Consumer complaint received 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem when making payments — 
Company: Upstart Holdings, Inc.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a complaint regarding the handling of my Upstart installment loans and the reporting of a XXXX day delinquency for the XX/XX/year> payment cycle. Note : ( XXXX loans are included in this complaint and I pay them both at the same time ). On XX/XX/year>, I made a manual payment to satisfy my XXXX obligation and immediately enrolled in autopay with the expectation that my upcoming XX/XX/year> payment would be processed automatically. Based on this sequence, it was reasonable to expect that autopay would apply to the next upcoming payment cycle. At the time of enrollment in autopay on XX/XX/XXXX, I was not clearly or conspicuously informed that the XX/XX/XXXX payment would not be processed through autopay or that a separate manual payment would still be required for XXXX. No clear disclosure or warning was provided indicating that the upcoming XXXX payment would not be covered or would require separate manual action. The autopay system ultimately processed a payment on XX/XX/year>, which satisfied the XXXX obligation. However, because this occurred after the due date, the account was treated as late, late fees were applied, and a XXXX day delinquency was reported. I contacted the company and specifically requested documentation showing the exact disclosures presented at the time of autopay enrollment, including any screen, language, or confirmation indicating that the XX/XX/year> payment would not be processed and would require manual action. I also requested clarification of the system logic or timing rules that caused the XXXX draft to be scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX instead of XX/XX/XXXX. I specifically request proof of the exact on-screen disclosure presented at the time I enrolled in autopay on XX/XX/year>. This includes any screen, message, or confirmation that clearly warned that the XX/XX/year> payment would not be processed through autopay and that a separate manual payment was required for XXXX. My request is limited to the disclosures shown at the moment of enrollment, not emails or communications sent after the fact. In its response, the company stated that I selected recurring payments to begin on XX/XX/year>, and that this was confirmed through the dashboard and email. While a future draft date was later reflected in a follow-up email after enrollment, this does not establish that clear and conspicuous disclosure was provided at the exact moment I enrolled in autopay that the XX/XX/year> payment would not be processed and that a separate manual payment was required. The presence of a scheduled date alone does not constitute an adequate warning that an upcoming payment cycle would not be covered. My concern is specifically focused on what was presented at the exact moment of autopay enrollment, and whether the system clearly communicated that the XXXX payment would not be processed and required separate action to avoid delinquency. As stated in XXXX response, the recurring payment start date was XX/XX/year>, which they indicated was confirmed through the dashboard and via email. However, information reflected after enrollment does not constitute clear and conspicuous disclosure at the time of autopay setup that the XX/XX/year> payment would not be processed, that the XXXX payment would not be covered, or that a separate manual payment was required to avoid delinquency. The company did not provide the requested documentation or directly address these questions. Instead, they stated that no error was found, emphasized general payment responsibility, and confirmed that recurring payments were scheduled to begin on XX/XX/year>. My concern is not limited to the application of a late fee in isolation, but rather the underlying cause that led to the account being placed in a late status. If the XX/XX/XXXX payment had been processed as reasonably expected following autopay enrollment, no late fee or delinquency would have occurred. The late fee and resulting delinquency appear to be downstream consequences of the autopay system not applying to the XXXX payment, rather than independent issues. Because the autopay system deferred the XXXX payment without clear and adequate disclosure ( that a manual payment for XXXX was necessary ) at the time of enrollment, the resulting delinquency may not accurately reflect the full context of the account activity. I am also requesting clarification of the system logic or cutoff timing that caused the autopay system to defer the XX/XX/year> payment and initiate the XXXX draft in XXXX rather than applying it to the immediate upcoming due date. I am requesting that this matter be reviewed with specific attention to the disclosures presented at the time of autopay enrollment ( specifically, whether I was clearly and conspicuously warned on-screen that the XX/XX/year> payment would not be processed through autopay, that the XXXX payment would not be covered, and that I was required to make a separate manual payment for XX/XX/XXXX to avoid delinquency ), and the system logic that resulted in the XX/XX/year> payment not being processed through autopay, and whether the resulting delinquency reporting is accurate and fair given the system behavior and absence of clear disclosure.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation