Product: Vehicle loan or lease

The Vehicle Purchase and Loan : On XX/XX/XXXX, the user purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX and signed a XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX. In the contract, XXXX XXXX XXXX is listed as the creditor, and all payments were supposed to be made directly to them. 

Initial Discrepancies and Misrepresentation by LendSmart : About two weeks after the purchase, I was contacted by LendSmart, which claimed to be the new creditor of the loan. LendSmart quoted a loan amount that conflicted with what was stated in the original Retail Installment Contract, raising concerns about the accuracy of their claims. 
Upon follow-up with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the user confirmed that XXXX still held the contract and had not assigned it to LendSmart at the time of the conversation. 

Failure to Provide Assignment Documentation and Threats : When LendSmart was informed about the users concerns, the company failed to provide documentation of the assignment ( proof that they had legally acquired the loan from XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
Instead of addressing my concerns, LendSmart made aggressive threats of repossession, pressuring me to make payments even though no legal assignment documentation had been provided. 

Ongoing Disputes and Repossession : The user formally disputed the account with LendSmart and stopped making payments, as the debt validation had not been provided. Despite this, on XX/XX/XXXX, the users vehicle was wrongfully repossessed by XXXX XXXX a company that was unknown to the user. 
Even though I provided evidence that the loan was in good standing and no payment was overdue, the repossession proceeded, with the user being charged a fee of over {$300.00}. 

Sale of the Vehicle Without Notice or Arbitration : Following the repossession, the vehicle was sold without proper notice or any attempt by LendSmart to adhere to the arbitration provisions in the original contract. I sent formal demands via certified mail and continued to communicate with LendSmart, but the vehicle was still sold without granting the user any legal recourse to resolve the dispute through arbitration or redeem the vehicle. 

Legal and Consumer Protection Violations : Based on the facts presented, LendSmart is accused of violating several consumer protection laws, including : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : For false claims of being the creditor, threats of repossession without validation of the debt, and failure to cease phone communication after requests were made to handle everything in writing. 
Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) : For failing to provide accurate loan terms and misrepresenting the amount owed in conflict with the original contract.

Contract Law Violations : For failing to provide documentation proving assignment of the contract and breaching the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by repossessing the vehicle without validation of their legal rights. 

Formal Intent to Sue and Demands : In response to these violations, i have drafted a formal letter to notify LendSmart, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) of their intent to pursue legal action.

The letter outlines the legal violations, demands financial compensation for the wrongful repossession and sale of the vehicle, requests debt validation, and seeks compensation for emotional distress and financial damages caused by LendSmart 's actions.

Key Issues in Summary : Discrepancies in loan amount : LendSmarts claims conflicted with the original contract terms.

Failure to provide documentation : LendSmart did not provide proof of assignment of the loan.

Threats of repossession : LendSmart used threats to force payment without validation of their legal authority. 
Wrongful repossession : The vehicle was repossessed despite the account being in good standing, and the sale occurred without my knowledge or consent. 
Violations of consumer protection laws : Multiple breaches of federal laws, including the FDCPA and TILA, are alleged. 

I have made complaints and sent correspondence to all relevant agencies that deal with financial services. FTC, Attorney General, and the CFPB as well as the better business bureau