Consumer complaint received 2023-12-01 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: Westlake Services, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
In California, unauthorized entry and trespassing by repossession agents are regulated by several laws, primarily under the California Civil Code. One specific provision that addresses this issue is California Civil Code Section 1708.8. 

California Civil Code Section 1708.8 states : " A person shall not intentionally enter onto the land or into any improvements on the land of another without the owners or owners agents permission. A person who commits trespass is liable for the damages caused by the trespass, and for the profits lost due to the trespass, as provided in Sections 3334 and 3335 of the Civil Code. '' This provision prohibits intentional entry onto the land of another without permission and establishes liability for damages resulting from the trespass. In the context of repossession, if a repossession agent enters private property without the consent of the property owner or lawful occupant, it may be considered a violation of this statute. 

Complaint Regarding Repossession and Unfulfilled Agreement with Westlake Financial I am writing to formally address a concerning incident involving the repossession of my vehicle by Westlake Financial from my private gated community, where access requires a designated code. On XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I adhered to the agreed-upon terms and paid repo fees totaling {$980.00} for the reinstatement and release of my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

Regrettably, within 30 minutes of completing the payment, specifically at XXXX pm on the same day, Westlake Financial had my vehicle retrieved from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX An email notice was subsequently sent to me, providing location details for picking up my vehicle, specifying XXXX XXXX XXXX as the repo name and XXXX XXXX XXXX as the auction name. 

Upon contacting the specified facilities, namely XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, both entities deny possession of my vehicle. Conflicting information has been provided by Westlake, XXXX, and XXXX, leading to a lack of clarity regarding the whereabouts of my car. 

In conversations with representatives from each entity, it has been established that XXXX XXXX XXXX claims Westlake Financial initiated the order for the car 's removal, yet they lack a bill of landing. XXXX XXXX XXXX asserts having a release but denies having my vehicle in their inventory. 

Furthermore, Westlake Financial claims a standard 5-day hold period before resale. However, the lack of transparency and conflicting information has left me in a state of distress. Despite multiple attempts to obtain information, Westlake Financial has failed to provide clarity on the location of my vehicle. 

In a conversation with XXXX XXXX, the supervising manager at Westlake Financial, he expressed frustration and provided no resolution. Attempts to contact the company have been met with extended holds and abrupt hang-ups, exacerbating the already distressing situation. 

This conduct by Westlake Financial is not only unprofessional but also appears to involve misleading information and potential mistreatment of a consumer. The lack of communication, failure to track the vehicle, and dismissive behavior contribute to an unacceptable level of customer service.

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