Consumer complaint received 2026-04-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: ACIMA CREDIT, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns continued improper fee practices, misclassification of debit card declines as NSF events, and payment misapplication by Acima Leasing, despite prior CFPB complaints regarding the same issue. Prior to XX/XX/year>, I accumulated approximately {$80.00} in fees that Acima classified as NSF fees. These charges were assessed in situations where my debit card transactions were declined due to fraud protection blocks placed by my bank, not due to insufficient funds. No payments were returned by any financial institution. Once the issue with my bank was resolved, multiple payments processed successfully without any issues, confirming that the prior declines were not related to insufficient funds. On XX/XX/year>, I had a scheduled payment due. That same morning, I discovered my debit card was missing and identified an unauthorized transaction. I immediately contacted my bank, reported the fraud, and the card was cancelled. I then logged into my Acima account and saw that my scheduled payment was in a processing status. It is important to clarify that a payment being marked as processing does not mean it has been completed or settled. Debit card transactions are typically authorized instantly and funds are captured at the time of processing. If a payment has not been successfully authorized and completed, it has not actually processed and should still be capable of being cancelled or corrected within the system. This differs from ACH or check transactions, which can take multiple business days to settle and may be returned after processing. I contacted Acima via chat and informed them that the card on file had been cancelled due to fraud and that the pending transaction would fail. I requested that the payment be cancelled so I could update my card information and make a manual payment to avoid any issues or additional fees. Acima stated they were unable to cancel the payment because it was already processing, even though no funds had been transferred. This explanation appears inconsistent with how debit card transactions function, as no completed authorization had occurred. I then requested assistance to update my payment method and make a manual payment to ensure my rent was paid on time and to prevent any failure. I proceeded to make a manual payment in the amount of {$15.00}, which represents my regular rent payment including tax. Instead of applying this payment to my current rent obligation, Acima applied the payment toward previously disputed fees, including NSF and late fees. As a result, my actual rent payment remained in a processing state and was not properly credited, creating a risk of additional fees or penalties. This situation demonstrates a pattern in which Acima allows debit card transactions to fail due to reasons unrelated to insufficient funds, such as fraud blocks, cancelled cards, expired cards, or other authorization issues, and then classifies those failures as NSF events. These are not NSF events, as no payment was returned unpaid by a financial institution. They are authorization failures. Additionally, Acima appears to automatically assess these fees at the time of a failed debit card attempt, rather than allowing the customer an opportunity to complete the payment within the same day. This results in fees being charged regardless of the reason for the decline, including circumstances outside of the consumers control such as fraud protection measures. This practice effectively allows Acima to charge a fee whenever a payment attempt fails, regardless of whether the failure was due to insufficient funds or any other reason. This is inconsistent with the standard meaning of an NSF event and with the lease agreement requirement that a payment be returned unpaid. By also applying customer payments toward disputed fees instead of the current rent obligation, Acima creates a cycle in which balances remain open and additional fees may continue to accrue. This practice appears to prioritize fee collection over proper application of payments. I made multiple attempts to follow Acimas process, including contacting them in advance, updating my payment method, and making a manual payment to avoid any issues. Despite these efforts, Acima did not take reasonable steps to prevent a known failed transaction and did not apply my payment correctly. Acima has previously been subject to regulatory and enforcement actions involving deceptive or misleading practices related to lease terms and fees. I reference this history solely for context, as the conduct described here appears consistent with prior compliance concerns and suggests a failure to correct known issues. Taken together, this conduct reflects a pattern in which debit card declines are treated as NSF events regardless of cause, fees are automatically assessed, and payments are redirected in a way that perpetuates additional charges. This creates an ongoing cycle of fees that does not align with the contract or standard payment practices and results in unnecessary consumer harm.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation