Consumer complaint received 03/21/2018 about Vehicle loan or lease (Loan) with CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION (CA).
Issue: Getting a loan or lease
Sub-issue: Fraudulent loan

Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for an auto loan through the car dealership where I purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX. The dealership, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, located in XXXX California, is a privately owned dealership and the salesman, XXXX XXXX misled both myself and my co-signer who is my ex-husband, stated that the vehicle was priced at {$6900.00}. After the salesman ran my credit and attempted to obtain a loan through their bank, I was informed that my application wasn't accepted. I was then informed that he would attempt to obtain financing " in-house '', and that in addition to increasing my down payment from the initial {$1500.00} that I had brought with me in cash, that I would need a co-signer. I agreed to increase my down payment by {$1000.00} and asked my ex-husband to co-sign for me. The salesman also instructed both myself and my co-signer that we were to tell the finance company and that the paperwork ( i.e. ; loan application and subsequent documentation was to show that the vehicle is being stored at an address where I no longer resided. My ex-husband and I do no live together and the salesman was made aware of this, however he still insisted that for the sake of the loan being approved, that the paperwork was to reflect that the vehicle was being stored at an address that I did not reside at. Upon receiving approval for financing, and after the paperwork had been started for the completion of the sale, the salesman insisted that if I didn't purchase the almost {$1500.00} 1-year warranty from a third-party, that I would have to pay an additional {$500.00} before being able to drive the car off of their lot. Both the salesman, and the owner of the dealership, a man by the name of XXXX, assisted myself and my co-signer in getting all of the required signatures to complete the transaction. I was informed by the owner that the vehicle that I was purchasing was a good vehicle that ran very well., and that in the event that I had any problems with the car, that I was to contact the dealership first to see if the problem could be resolved. My first payment was exactly 30 days from my purchase date. Exactly 2 weeks after purchasing I had been on my way to work when I began having problems with the car. I contacted the dealership immediately and was informed by someone named XXXX that the mechanic wasn't working on the weekends and that I would have to talk to the owner the following Monday. I received a call from the owner the following business day and explained to him what had been happening. I informed him that I could not put the car into gear and that it had broken down at a nearby business and that I would like to have it towed to his dealership to be looked at, which was exactly 11 miles from where the car had been parked. The owner then informed me that it was my problem that I had to figure out a way to get the car towed to his dealership on my own and that he didn't have a tow truck that could retrieve the vehicle. I then mentioned to the dealer that it had been less than 2 weeks since I purchased the " lemon '' at which time he began shouting at me over the phone saying that he didn't have to help me and that the car was fine when I drove it off the lot and then proceeded to insinuate that it was my fault that the clutch wasn't working. I also mentioned that I was charged for Emissions Testing in the amount of {$50.00} and that California law requires that the seller of the vehicle pay for any Smog fees before selling a vehicle. I have yet to receive license plates and a registration card for the vehicle, even though the salesman said that the registration process would be taken care of by the dealership. Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have been unable to go to work and make money necessary to make my car payment. I have lost out on income making opportunities as well.

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