Consumer complaint received 2026-04-21 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Title loan
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan — 
Company: WHEELS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, Wheels Financial Group, LLC dba LoanMart, servicing for XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, generated three separate documents concerning Account No. XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX VIN XXXX ) that contain material, irreconcilable contradictions with a subsequent XX/XX/XXXX letter from LoanMart XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The loan history is documented in the NLS ledger printed XX/XX/XXXX by XXXX XXXX. The original loan amount was {$5100.00}, advanced on XX/XX/XXXX. The account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX with a principal charge-off of {$5100.00} meaning the full original principal was charged off. Post-charge-off, interest continued to accrue for years, reaching {$16000.00} by XX/XX/XXXX, before a {$490.00} Weeks settlement interest write-off on XX/XX/XXXX brought the balance to {$15000.00}. The " Payoff Balance as of XX/XX/XXXX '' is therefore {$15000.00}, of which only {$5100.00} is original principal and roughly {$10000.00} is post-charge-off accrued interest. XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX letter admits I paid XXXX a total of {$4000.00}, which directly contradicts her statement in the same letter that I " never repaid the principle. '' The XX/XX/XXXX Account Satisfied Letter issued by the LoanMart XXXX Department states that the loan " has been paid in full and/or settled. '' The XX/XX/XXXX Title Instructions document contains a checked certification stating : " You are receiving this title because we received a payoff from you for the above-referenced loan. '' The California Certificate of Title shows XXXX 's lien release dated XX/XX/XXXX. The envelope was postmarked XX/XX/XXXX and received XX/XX/XXXX. Six days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, writing as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of LoanMart for XXXX, sent a letter directly contradicting the XX/XX/XXXX documents. XXXX states that " a 1099-C would not be warranted when the account has not been settled or the debt forgiven, '' that " XXXX elected to close your account ( and release your title ) and deleted your trade line, '' that " you never repaid the principle, '' and that " there will be no payment to you as none is warranted. '' XXXX 's framing unilateral election by XXXX with no payoff, no settlement, and no forgiveness is mutually exclusive with the Titles Department 's certification that a payoff was received and that the account was paid in full and/or settled. The effect of XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX letter is that the account has now effectively been charged off a second time. The original charge-off occurred XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX Account Satisfied Letter purported to resolve that charge-off by declaring the loan paid in full and/or settled. XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX letter then reverses that resolution by denying any settlement, forgiveness, or payoff occurred, and by affirming I " never repaid the principle. '' The account therefore exists, per LoanMart 's own documents dated six days apart, in three mutually exclusive states simultaneously : paid in full, payoff received, and still unpaid and charged off. No funds were transferred by me to LoanMart or XXXX in connection with the alleged XX/XX/XXXX payoff. The NLS ledger shows no payoff transaction the last consumer payment of record is a {$1.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX 's own XX/XX/XXXX admission that I " never repaid the principle '' forecloses any interpretation that a payoff was received. The " we received a payoff from you '' certification on the Title Instructions is therefore a false statement on a document functioning as a California DMV lien-release instrument. LoanMart and XXXX must now reconcile these contradictory positions. If they maintain that a payoff was received, the certification is true but XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX statement that I " never repaid the principle '' is a knowingly false statement by General Counsel on a matter material to federal tax and credit reporting. If they concede no payoff was received, the Title Instructions certification is a false statement on a DMV instrument, and the XX/XX/XXXX " paid in full and/or settled '' language constitutes a debt forgiveness event waiving the entire {$15000.00} balance approximately {$10000.00} of which is post-charge-off interest on a loan that was already fully charged off triggering a mandatory IRS Form 1099-C filing obligation under 26 U.S.C. 6050P. The simultaneous maintenance of contradictory positions one to the consumer and DMV ( payoff received, paid in full ) and another to regulators ( no settlement, no forgiveness, no payoff ) is a deceptive act and practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536. It enables LoanMart and XXXX to avoid the tax reporting and credit reporting consequences of debt cancellation while simultaneously presenting a payoff narrative to the state of California and to me, and while effectively maintaining the account in a charged-off posture.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation