Consumer complaint received 2026-04-01 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint because Wells Fargos servicing of my auto loan, delinquency calculations, notice practices, and credit reporting contain material inconsistencies that can not all be accurate simultaneously. These inconsistencies have resulted in continued negative credit reporting, inability to obtain vehicle financing, and financial harm. The issues outlined below reflect a pattern of unreliable account servicing, inconsistent explanations, and unsupported reporting. 1. Reinstatement Payment Cured the Default, Yet Delinquency Was Improperly Continued Wells Fargo acknowledges that I made a reinstatement payment of {$1200.00} on XX/XX/year>, after a repossession event. Reinstatement is intended to cure the default and restore the account to good standing. Following reinstatement, the next contractual payment due date was XX/XX/year>, meaning any subsequent delinquency could not have begun until that date. However, Wells Fargo later asserted that I was 178 days delinquent at the time of the XX/XX/year> repossession. This calculation is inconsistent with the timeline following reinstatement. The period from XX/XX/year> to XX/XX/year> is approximately 89 days, not 178 days. This raises concerns that Wells Fargo improperly included pre-reinstatement delinquency in its calculation, despite the reinstatement curing the prior default. 2. Payment Misapplication Contrary to Wells Fargos Own Policy Wells Fargos documentation states that payments are applied in the following order : Accrued interest Principal balance Principal variance Unapplied balance adjustments Other charges However, when my {$1200.00} reinstatement payment was received, Wells Fargo separated approximately {$460.00} as an unapplied increase/decrease and applied it toward repossession-related charges before applying the remainder of the payment to the loan. This appears inconsistent with their stated payment application order and directly impacted whether : my XX/XX/year> obligation was satisfied the account would have remained current following reinstatement 3. Inconsistent and Unreliable Right-to-Cure Notice Production Wells Fargo previously stated that it had provided all relevant notices in prior correspondence, including in earlier regulatory responses. Those document productions did not include any Right-to-Cure notice dated XX/XX/year>. Wells Fargo has now produced a XX/XX/year> Right-to-Cure notice that was not included in prior disclosures, despite representing that all notices had already been provided. This raises concerns regarding the completeness, timing, and reliability of Wells Fargos document production. If Wells Fargo maintains that this XXXX notice was generated and sent at the time, it should provide verifiable proof of mailing, including vendor mailing records, system logs, or other contemporaneous evidence demonstrating that the notice was actually created and sent in XX/XX/year>. 4. Inconsistent Credit Reporting Across Consumer Reporting Agencies This account is reported inconsistently across the major credit bureaus, including : differing repossession designations conflicting delinquency histories inconsistent Date of First Delinquency reporting Additionally, reporting has changed during and after disputes and regulatory complaints, raising concerns regarding the reliability of prior investigations. These inconsistencies have resulted in : multiple credit denials inability to obtain vehicle financing increased insurance costs It seems to me the more I review this account, the more errors come up.

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 non-monetary relief