Consumer complaint received 2025-06-26 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint due to the deeply troubling manner in which XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Truist handled my recent auto loan situation, resulting in the repossession of my vehicle on the evening of XX/XX/XXXX. 
While I understand that, under Florida law, a lender is not required to provide advance notice prior to repossession if a borrower is in default, my complaint is not about the legality of the repossession itself. Rather, it is about the inhumane, inconsistent, and unethical refusal to offer any form of assistance after the repossession despite my immediate attempt to resolve the matter in good faith and my proven willingness to pay. 

Upon learning that my vehicle had been repossessed, I contacted the bank right away and explained that I am experiencing an economic hardship due to recent health-related issues, which have resulted in a temporary reduction in my work hours. Out of respect for my privacy and rights under HIPAA, I did not disclose the specifics of my medical condition, nor should I be forced to in order to qualify for help. 

I made a clear and reasonable offer to pay {$500.00} immediately and another {$500.00} the following week, with continued weekly payments thereafter. I was told bluntly that it would not matter what I offered or what I was going through, they were not willing to extend any further accommodations. 

To make matters worse, I was told that because Ive had XXXX extensions over the course of the loan ( 9 times years to be exact ), no more would ever be allowed. However, another representative had previously advised me that extensions are only available once every XXXX months. My last documented extension was in XX/XX/XXXX, which means I should have been eligible again under that policy. 

This discrepancy shows a clear lack of internal consistency and transparency, and I feel I was given misleading or selectively applied information depending on who I spoke to. More importantly, I was treated with XXXX empathy or consideration for my circumstance. No one offered to escalate the matter or consider the context, that I am not refusing to pay, I am simply struggling momentarily and trying to prevent further financial damage. 

As the car sits in the tow yard, the storage and recovery fees are mounting, fees I can not afford because the bank refused to accept an initial payment that could have stopped the repossession process from snowballing. Instead of helping a customer who is clearly trying to work with them, they chose to make things harder, knowing full well that retrieving the vehicle becomes less attainable by the day. 

This experience has caused severe emotional distress, and it reflects a systemic failure in customer service, human decency, and ethical lending practices. I am not asking for charity, Im asking for basic compassion and the opportunity to resolve this responsibly. 

I am formally requesting that : The bank reconsider my request for a payment arrangement or reinstatement, considering my documented financial hardship and willingness to pay. 
A formal explanation be provided regarding the conflicting information I was given about extension eligibility. 
The bank be held accountable for its lack of empathy and refusal to engage with a customer acting in good faith. 

I hope the consumer financial bureau will assist in ensuring that financial institutions like this are held to higher standards of transparency, fairness, and human respect.

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