Consumer complaint received 2019-01-21
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: MI
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan
Sub-issue: Denied request to lower payments

Complaint:
My name is XXXX XXXX and I am the " recent '' legal guardian of my " legally incapacitated '' brother as of XX/XX/XXXX. My brother has had 2  XXXX  within the past 6 months. One on XX/XX/XXXX and another on XX/XX/XXXX. He is only XXXX years old. 
Since his second XXXX, he has been unable to XXXX  or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
My sister and I decided to get guardianship on him in XX/XX/XXXX. All the while we've been trying to get him well through XXXX  XXXX and Private Care. 
He had a XXXX XXXX XXXX that we thought was paid for because we were unraveling his financial situation. He is a private guy. 

Well, in XX/XX/XXXX ... we received notification ( by luck ) that his vehicle was 118 days past due with GM Financial from a letter that was brought over to us from one of his friends. 

Needless to say, we immediately contacted GM Financial. When I say " we '' I mean my sister and I. We share Guardianship responsibilities for him. My sister contacted them and advised them of his situation, " hence his delinquent status ''. Prior to his " 2 '' XXXX. His pay history was fine. 

After my sister spoke with the collection representative. She called me and told me that we needed {$390.00} " immediately ''. I asked her if she had explained to them what's been going on with him. She said yes and that it didn't matter. 
They needed a payment NOW " or else ''. 

I didn't and couldn't believe that they would act in such a manner. So I called and spoke with the representative. At this point, there was a " clear '' break-down of communication and miscommunication. I advised the rep that we had just received this notice regarding the vehicle and that coming up with {$390.00} today or by the end of the week would be difficult considering the spontaneous request. However, I would be able to pay {$200.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and then the rest by the end of the month. 

The just of the conversation was that the account needed to be caught up by " 1 '' payment to prevent a repo and/or charge off. I asked several times, " so as long as the {$390.00} is paid by XX/XX/XXXX, the account would be fine? '' The representative said " yes '' every time. 

Because that was my understanding, I focused on making a payment by the end of the month instead of just the {$200.00}. So I called and left a voice message on the representatives phone that I would be making a full payment on XX/XX/XXXX. 
I left two voice messages on XX/XX/XXXX. One at XXXX XXXX   and another at XXXX XXXX attempting to advise them of my intent to pay {$390.00} in full on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Today, XX/XX/XXXX ... the vehicle was repossessed. We immediately contacted GM and I asked, " what was going on? '' The reply turned into an entirely different discussion from my phone call. The reply was, " I told you that if you didn't pay the {$200.00}, that I couldn't prevent them from taking the vehicle. '', " We scheduled the {$200.00} for the XX/XX/XXXX and when it wasn't made there's nothing we could do to prevent the repo. '' Because my line of questioning was focused on making sure a payment was made by XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$390.00}. That was where my focus was. Had the representative been clear in saying, " I'm not going to stop the repossession '' OR " They can come pick it up any day if you don't pay the {$200.00} NOW. '' Then I would have Robbed, Peter to Pay Paul ... ( so to speak ) -- -But because I emphasized and she agreed that was more important was to make sure that a payment was made by the end of the month. That's what our intentions were and that's what we planned to do. 

I asked had she received my " two '' voice messages. She said " NO '' ... she stated that she called me. However I do not have any call logs or incoming calls on my phone that shows that she called me to further discuss anything beyond the voice message that I left advising of the " full payment '' date of XX/XX/XXXX. 

What's troubling is that I understand their position. The account was behind and subject to repossession. I get it. I'm not defending that position. But having some empathy for a legally incapacitated person ... whose family is trying to correct his situation in a short notice should've had some consideration. He needs his car to go to and from his Dr. 's appointments. He is still XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Remember, all of this transpired within " 1 '' week of us receiving the notice of the delinquent status. We came up with the money to pay it up and he was finally approved for XXXX. Which would've eliminated this problem from continuing. All of this was explained to the representative during all of the conversations. My sister advised her several times as well about his condition. 

I made first contact on XX/XX/XXXX. The vehicle was taken on XXXX day- XX/XX/XXXX. 

How unfortunate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation