Consumer complaint received 2026-05-13 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Larry H. Miller Group of Companies
State: OK

Complaint narrative:
My spouse and I visited XXXX XXXX in XXXX, OK on XX/XX/XXXX, attempting to purchase a used {$5000.00} truck with a strict, explicitly stated budget of $ XXXX/month. The dealership engaged in severe bait-and-switch tactics, claiming we only qualified for a XXXX XXXX XXXX. They initially agreed to the $ XXXXmonth terms, but through high-pressure negotiation and repeated back-and-forth desk trips, they packed the payment up to $ XXXX. Furthermore, historic market evaluation indexes confirm that a used XXXX XXXX XXXX carried a maximum retail market value of only approximately {$13000.00} to {$16000.00} during the XXXX calendar year, with an original MSRP of just {$18000.00} when brand new. By inflating the initial contract purchase balance to a predatory {$25000.00} on an asset worth roughly {$15000.00}, the dealership engaged in extreme price-packing and usurious over-financing to intentionally exploit us as first-time buyers. Since the voluntary repossession around approximately XX/XX/XXXX, the financing and collection agencies have tacked on unconscionable fees and interest, aggressively inflating the disputed balance from the original {$25000.00} up to a staggering {$35000.00}. Fraudulent Inducement ( The 7-Month Misrepresentation ) : When we prepared to walk out due to affordability, the finance team explicitly stated that if we made payments for exactly 7 months, we could bring the vehicle back to refinance or trade it in for an affordable vehicle. As first-time buyers, we relied on this expert industry claim and signed the contract on XX/XX/XXXX, under false pretenses. When we returned to the dealership in approximately XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX ( seven months after signing ), they refused to honor their verbal agreement, stating we were too upside down ; leaving us trapped in an unsustainable contract. Physical Bait-and-Switch ( Fraudulent Vehicle Substitution ) : To the best of our recollection and direct observations, the dealership committed physical vehicle fraud. The specific XXXX XXXX XXXX we test-drove was highly detailed, completely clean, and fully equipped with standard emergency roadside tools. However, the vehicle the dealership ultimately prepared and forced us to drive off the lot was not the same unit. While we had immediate suspicions shortly after leaving the lot because the delivery vehicle was noticeably less pristine, our fears were not fully confirmed until our first flat tire incident. At that time, we discovered that the roadside emergency tool kits present during our initial viewing had been entirely stripped from the vehicle. We believe the dealership intentionally switched the keys to substitute a mechanically defective vehicle in place of the one we legally agreed to purchase. Deceptive Title, Tag, and Registration Practices : To the best of our recollection, the dealership subjected us to significant administrative delays and issues regarding the vehicle 's permanent title, tag, and registration process following the purchase. Under Oklahoma consumer law, a dealership 's failure to deliver a valid title within 30 days is an explicit violation of state auto-retail guidelines. We request that investigators audit XXXX XXXX title submission timeline and state filing records for this specific transaction to identify any compliance failures. Bad-Faith Warranty Denial ( XXXX Warranty Act Violation ) : We struggled severely with the {$650.00} payments but kept the account active until approximately XX/XX/XXXX. Around this time, the vehicle 's engine failed catastrophically while under a dealership-provided warranty. The dealership denied coverage, claiming we missed a scheduled oil change. When informed that my spouse is a certified diesel mechanic who performed monthly maintenance, the dealership stated that self-maintenance voided the warranty. Under the federal XXXX Warranty Act , it is illegal for a dealer to void a warranty because a consumer performs their own maintenance, unless the dealer proves the work caused the failure. No such proof was provided. Delayed Discovery of Consumer Rights : As young, first-time buyers who had never navigated a major franchise dealership, we were completely unfamiliar with auto financing laws and consumer rights. Because the dealership representatives forced us to sign a mountain of complex legal documents, we were under the false impression that we had signed away all our legal rights and had no choice but to accept the financial damage. We have only recently discovered that signing predatory contracts under fraudulent misrepresentation does not strip us of our legal standing, and we are launching this investigation immediately upon realizing we were unlawfully deceived.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation