lease Application Approval & Sudden Denial : On XX/XX/XXXX, with a cleaner credit profile, I reapplied for a lease at the same dealership. At the time of application : My credit score was still in the XXXX. 
MBFS approved me, and I worked with my salesperson to finalize the deal. 
I was scheduled come in to sign the paperwork on XX/XX/XXXX. 

On the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I checked my credit report and saw that my final negative item had been removed, increasing my credit score to the XXXX. I was thrilled and reached out to my salesperson to see if my lease terms would improve based on my new credit score. 

Instead of simply updating my financing terms, MBFS reran my credit and escalated my application to their risk department. 

I was later informed that my lease application was flagged and denied because : Days prior, my score was XXXX, but on XX/XX/XXXX, it was in the XXXX. 
The risk department assumed my profile had been scrubbed or manipulated because of the sudden improvement in my score. 

This assumption was made without any direct communication with me, nor was I given the opportunity to provide documentation proving that my credit corrections were legitimate. 

Despite my efforts to speak with the finance manager and offer explanations and proof of my dispute resolutions, I was told that : He was busy with other things and even if he did sit down to speak with me, MBFS had already made a final decision and would not reconsider. 


Consumer Protection Concerns I believe MBFS engaged in unfair and discriminatory lending practices for the following reasons : 1. MBFS made an unfair assumption about my credit profile without evidence. 
The fact that my credit score improved due to valid CFPB dispute resolutions should not have been grounds for rejection. 
There was no evidence of credit fraud or manipulation on my part. 
2. MBFS failed to allow me to provide supporting documentation before denying my application. 
Rather than assuming my credit profile was altered improperly, they should have reached out for clarification and supporting documents before making a final decision. 
3. The denial decision was inconsistent with their initial approval process.

MBFS approved me when my score was XXXX, but denied me when my score improved. This is not standard lending practice and suggests bias in their decision-making. 
4. MBFS failed to provide a fair reconsideration process.

The finance manager refused to escalate my case, despite my proactive attempts to clarify the situation. 
MBFS made a final decision without allowing due process.

Violations of Consumer Protection Laws : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 ] : MBFS failed to conduct a fair evaluation of my credit report, instead making assumptions about the validity of the credit improvements. 
The abrupt denial without verifying the legitimacy of my dispute resolutions violates my right to a fair credit evaluation. 
Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) [ 15 U.S.C. 1691 ] : MBFSs assumptions about my credit profile led to unfair treatment, creating barriers to access financing based on an unsubstantiated belief that my profile had been altered improperly. 
I was denied equal consideration compared to other applicants who may have had gradual credit improvements.

Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices ( UDAAP ) [ 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ] : MBFS approved my lease at a lower score but denied me after my score improved without providing a transparent or justified reason. 
The lack of transparency, due process, and reconsideration process constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice.