Consumer complaint received 2025-12-27 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan — 
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
Service Finance Company Payoff Issue We had an 18-month interest-free loan with Service Finance Company , LLC . We made the required regular monthly payments of {$450.00} for 17 months through our credit union 's bill pay system. All payments were sent electronically to Service Finance Company , LLC, not as checks. 

On XX/XX/year>, knowing the XXXX payment would pay off the loan or trigger a finance charge, we called Service Finance to request the payoff amount which was {$8100.00}, due XX/XX/year>. We updated the payment amount in our credit union 's bill pay system accordingly. 

On XX/XX/year>, the credit union sent the {$8100.00} payoff as a paper check instead of electronically. We were unaware of this change and had no reason to expect it after 17 prior electronic payments. Eight days seemed sufficient for mail delivery. 

On XX/XX/year> ( the due date ), the payment did not show as posted. We called Service Finance ; the representative advised waiting until Monday or Tuesday due to the XXXX holiday and assured us the company could waive any interest for such delays. No option was offered to pay immediately over the phone. We followed their advice and waited. 

On XX/XX/year>, the payment still did not show. We called again and were initially told interest could not be waived. After being placed on hold, we were informed it could be waived if we paid the full {$8100.00} over the phone immediately. We authorized an electronic payment for that amount and were told the loan would show as paid in full later that day ( which it did ). Believing the electronic payment had resolved the payoff, we placed a stop payment on the mailed check. 

On XX/XX/year>, we discovered the electronic draw was only {$5300.00}. The Service Finance portal also showed the mailed check had been recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX to what we were told on XX/XX/XXXX. We called Service Finance, explained the error, and arranged a refund of the {$5300.00} ( since the check was now in process ). We were told the refund would take 30 days. We then contacted our credit union to remove the stop payment, but learned the check had already been presented and returned due to the stop order. 

That same day ( XX/XX/year> ), we called Service Finance again at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and spoke with representative " XXXX. '' We requested permission to record the call, recounted the full situation, and asked to pay the remaining balance of {$2800.00}. XXXX promised to research the account thoroughly and call us back the next day after her shift began at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. No one called back. 

We had to wait several days for Service Finance to reverse the returned check, during which their system prevented additional payments. On XX/XX/year>, we were finally able to pay the remaining {$2800.00} electronically. 

On XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, we received identical letters from Service Finance, both dated XX/XX/year>, informing us that our payoff check had been returned as stopped.

The online payment history now shows inconsistencies in recorded amounts, but one screen indicates a {$0.00} principal balance. Another screen shows a principal balance of {$5400.00}, suggesting they are still attempting to charge the interest previously promised to be waived. 

On XX/XX/year>, we called again, explained the entire situation, and stated we would file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) if not resolved during the call. We requested waiver of the interest due to Service Finance 's delays in processing payments and reversing the stopped check ( which we stopped only after authorizing full electronic payment ). The representative claimed to have forwarded the request to another department but stated she could not give us a timeline for resolution. There were no pauses to take notes, making the response seem rushed and insincere. 

The repeated delays appear intentional to ensure the interest was ultimately charged, despite assurances on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that it could be waived due to holiday-related processing issues ( XXXX on XX/XX/year> ). 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Note : Due to file size limits, we split a recording of a phone call into two parts with a little bit of overlap just prior to a long pause while we were waiting for the representative.

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 non-monetary relief