Consumer complaint received 2022-09-20
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: FL
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease
Sub-issue: Fraudulent loan

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX originated a financial loan product and auto loan contract on my behalf with Wells Fargo Dealer Services. The company misrepresented the actual condition of the vehicle to me and to the lender at the time of sale. In the presence of a witness, I specifically asked if the vehicle I was purchasing had frame damage and was told it did not. The XXXX wasnt presented to me until after they ran my credit through their system. Once the loan terms, payment, interest rate were negotiated, they then disclosed the vehicle was in a prior accident on the XXXX The XXXX stated structural damage reported. When questioned, the sales manager and salesperson both told me that I did not have to worry as the vehicle was in a minor accident and they can sometimes report structural damage as something as minor as replacing a side panel or bumper or tailgate even. I was then asked to sign this XXXX XXXX not a legal document ) attesting to the fact that I understood this vehicles history and condition. This later was found to be untrue, on XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX did an appraisal of the vehicle and offered me significantly less for it citing frame damage. Once this was known, I immediately notified the dealership. I spent weeks trying to resolve this with them. They called me and offered to buy the car back for what you paid for it {$29000.00} in the presence of two witnesses with no stipulation that I would have to trade it in on one of their cars so they could play the whole use profit on the new car to inflate the trade-in value of my car. After going to the dealer and finding a large number of vehicles that also had structural damage I did not feel comfortable with their selection and the manager advised that there was no pressure and they would still buy the car back for {$29000.00} no trade required. Where this becomes a major problem, is A ) fraud in the inducement, B ) unfair and abusive or deceptive acts C ) Fraudulent misrepresentation. These three points validated by two attorney opinion letters I had sent them. They refused to honor tue {$29000.00} when I returned, offered me {$27000.00} 14 days or less later and citied market condition changed. They tried to repeatedly bait and switch me. They also refused to honor my warranty claim that was made on an aftermarket warranty product they sold me on XXXX that I originally brought tue car in for on XXXX. This was in retaliation to me now calling them out on their lies and as a result I had to personally cancel my warranty which took another 7 months! They only back-dated the refund to XXXX which cost me {$500.00} in premium collected on the contract from XXXX due to them never filing my claim with the warranty company out of retaliation. The auto loan made with Wells Fargo at the time of sale was made under false pretenses. In order for me to qualify for the loan, they misrepresented the book value and condition of the car to Wells Fargo who then approved the loan and also allowed for enough of a loan to value ratio to also sell me the warranty. An experian auto checker vin search shows that this dealership had knowledge of the frame damage because the report shows the frame was announced at auction and therefore the dealer knew or shouldve knew the facts of the vehicle and when asked shouldve honestly disclosed them to me and Wells Fargo. Unfortunately the state of Florida has done nothing to this point and ultimately refuses to hold businesses accountable for fraud and has very little consumer protection. They bow down to business in Florida while the tax paying US citizen suffers. It is ridiculous. I have been trying to get XXXX involved for 7 months now almost and they act like this is no big deal. You have a dealership, misrepresenting vehicles to lenders to make loans that affect consumers credit scores, they commission off of, banks profit off of and some people get repossessed out of which is wrong

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation