Consumer complaint received 2023-01-22
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: GA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account information incorrect

Complaint:
On the date of XX/XX/2020, I signed a consumer credit contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase a vehicle. XXXX XXXX was the assignee of the contract and was who immediately became " indebted '' to after signing. In my ignorance at the time, I thought that by signing the document, I was receiving a loan to purchase the vehicle, which is supposed to be " collateral '' for the auto loan. A " purchase money loan '' is defined in 16 CFR 433.1 ( d ) as : " A cash advance which is received by a consumer in return for a Finance Charge within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, which is applied, in whole or substantial part, to a purchase of goods or services from a seller who ( XXXX ) refers consumers to the creditor or ( XXXX ) is affiliated with the creditor by common control, contract, or business arrangement. '' Upon reviewing my contract, I certainly receiving a Finance Charge, but I never receiving a cash advance ( loan ) from anyone from anyone, nor does the contract make reference to anything that I was given for valuable consideration in return for my agreement to pay the assignee, XXXX XXXX, monthly payments. It appears I've been tricked. Under ordinary contract law, consideration must be given by both parties. The seller, nor the assignee gave me anything. The vehicle is not consideration. It is merely collateral. 

I was harassed by the seller to pay a downpayment before I could be approved. The price of the downpayment jumped around until I finally agreed. This is a problem because according to 15 USC 1662, a creditor can not advertise a down payment in an amount that they don't usually and customarily arrange for. 

Aside from the price of the vehicle, I was not given the terms of my payment arrangement and cost until after I committed to purchasing the product. Also, as a result, my credit was run by an unknown amount of potential " finance companies '' who now have access to my social security account, aka my credit card ( see 15 USC 1602 ( l ) ). And by that time I had received, not only several Inquiries which dropped my score, but also a rediculously high interest rate offer of 20.89 %. According to the CFPB ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) this is an unfair and deceptive act because this not only caused injury to me in several ways, but there was no way for me to avoid this injury without committing. The key question is not whether I could have made a better choice, but whether an act or practice hindered my decision-making. 

The contract offer fails to contain the required " holder in due course '' notice set forth by 16 CFR 433.2. The contract does contain the contents of the notice but it does not appear on its own and without qualification. Please see the following note from the FDIC : " For those consumer credit contracts in which the Rule requires insertion of this specific contract provision, or Notice, the Notice will become a part of the agreement between the consumer and the creditor. The required Notice will be treated in the same manner as other written terms and conditions contained in the agreement. For this reason, >>>where use of the Notice is required the Notice must appear without qualification<<<. The requirement that a contract " contain '' the Notice is not satisfied if the text of the Notice is printed in the contract in conjunction with additional recitals which limit or restrict its application. Where the text of the Notice is qualified by additional language, the contract fails to " contain '' the required Notice. '' This means that taking this contract was deceptive and unlawful. 

Lastly, the " finance charge '' is the " cost '' of the credit, which is also described in 15 USC 1605 as " the sum of all charges ''. If I never received a loan, then why am I being required to pay the " amount financed '' AND the finance charge. And why was I required to purchase insurance as a stipulation for me taking the vehicle instead of the insurance being included in the finance charge as XXXX instructs. Again... it appears I've been tricked, hoodwinked, and bambooozled. 

In addition to tricking me into signing a promise to be a financial slave, XXXX XXXX reported my one-sided promise to pay to my consumer reports ( All XXXX ), and then began to furnish negative information about me when it was convenient for them. When I sent them a cease and desist ( XXXX XXXX # : XXXX, delivered XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ) in accordance with 15 USC 1692c ( c ), instructing them to not communicate with me any more about the debt except by mail they persisted. The problem with this is that 15 USC 1692a ( 2 ) defines " communication '' as " the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. ". Communication through a consumer report is still " communication '' about a debt. This is a blatant violation of the FDCPA. When I called them about the entries, they refused to remove it. Till this day, their entries still remain. 

I'll leave with this. It is a fact, that if I, a regular person, convinced or recruited someone to pay me money through an elaborate scheme involving a contract that was unfair, and a fake loan, and then ruined their reputation when it was convenient to me, someone from law enforcement might be looking for me.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation