Consumer complaint received 2026-02-19 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, Exeter XXXX responded to my CFPB complaint stating : On XX/XX/year>, you spoke with a Customer Service XXXX regarding Extension Agreements. During that conversation, the XXXX provided inaccurate information by advising that Exeter had signed Extension Agreements on file. In the state of Florida, a customer signature is not required to approve and process a payment extension. No call occurred on XX/XX/year>. My XXXX call logs reflect no incoming or outgoing calls with Exeter on that date. A call did occur on XX/XX/year>. That call progressed through a structured escalation beginning with XXXX XXXX Customer Service Representative ), escalating to XXXX ( Supervisor ), and then to XXXX in management within the Office of the President. During the XX/XX/XXXX call, I was informed that my original loan term was XXXX months and that it is currently reflected as XXXX months due to XXXX extensions. I asked whether a form needed to be signed for the extensions, and the supervisor stated that a form needed to be signed. I then asked whether both borrowers were required to sign, and the supervisor confirmed that both borrowers needed to sign. When I requested copies of signed extension agreements, I was informed that Exeter was not able to provide signed documents. At no point during that call was I advised that Exeter had signed Extension Agreements on file. When the matter escalated to XXXX within the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, she declined to provide substantive clarification and instead scheduled a callback with XXXX, the analyst assigned to my case, indicating that XXXX had detailed knowledge of the account. On XX/XX/year>, I spoke with XXXX from the XXXX of the XXXX. During that conversation, XXXX indicated that she had not yet reviewed the XX/XX/XXXX calls at the time we spoke. Accordingly, no call occurred on XX/XX/year>. The statements attributed to a XXXX in XXXX CFPB response do not reflect what was communicated to me on XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX call required escalation through XXXX levels, culminating in referral to a case analyst. The XX/XX/XXXX representative had not reviewed the XX/XX/XXXX calls at the time of speaking with me. Additionally, the XX/XX/XXXX discussion reflected that a signed form was required and that both borrowers needed to sign, which conflicts with XXXX written position that signatures are not required in Florida. Based on the above, XXXX CFPB response presents XXXX of the following possibilities : the call date was misidentified ; the content of the call was inaccurately characterized ; or the information provided to the CFPB does not accurately reflect the statements made during the XX/XX/year> escalation. In any of these scenarios, the regulatory record is not aligned with the actual sequence of events and communications. This complaint concerns the accuracy of XXXX regulatory representations and the consistency of its internal servicing record regarding alleged payment extensions.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation