Consumer complaint received 2026-03-23 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Getting the loan — 
Company: RFNA, LP
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
Republic Finance is the appropriate company for this complaint. After I applied for a loan, I was contacted directly by Republic Finance regarding my application. During that interaction, I clearly stated that I did not want a vehicle-secured loan. I was told that another loan structure could be arranged, but the only option ultimately presented was a vehicle-secured loan. This complaint concerns the representations made by Republic Finance during the application process and how loan options were communicated to me, not simply a denial of credit. Republic Finance directly handled my application and communication, and therefore is responsible for this issue. They marked my previous complaint as not belonging to them. I am filing this complaint regarding the handling of a recent loan application with Republic Bank. Before allowing a hard credit inquiry to proceed, I had a detailed conversation with a representative at Republic Finance who contacted me, regarding the type of loan I was willing to consider. She mentioned that it was for a secured loan, and I immediately told her I do not want to do a secured loan and if theres any small chance that I would be approved for only a secured loan then lets not proceed. During that conversation, And prior to finishing the application, I clearly stated the following : XXXX. I did not want a loan secured by a vehicle, XXXX. My current vehicle is in the process of being bought back by the manufacturer, so it can not be used as collateral XXXX. I would not place a replacement vehicle as collateral for a loan. XXXX. I was concerned about allowing a hard inquiry on my credit report unless there was a very realistic possibility of approval for the type of loan I was requesting. The representative acknowledged these concerns and stated that the loan could be structured as a personal property secured loan, instead of a vehicle-secured loan. She expressed confidence that this type of structure could be possible and indicated she had seen situations where the final approval amount differed, or even increased, from the initial pre-approval. On XX/XX/XXXX, when I answered her call I told her that I did not want to go through with it because I did not feel like the pre-approval amount was worth it. At that time, is when she then told me that she has seen scenarios where people get approved for more than the pre-approval amount, and I wouldnt not have to put a vehicle up as collateral. The confidence that she displayed in getting me a loan that was not tied to a vehicle is what convinced me to move forward. At the end of our phone call, she said I will have an approval for you by tomorrow morning. And this was after we discussed my concerns and that I did not want to move forward if there was even a small chance of any of my concerns being valid. Because of those assurances she gave me, after 3 days of hesitance, I agreed to proceed with the application and allowed a hard inquiry to be placed on my credit report. The following day, when I had not heard anything from her after she stated she would be calling back in the morning, I contacted the bank for an update, at XXXX. I was informed by another male representative that I was only approved for a loan secured by a vehicle, which would pay my vehicle off, which is the exact type of loan I had clearly declined from the beginning. At that point I had told him that I had already discussed with the previous representative that I did not want to do that type of loan and this car is being bought back by the manufacturer. He then started to come up with several excuses as to why their sales tactic was not unethical. During that conversation, the representative focused on the fact that I had received a pre-approval, and stated that underwriting ultimately determines the final decision. However, this response does not address the actual issue. My complaint is not about the underwriting decision itself. I understand that lenders ultimately determine approval terms. The issue is that I communicated very clearly that I would not accept a vehicle-secured loan, and the representative still encouraged me to proceed with a full application and hard credit inquiry based on the suggestion that a different loan structure was likely possible. It is their responsibility as the professionals in this industry to advise against applying, especially when someone has concerns as I did. I also brought up that I was ready to leave it because the initial preapproval was for a secured loan. It wasnt until she said, it doesnt have to be a vehicle that I even continued to entertain the conversation. That shouldve never happened. She shouldve advised against me moving forward with this loan because of my concerns and the circumstances. The male representative I spoke to continue to argue with me that there was no problem with what happened. He also cut me off initially while I was speaking ; and several times after. When I asked him to let me finish speaking, so he could hear what I was saying, he said so its your way or the highway?. Lets be clear ; this man cut me off when I was in the middle of speaking. There was no reason to start cutting me off. I continued to try and explain to him why Im frustrated and he continued to defend their actions. He kept focusing on the pre-approval, and not the fact that I was convinced into completing this application. At that point, I hung up. Given the information I provided up front about my credit concerns, credit report history, collateral limitations, and loan preferences, I truly believe a reasonable and responsible course of action would have been to advise me that the pre-approval appeared to be tied specifically to a vehicle-secured loan and that proceeding with the application could result in exactly the outcome that occurred. Instead, I relied on the representatives assurances that a different loan structure was possible, which led me to authorize the application and incur a hard inquiry on my credit report. This has nothing to do with underwriting and everything to do with the fact that they are responsible for providing guidance in these situations, and they provided me with guidance that completely changed the course of this application, as I did not want to pursue it. As someone working to rebuild my credit, I was very transparent about my concerns regarding unnecessary credit inquiries. Had I been advised that a vehicle-secured loan was the most likely outcome, I would not have proceeded with the application. I believe consumers should be able to rely on clear and responsible guidance before authorizing a credit inquiry that can impact their credit profile. After this conversation with the Republic Finance representative, they send a letter a few weeks later " denying '' my loan request. The timing of this, is very odd.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation