Consumer complaint received 2026-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
CRITICAL ESCALATION : ILLEGAL VEHICLE REPOSSESSION, CONTRACT EVASION, AND REGULATORY RETALIATION PRIOR CLOSED COMPLAINT REFERENCE : XXXX, XXXX STATE AG COMPLAINT REFERENCE : Illinois Attorney General Case Filed XX/XX/year> CREDITOR : Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT NUMBER : XXXX This is a NEW complaint regarding a severe escalation, illegal enforcement action, and regulatory retaliation that occurred today, XX/XX/year>. This is NOT a duplicate of my previous complaint ( referenced above ), which was closed out before the creditor addressed vital compliance errors. Today, the creditor aggressively bypassed the regulatory dispute process by executing a physical repossession of my vehicle for the second time. 1. IMMEDIATE RETALIATION & VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS On XX/XX/year>, I initiated formal complaints with the CFPB and the Illinois Attorney General regarding structural non-compliance, predatory billing practices, and an unverified chain of title on my Retail Installment Contract with XXXX/Bridgecrest. Instead of answering the administrative dispute through proper regulatory channels, Bridgecrest waited exactly one week and executed a retaliatory repossession today, XX/XX/year>, to liquidate the property before federal or state regulators can complete their review. This constitutes an abusive and deceptive collection practice. 2. STRUCTURAL INDUCEMENT OF AN ILLEGAL, VOID CONTRACT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW The underlying contract on which this repossession is based is structurally null and void under the Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act ( PLPA ) ( 815 ILCS 122/1-10 ). * While the contract faces a disclosed APR of 25.753 %, the creditor deceptively padded the principal balance with {$5500.00} in ancillary add-on fees ( {$3100.00} XXXX XXXX package, {$1000.00} XXXX fee, and {$690.00} XXXX fee XXXX as a mandatory condition for credit approval. * When calculating the total systemic finance charges required by the XXXX, the true annual rate surges well beyond the strict state-mandated 36 % interest cap. Under 815 ILCS 122/1-15, any contract violating this cap is null and void, giving Bridgecrest absolutely no legal right to demand payment or seize the property as collateral. 3. HISTORY OF ATTEMPTED CURE I have consistently acted in good faith to resolve this dispute. I attempted to communicate directly with the company between XXXX and XXXX to address these severe billing discrepancies and structural accounting errors. My written demands for an accounting and verification of a clear chain of title were completely ignored, and the company has weaponized physical repossessions rather than complying with basic verification and consumer protection laws. DOWN PAYMENT VIOLATION ( ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 815 ILCS 505/2C ) The creditor engaged in further deceptive acts regarding the structural handling of my down payment. Under Illinois law, a dealer can not manipulate down payment allocations or retain down payment funds when structural credit terms are being altered or disputed. The misrepresentation of my down payment directly distorted the disclosed Amount Financed, causing a structural violation of TILA disclosure rules and mathematically masking a XXXX interest cap evasion.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation