Consumer complaint received 2023-12-24
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP (NY)

on XX/XX/XXXX American Honda Financial, Stole My property a XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
after sending payments More than once, i Have not received any conformation of any sort from XXXX. they have accepted the 1099 filed and still chose to repossession which is against the law. in my previous complaints to and about AHFC they have still failed to honor instruments that were sent over and over.they are threating to sell the vehicle by the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX when the lease contract is up in XXXX of XXXX, I have been patient yet AHFC has not been cooperating properly. 

in XXXX the Justice Department Obtains Over {$1.00} Million from American Honda Finance Corporation to Compensate Service members Whose Federal Rights Were Violated, The Department of Justice announced today that American Honda Finance Corporation ( AHFC ) has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) by failing to refund a type of up-front lease payment to servicemembers who lawfully terminated their motor vehicle leases early. Under the settlement agreement, AHFC must pay up to {>= $1,000,000} in compensation to 714 servicemembers who were harmed by the alleged violations '' .I have filed for court proceedings. Honda Finance Settles Discrimination Investigation American Honda Finance Corporation will pay {$24.00} million in compensation and change the way it does business to settle a discrimination case brought by the Justice Department and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The two federal agencies teamed up to investigate complaints about American Honda Finance Corporations unsavory lending practices. Borrowers alleged that Honda Finance was engaged in a pattern of discrimination in its lending practices. Specifically the joint investigation looked at a system of subjective and unsupervised discretion in loan pricing that resulted in XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX borrowers paying higher interest than other loan customers. This was not an isolated instance of a rogue employee doing the wrong thing. The practice was widespread, affecting thousands of minority customers. The DOJ and CFPB coordinated investigation revealed that, on average, XXXX Americans were made to pay more than {$250.00} more than XXXX over the course of the loan ; Hispanics {$200.00} more on average ; and XXXX XXXX {$150.00} more on average. All, because of their race or national origin, not because of their credit-worthiness. 

The crux of the problem was that Honda Finance, like other captive auto lenders, allowed car dealers wide discretion to vary the interest rate beyond that which could be justified by objective factors of credit-worthiness. Often the car buyer will ask the finance manager something like, Whats the best rate you can get me? Or, What do I qualify for? The finance manager comes back with a number that is higher than that initially set by the bank, but the borrower has no idea that is not the lowest rate based on credit-related factors. They have no idea the rate offered is based on race-based prejudice rather than market-based factors. Honda Finance encouraged this behavior with its incentive system that paid the dealers more for loans that included a higher interest markup. One might say that Honda Finance incentivized deceptive or discriminatory conduct.

As a result of the settlement, Honda will limit the dealers discretion to charge interest rate markups and change the way it pays the dealers to place its loans. Justice Department Civil Rights Division leader XXXX XXXX explained, We believe that Hondas new compensation system balances fair compensation for dealers and fair lending for consumers. We hope that Hondas leadership will spur the rest of the industry to constrain dealer markup in address discriminatory pricing. 

It is not hard to read between the lines. XXXX clearly implies that Honda Finance is not alone. Other dealers and lenders also conspire to offer minorities less favorable terms than they offer to XXXX. Interest should be a function of the cost of credit, related to the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Whether a borrower has light or dark skin or comes from XXXX, XXXX or Tennessee should be irrelevant to the rate of interest he or she pays. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and other consumer protection laws prohibit discriminatory pricing.

The landmark settlement was filed this week in the Central District of California. The terms must now be approved by the court..

from these reports AHFC still operates in discrimination, fraud, identity theft, harassment and a bunch of other malicious acts.