Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan

Relationship start date : XX/XX/XXXX Installment loan sold : {$30000.00} borrowed Payments to lender as of XX/XX/XXXX : {$47000.00} Contractual monthly payment amount on statement has been paid through XX/XX/XXXX. Statement payment due amount has never aligned with website account detail or payment demands from the lender. It has always been unclear what obligation is. 

Communication ( statements ) are misleading and at times inaccurate. The business tactics can be abusive. For example, the lender sent someone to the borrower 's home XX/XX/XXXX, the reason for the home invasion is unclear.. 

Remaining balance reported by the lender at this time is {$2500.00} lump sum amount Interest/Fees over the life of the loan 40 % ( 15 % interest disclosed at loan origination ) No explanation has been provided for the 40 % interest and fees. 
Fee amounts and allocations inconsistent over the life of the loan and feel deceptive No explanation has been provided for the lump sum amount requested on XX/XX/XXXX. I have exhausted all resources within OneMain Financial last escalation to Executive team resulted in the home invasion associated with the escalation and the lender executive team member was unresponsive to email from the borrower after the home invasion. 

Additional Background ( loan initiation ) From the beginning, the relationship got off to a bad start and before the borrower knew it they were trapped. The borrower did not receive a copy of the loan documents to review until three years after the loan origination. The borrower was dependent on the website and statements, which were different. The account details ( and payment demands ) on the website did not match the statements. The statements changed without notice and details therein were misaligned and, in some cases, inaccurate. The business tactics were forceful and deceptive for no reason ( within the first 3 months ). 

Request for information went unanswered, the borrower was directed to call a designated branch who told them to call back ( allow time for research or processing ). The emails the borrower sent to the branch went unanswered. The borrower was directed to call or received no response. Every escalation outside of the branch was rerouted back to the branch. 

The borrower would never have signed a contract for the interest coupled with the multi-tiered fee structure OneMain Financial implemented. The layered fee structure the lender implemented that was not disclosed and the reporting and allocations were unclear and inconsistent over the life of the loan. The lender represented themselves as a bank providing a typical installment loan ; however, the business model and practices have been unimaginable. For example : o The payment amount requested has been greater than what was contractually required ( based on the statement ) with no explanation. 
o The statements changed without notice. 
o The borrowers ability to understand and manage the account was blocked and changed without notice, including : 1 ) the lender would not share loan documents ; loan documents published on the website more than three years after loan origination ; 2 ) the lender would not update the payment due date, which greatly impacted the borrower ; 3 ) the lender submitted payments that were not authorized and held borrow accountable for any NSF fees ; 4 ) the lender removed borrowers ability to cancel or schedule payments without notice or any reasonable cause ; 5 ) website features for viewing account details changed without notice ; 6 ) the lender did not provide notifications or disclosures ; changes were made and communicated directly in statements on the date they were implemented. Some changes made were not disclosed at all ( the borrower must reconcile on their own changes the lender made ) ; 7 ) there were no escalation channels, as issues surfaced from unanswered questions there was no where to go. 

In the borrower 's final escalation attempt XX/XX/XXXX ( because the account was 45 days delinquent due to misinformation and lender being unresponsive ), OneMain Financial sent someone to the borrowers home shortly after that escalation to repossess collateral ( XXXX XXXX XXXX vehicle ). The borrower received a repossession notice dated for the same day as the home invasion from the individual responding to the escalation ( XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not respond to a follow up email from me after sending the letter or anytime thereafter. At the time of the home invasion {$44000.00} ( which includes 30 % interest and fees ) had been paid against the borrowed amount ( {$30000.00} ) and no notification of default or repossession had been made until that day associated with the escalation. OneMain Financial entered the borrowers home by opening the garage and opening the vehicle but did not take the vehicle ( there was a hook added that the borrower had to remove following these events ). The action by OneMain Financial felt like an act completed to intimidate, ultimately meant to terrorize borrower and the family at the end of life for the loan ( to cause further harm to continue pain and suffering already experienced at the hands of OneMain Financial ). There was no loan security risk or interest that would warrant that home invasion outside of a personal attack based on OneMain Financial actions XXXX. 

Since no good faith effort has worked within OneMain Financial the borrower is submitting a complaint to the CFPB for guidance on how best to handle this situation, specifically to research events XXXX and determine next steps. 

Exhibits and references to corroborate this complaint have been archived.