Consumer complaint received 2020-05-27
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Credit denial
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (FL)

On XX/XX/XXXX I went to XXXX to apply to refinance an auto loan from another bank. I have been a USAA member for 16 years. I currently have a mortgage, an unsecured {$35000.00} line of credit and other product with them. I also have a FICO score well over 800 with no reported history of late payment. Upon application I could not proceed as the loan was over {$50000.00}. USAA has provided loans to others in excess of {$50000.00}. I spoke to XXXX XXXX in Executive Resolutions who explained this is now the consumer loan limit. He further suggested I pay the difference in the refi to make it less than XXXX. This request was not the result of a credit check nor an appraisal of the XXXX of the vehicle. 
My understanding is a lender or dealer may not use any of the above grounds as a reason to : Refuse you an auto loan if you qualify for it Discourage you from applying for an auto loan Provide you an auto loan on terms that are different from the terms given to someone else who is similarly situated to you, such as having similar creditworthiness If you are denied an auto loan, you should receive information about why you were denied. This is called an " adverse action notice. '' This notice includes a statement of the specific reasons for the denial or a notice that you may request a statement of specific reasons within 60 days. 

USAA refused to even process my application USAA discouraged me from applying USAA refused to provide terms given to a similar situated person USAA refused a loan I am more than qualified for. Other institutions have committed to funding the same loan USAA would not provide a reason for denial nor adverse action notice based on policy. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX stated to OTS and OCC Agencies should avoid a " one size fits-all '' approach that puts borrows in one bucket. Using and properly enforcing the OTS or OCC standards allows for flexibilily based on the lender 's prudent  assessment of the borrower 's creditworthiness. 
Applying similar standard for QRM would allow for the ability in working with creditworthy borrowers first time homebuyers, small business owners, homeowners forced to sell quickly as a result of relocation-as well As for auto Loans. 

Application of QAL crilaia for purposes of exemption from the proposed risk retention requirements should be on a weighted average basis at the securitization pool level, not at the : individual loan level. Due to the relatively low average balances, short terms of auto loans, and the solid historical performance of auto loan securitization structures, the risks individual auto loans present to investors simply do not justify the proposed QAL requirements. In sum, the availability of the QRM and QAL exemption should be broader and more flexible thin the proposed definitions. 

XXXX XXXX, USAA Federal Savings Bank General Counsel,  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Vice President General Counsel This further shows by the banks own opinion ( Agencies ) should avoid a " one size fits-all '' approach that puts borrows in one bucket. And arbitrary limits or rules are unfavorable. Their policy and refusal to accept an application are contrary to their own opinions. Their behavior appears to be discriminatory and in contradiction to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.