Consumer complaint received 2026-03-27 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, Exeter Finance LLC transmitted a four-page Payment Extension Agreement offering to extend XXXX scheduled payments originally due XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, respectively. This agreement advances the loan 's maturity date from XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and, by Exeter 's own written admission, imposes an estimated additional cost of {$1700.00} on the consumer, increasing the projected final payment from {$6300.00} to {$8100.00}. This constitutes a material modification of a consumer credit contract governed by the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026. Exeter issued this modification agreement without providing any of the redisclosures required by federal law. I am a XXXX consumer and respectfully request that the CFPB forward this complaint to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX, which independently regulates Exeter Finance 's lending operations in this state. The most foundational violation in this agreement is Exeter 's failure to redisclose material credit terms upon modification as required by Regulation Z 1026.20. When a creditor makes a material change to the terms of an existing closed-end consumer credit transaction including any change to the payment schedule or maturity date it is required to furnish the consumer with a new, complete TILA disclosure statement reflecting the updated annual percentage rate, finance charge, amount financed, and total of payments. The Payment Extension Agreement contains none of these disclosures. There is no TILA disclosure box anywhere in the four-page document. The dollar cost of the extension appears only in narrative form, buried in the body of a cover letter, with no APR computation, no updated total-of-payments figure, and no formatting compliant with 12 C.F.R. 1026.18. This is a facial violation of federal law that is plainly visible from the face of the attached document. Closely related to that failure is Exeter 's inadequate disclosure of the finance charge itself. Although the agreement acknowledges in narrative language that interest will continue to accrue on the unpaid principal balance on a daily basis throughout the extension period and that all such accrued interest will be applied to the account before any principal reduction resumes Exeter never quantifies this interest in the form of a finance charge as required by 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 3 ) and Regulation Z 1026.18 ( d ). Stating in a letter that the estimated cost is " {$1700.00} '' does not satisfy the statutory requirement to express the finance charge as a specific dollar amount in a clearly labeled, conspicuous TILA disclosure. Narrative cost disclosures embedded in letter text fall well below the clear and conspicuous standard mandated by 12 C.F.R. 1026.17 ( a ), and Exeter 's treatment of this figure does not come close to meeting it. Exeter 's failure to disclose any impact on the annual percentage rate compounds these violations. The extension materially increases the total finance charge and restructures the payment schedule in ways that directly affect the effective APR of the underlying loan. Under 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 4 ) and Regulation Z 1026.18 ( e ), any material modification must be accompanied by a recalculated APR disclosure. No such disclosure appears anywhere in this agreement. The consumer is left with no ability to compare the true cost of accepting this extension against any alternative course of action, because the APR impact has been entirely omitted. This is simultaneously a TILA violation and a deceptive omission under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531, because a consumer reading this document can not determine what they are actually agreeing to pay. The most abusive provision in this agreement is found on page XXXX under the heading " RELEASE. '' As a non-negotiable condition of receiving the payment extension, Exeter requires the consumer to release and hold harmless Exeter Finance LLC, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, and assigns from any and all claims, actions, and causes of action arising out of or in any way connected with the Agreement or Exeter 's servicing of the Agreement, through the date of this Payment Extension Agreement. This provision requires the consumer to waive all legal claims including TILA claims in exchange for a modification to a loan the consumer is already a party to. This constitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive act or practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) for several independent reasons. First, it is presented in fine print without conspicuous disclosure or any opportunity for independent negotiation. Second, the consumer is given no meaningful ability to accept the extension without simultaneously surrendering all legal claims. Third, and most critically, TILA rights may not be waived by private contract 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) provides statutory protections that exist as a matter of federal law and can not be contracted away. Conditioning a credit modification on the surrender of those rights is per se unenforceable and constitutes an independently actionable UDAAP violation. Fourth, the release is being extracted at a moment of deliberate financial vulnerability the extension is offered precisely because the consumer 's payments are overdue making the coercive dynamic of this provision particularly egregious under the abusiveness prong of 1031 ( d ). The ten-day expiration deadline attached to the agreement reinforces the abusive character of these omissions. The agreement states it expires XXXX days from the XX/XX/XXXX date of notice, creating a deadline of approximately XX/XX/XXXX. This compressed window, combined with the total absence of legally required APR and finance charge disclosures, denies the consumer any meaningful opportunity to consult counsel, compare the effective cost of the extension against alternatives, or evaluate the full scope of the release provision before signing. The CFPB 's own commentary on Regulation Z 1026.20 contemplates that consumers be given a reasonable opportunity to evaluate material modifications to their credit terms. A ten-day deadline is not a reasonable opportunity when the consumer lacks the very disclosures federal law requires to make an informed decision. The Payment Extension Agreement contains state-specific consumer notices for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX residents on pages XXXX and XXXX, but contains no corresponding notice for California residents XXXX despite the consumer 's mailing address on the face of the agreement being clearly identified as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX imposes disclosure and fairness obligations on licensees servicing XXXX consumers, and Exeter 's omission of any XXXXspecific consumer rights notice while including notices for XXXX other states raises an independent question of whether Exeter is providing XXXX consumers with the protections they are entitled to under state law. I further advise the CFPB that I was compelled to execute this agreement under protest and under financial duress. My signature on the Payment Extension Agreement bears the notation " signed under protest due to need for payment relief, '' which reflects the coercive circumstances under which Exeter extracted execution of this document. The agreement was signed solely because of the immediate financial necessity of securing payment relief, not as a voluntary or informed acceptance of its terms. The Release provision on page XXXX is expressly rejected as void and unenforceable, and execution of the agreement should not be construed as a waiver of any claims against Exeter Finance LLC. This directly illustrates the abusive dynamic described above Exeter structured this agreement knowing that consumers in payment distress have no practical choice but to sign, making the embedded release of claims not merely deceptive but coercive as a matter of law under the abusiveness prong of 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ). A consumer who must choose between signing away all legal rights or losing their vehicle is not exercising a meaningful choice, and that is precisely the population Exeter 's standardized extension agreement is designed to reach. I further note that Exeter Finance LLC 's own online account document portal reflects a gap in the document history that is independently relevant to this complaint. The portal displays a complete record of monthly billing statements dating back to at least XX/XX/XXXX, as well as a Delinquency Cures notice dated XX/XX/XXXX, yet conspicuously omits a prior payment extension agreement that was previously executed by this consumer. The absence of that prior executed extension from Exeter 's document record raises serious concerns about record retention, document integrity, and whether the terms of that prior extension were properly disclosed and preserved. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Exeter Finance LLC to produce the complete document history for this account, including all executed extension agreements, as part of any investigation into this complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation