Consumer complaint received 2025-12-10 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: Harley Davidson Financial Services Inc
State: NM

Complaint narrative:
Company Name : Harley Davidson Financial Services Account Number : XXXX Product : Motorcycle loan I am filing this complaint regarding RETALIATION by Harley Davidson Financial Services ( HDFS ) for exercising my right to file a federal regulatory complaint. 

TIMELINE OF EVENTS : XXXXXXXX XXXX : HDFS engaged in excessive telephone harassment ( daily calls for 39 days while I was actively catching up on payments as agreed ). They charged {$670.00} in excessive " repossession fees '' for a repo that was halted the same day it was initiated. 

XX/XX/year> : Sent formal cease communication letter via Certified Mail ( Tracking # XXXX ) demanding all future communication be in writing only. Calls stopped after receipt, proving the cease letter was effective. 

XX/XX/year> : I monitored my account payment portal regularly. 

XXXX XX/XX/year> : XXXX showed XXXX payment amount of approximately {$670.00} ( monthly payment {$320.00} + {$320.00} in disputed fees being demanded ). 

XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( approximately XXXX XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX  to show XXXX payment of {$320.00} ( the correct contractual amount ). The disputed {$320.00} fees existed but were NO LONGER being demanded for immediate payment. XXXX remained stable at {$320.00} for XXXX weeks. 

XX/XX/year> : Filed federal complaint with CFPB ( which was forwarded to FDIC, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) challenging the excessive fees, harassment, and lack of transparency. 

XX/XX/year> ( 4 DAYS AFTER COMPLAINT ) : XXXX XXXX BACK to show XXXX payment of {$640.00} ( {$320.00} monthly + {$320.00} fees NOW being demanded again ). 

CRITICAL VIOLATION - RETALIATION : HDFS changed their fee enforcement policy IMMEDIATELY after I filed a federal complaint : - BEFORE complaint ( XXXX XXXX ) : Fees existed but NOT being demanded - portal showed {$320.00} - AFTER complaint filed ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : NOW demanding immediate payment of same fees - portal shows {$640.00} - Timing : Changed exactly 4 days after federal complaint filed - Pattern : Fees demanded stopped demanding complaint filed started demanding AGAIN This proves : 1. HDFS has discretion over when to enforce fee payment 2. They CHOSE to demand fees AFTER I filed federal complaint 3. This is retaliation for exercising my federal rights 4. Fee enforcement is being used punitively, not based on accounting rules ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS : 1. EXCESSIVE REPO FEES ( {$670.00} ) : Charged {$670.00} total in " repossession fees '' for a repo that was halted the SAME DAY it was initiated ( XX/XX/year> ). No tow truck dispatch, no vehicle pickup, no storage, no auction. Contract Section 15 permits only " actual and reasonable expenses incurred '' - {$670.00} for same-day halted repo is 4-7 times any reasonable amount.

2. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY : When I asked representative XXXX to explain the fees, he stated he could NOT explain what they were for. Company can not justify their own charges. 

XXXX. DISCRETIONARY FEE ENFORCEMENT : The XXXX portal changes prove fees are not automatically applied but are enforced at company 's discretion - and that discretion is being used to punish consumers who file complaints. 

XXXX. PATTERN OF MANIPULATION : Portal showing fees demanded not demanded complaint filed demanded again demonstrates systematic manipulation. 

EVIDENCE I POSSESS : - Screenshot from early XX/XX/year> showing portal at approximately {$670.00} - Screenshot from XXXX XXXX XXXX showing portal at {$320.00} - Screenshot from XX/XX/year> showing portal changed back to {$640.00} - CFPB/FDIC complaint confirmation ( XXXX XX/XX/year>, Case No. XXXX ) - Timeline proving XXXX gap between complaint and enforcement change - XX/XX/year> cease communication letter ( Certified Mail tracking # XXXX ) - Payment records showing {$1000.00} catch-up payment in XXXX - Contract showing " actual and reasonable expenses '' language for XXXX fees LAWS VIOLATED : XXXX. RETALIATION ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( d ) ) : Federal law prohibits retaliation against consumers who file complaints with federal agencies.

2. UDAAP - Unfair Practices ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Using discretionary fee enforcement punitively to punish federal complainants is unfair and causes substantial injury that consumers can not reasonably avoid.

3. UDAAP - Deceptive Practices : Portal manipulation and lack of transparency regarding fees.

4. CONTRACT BREACH : Charging {$670.00} for halted same-day repo violates contract Section 15 requiring " actual and reasonable expenses incurred. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief