Consumer complaint received 2026-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
THIS IS A SECOND COMPLAINT FILED BECAUSE GM FINANCIAL 'S RESPONSE TO CASE NUMBER XXXX FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY VIOLATION ALLEGED, AND BECAUSE GM FINANCIAL HAS CONTINUED AND ESCALATED ITS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AFTER THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND CLOSED. This complaint is related to prior CFPB complaint Case Number XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX filed on or about XXXX, XXXX, which all were closed without an inadequate response from GM Financial dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a formal complaint with the CFPB against GM Financial, assigned Case Number XXXX. That complaint alleged fraudulent loan origination, misassignment of buyer and cosigner roles, violation of the FTC Holder Rule, unlawful post-rescission credit reporting, and wrongful repossession of a motor vehicle. GM Financial responded on XX/XX/XXXX through their Compliance Department, signed by XXXX XXXX Their response consisted of XXXX paragraphs that : ( 1 ) recited the contract terms, ( 2 ) disclaimed responsibility for XXXX XXXX XXXX conduct, ( 3 ) stated that the credit reporting was accurate, and ( 4 ) directed me to contact their customer service line. Their response did not address a single violation alleged in the original complaint. Specifically, GM Financial 's XX/XX/XXXX response failed entirely to address : The fraudulent misassignment of buyer and cosigner roles at signing The FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, which is printed in bold capital letters on page 5 of the very contract GM Financial attached to their response The wrongful repossession of the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days before their response was even written The {$500.00} repossession fee assessed on a rescinded contract The legal invalidity of reporting delinquency on a contract rescinded before the first payment was ever due The XXXX formal written rescission notices received by GM Financial on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I submitted consumer feedback to the CFPB disputing GM Financial 's response in its entirety. The complaint was closed without resolution. This second complaint is filed because GM Financial 's conduct has continued and escalated since the prior complaint was filed. NEW AND CONTINUING VIOLATIONS SINCE THE PRIOR COMPLAINT A. The Wrongful Repossession - XX/XX/XXXX GM Financial 's own payment history, submitted as part of their CFPB response to Case Number XXXX, confirms the following critical timeline : XX/XX/XXXX : Contract signed XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial received and signed for formal Rescission of Contract via certified mail, XXXX days before the first payment was ever due XX/XX/XXXX : First payment due date under the contract XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial received Final Demand for Immediate Rescission via XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial received Notice of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations, Notice of Dispute and Demand for Validation Cease and Desist Demand, Notice of Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial initiated repossession setup confirmed by their own payment history XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial assessed a {$500.00} miscellaneous repossession fee confirmed by their own payment history XX/XX/XXXX : First CFPB complaint filed XX/XX/XXXX : GM Financial responded to CFPB complaint without addressing the repossession along. The first payment under this contract was not due until XX/XX/XXXX. My rescission was received by GM Financial on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days before any payment was ever owed. No valid payment obligation ever legally arose under this contract. GM Financial repossessed the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX, nearly XXXX weeks after receiving the first rescission notice and XXXX weeks after receiving the Final Demand. This is a wrongful repossession as a matter of law. The vehicle has not been returned as of the date of this complaint. GM Financial repossessed the vehicle while simultaneously preparing a response to a federal consumer complaint alleging fraud. They did not disclose the repossession in their XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response. The CFPB was not informed that GM Financial had taken the vehicle XXXX days before filing their response. XXXX GM Financial 's Own Contract Prohibits Their Defense GM Financial 's XX/XX/XXXX response states they were not present during contract negotiations and bear no responsibility for XXXX XXXX 's conduct. This position is directly and completely foreclosed by page XXXX of the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Contract that GM Financial itself attached to its CFPB response. That page contains the following in bold capital letters : NOTICE : ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. This is the FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433. By purchasing this contract from XXXX XXXX, GM Financial assumed legal responsibility for all claims and defenses arising from its fraudulent origination. GM Financial submitted this language to the CFPB as part of their defense and appears to have either not read it or hoped the CFPB would not. This is itself an unfair and deceptive act in connection with a consumer complaint response. C. Continued Unlawful Credit Reporting As of the date of this complaint, GM Financial continues to report this account as delinquent on all three major consumer reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. These derogatory entries reflect payment obligations that never legally arose because the contract was rescinded before the first payment was ever due. GM Financial 's XX/XX/XXXX response stated the credit reporting is accurate. It is not. Reporting delinquency on a contract rescinded before any payment obligation arose, after receiving XXXX written rescission notices, and a debt validation constitutes willful furnishing of inaccurate information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Every day these entries remain on my credit report after GM Financial 's receipt of the original rescission notice on XX/XX/XXXX is a separate violation. These false entries are causing me the following ongoing, documented financial harms : Active impairment of my home mortgage qualification. I am attempting to purchase a home and these entries are directly blocking my ability to qualify Forced cosigner requirement on a separate vehicle purchase due to artificially damaged credit score Ongoing reputational and financial damage from false delinquency reporting visible to any creditor who pulls my credit Unlawful Fees Assessed on a Rescinded Contract GM Financial 's own payment history confirms the following fees assessed after receiving rescission notice on XX/XX/XXXX : {$63.00} late fee assessed XX/XX/XXXX {$63.00} late fee assessed XX/XX/XXXX {$500.00} repossession fee assessed XX/XX/XXXX {$2500.00} in interest accrued on the account Every one of these charges was assessed after GM Financial received written notice that the contract had been rescinded. None of them are legally valid. GM Financial is now asserting a total balance of {$69000.00} on a contract that was rescinded before a single dollar was ever owed. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED The following federal violations have occurred and are documented : 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), Willful furnishing of inaccurate derogatory information to consumer reporting agencies after receiving written notice of rescission on XX/XX/XXXX and Final Demand on XX/XX/XXXX. Each derogatory entry reported after XX/XX/XXXX constitutes a separate violation. 2. FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, Refusal to honor all claims and defenses arising from the fraudulent origination of the assigned contract, despite the Holder Rule notice being printed on the face of the contract GM Financial submitted to the CFPB. 3. Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531, Unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices including : enforcing a fraudulently induced contract, repossessing a vehicle on a rescinded contract, assessing fees on a rescinded contract, and continuing derogatory credit reporting after receiving XXXX written rescission demands. 4. Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Failure to accurately disclose the identity and legal role of each party on the consumer credit contract. 5. Wrongful repossession constituting conversion under applicable law repossession of a vehicle under color of a void or voidable contract after receiving XXXX formal written rescission notices and a debt validation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation