Consumer complaint received 2026-01-22 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: OneMain Finance Corporation
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to address the lack of substantive responses from your representatives ( specifically XXXX and XXXX ) to my direct communications regarding the issues I raised. During multiple phone calls, both representatives ended the calls without answering or addressing the points I clearly stated. They repeatedly declined to respond to the substance of my questions, claiming inability to answer at that time, which in practice amounts to delay and avoidance rather than engagement with the matters I raised. 

I have sent direct emails to your designated email address outlining these concerns in detail. These communications were sent independently of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) complaint I filed. While I understand the CFPB complaint triggers certain procedural timelines under CFPB rules, that complaint does not replace or excuse your obligation to respond to the direct emails and inquiries I have submitted to your company. There is no lawful basis for withholding substantive replies to direct consumer correspondence on the pretext of waiting out CFPB review periods. 

My position is that by failing to engage directly with the matters I raised in writing, OneMain is refusing to answer legitimate consumer inquiries and is instead using delay tactics that may constitute unfair and deceptive practices under applicable law.

Legal and Regulatory Standards : Under California consumer protection frameworks and applicable federal law, companies engaged in debt collection and financial account servicing are obligated to communicate truthfully and not engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation ( DFPI ), under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the California Debt Collection Licensing Act, enforces standards that prohibit unfair or deceptive conduct, including failure to respond substantively to consumer disputes and inquiries. California law further prohibits debt collectors and creditors from engaging in abusive or harassing conduct and imposes requirements regarding how communications are conducted with consumers.

Under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and Califo
rnias Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, debt collectors and original creditors alike must comply with communication rules that protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or harassing practices. The FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c ), which the Rosenthal Act incorporates and expands in California, prohibits practices such as communicating at inconvenient times and failing to properly respond to consumer disputes and communications.

Specifically, regulation 12 CFR 1006.6 under the CFPBs debt collection rule requires that, when a consumer uses an email address to communicate about a debt, a collector who uses that same email to communicate back must have consent and must respond ; repeated refusal to engage except with delay tactics may constitute a violation of reasonable communication expectations.

California law also prohibits debt collectors from engaging in harassment, repeated avoidant conduct, or abusive communications. Under Californias Rosenthal Act, unlawful practices include communication tactics designed to frustrate and delay legitimate consumer inquiries and responses.

Summary of Concerns : 1. Your representatives have repeatedly ended calls without addressing the specific issues I raised or providing substantive responses.

2. Your company has failed to respond to direct written emails that contained detailed information and questions I submitted voluntarily.

3. Delay tactics, including reliance on CFPB timelines as justification for nonresponse to direct emails, do not disch
arge your obligations under state and federal consumer protection laws.

4. I expect a direct and substantive response to the points I have raised in my written correspondence, separate and apart from the timeline associated with the CFPB complaint.

Please provide a written response addressing the specific points I raised in my email correspondence without further delay. 




This email constitutes an urgent escalation and final demand for immediate compliance. 

As of XXXX payment has been made. Under California law, upon payment the secured creditor must immediately release the vehicle and facilitate retrieval without obstruction or delay. Despite this, OneMain Financial and its agents have refused to disclose the vehicles location and are actively obstructing retrieval. 

I am formally documenting the following : 1. Refusal to Disclose Vehicle Location I have repeatedly demanded the exact physical location of the vehicle. OneMain Financial representatives XXXX and XXXX have refused to provide it. XXXX states they do not have the information and directed me to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX recorded line instructs callers to contact the finance company and states they will not speak with consumers. This circular refusal constitutes intentional obstruction. 

2. Invalid and Non-Confirmed Appointment An appointment appearing in the system for tomorrow at XXXX p.m. is expressly labeled this is not a confirmation. I am being told approval may occur as late as XXXX hours before the appointment, while being expected XXXX XXXX XXXX hours round-trip without confirmation. This is unreasonable, unlawful, and obstructive. I am not required to gamble on access to my own property. 

3. Post-Payment Delay Is Unlawful Payment has already been accepted. Continued refusal to disclose location, confirm release, or provide written authorization for pickup is post-payment interference with personal property and will be treated as breach of peace and conversion.

4. Immediate Written Demands I am demanding, now, in writing : - The exact physical location of the vehicle ; - Written confirmation that the vehicle is approved for release ; - Written confirmation whether the XXXX p.m. appointment is confirmed or not ; - The name and contact information of the party currently in possession of the vehicle. 

5. Notice of Record Preservation and Litigation All calls are recorded. All refusals are being preserved. Any additional delay, misrepresentation, or failure to disclose will be added to pending litigation, including claims for obstruction, conversion, and post-repossession breach of peace. 

This is not a request. This is a final demand for immediate disclosure and confirmation. You may respond to this email immediately. 

Failure to respond will be treated as deliberate obstruction. 



Under California law, once a vehicle has been repossessed, the creditor and/or repossession agent is required to provide specific written notices and disclosures to the person liable on the loan, and these requirements can not be ignored or avoided simply by delaying or refusing to respond to direct correspondence. California Financial Code 22328 and California Civil Code 2983.2 require that, after repossession of a motor vehicle, a written Notice of Intent to Dispose of the Vehicle must be provided to all persons liable on the contract at least 15 days before any sale or other disposition of the vehicle and within 60 days after the repossession. This notice must clearly state the total amount required to redeem the vehicle ( including the full loan balance, itemized fees, repossession and storage costs ), the right to redeem the vehicle by paying that amount, and, if applicable, the right to reinstate the loan, or a statement explaining why reinstatement is not available, with itemized calculations supporting those amounts. The notice must be sent by certified mail return receipt requested, firstclass mail, or personal service to the last known address of the person liable on the loan and must include clear contact information for payment instructions and amounts due. 

Additionally, under California Business and Professions Code 7507.10, a repossession agency must provide a Notice of Seizure within 48 hours after the vehicle is taken, which must include contact information for the legal owner and the agency, and must allow retrieval of personal belongings from the vehicle and disclose liability for any damage caused by the repossession agent. 

California law also requires that all notices associated with repossession including the amount owed, who to pay, why the charges are owed, the time and location of any sale, and the timelines for redemption or reinstatement be provided in writing and in a manner that can be documented. Failure to send the required written notices, to provide itemized accounting, and to disclose the amounts, parties, and timeline in writing violates the statutory requirements and can jeopardize the lenders right to collect any deficiency or to proceed with sale of the vehicle. 

I am therefore requesting written documentation that fully complies with California repossession law showing : The complete itemized amount I allegedly owe, including how it was calculated and who is owed each portion ; The date, time, and method by which any repossession order was sent, to whom it was sent, and confirmation it was received ; The written Notice of Seizure and Notice of Intent to Dispose, including all statutory disclosures required under California law ; Proof of compliance with the statutory timelines for delivery of all notices ; Written confirmation of the appointment and police escort scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX p.m. ; and Written assurance that you will respond to these specific questions in writing in compliance with California law, rather than delaying or refusing to provide lawful documentation. 

Additionally, I want to note that XXXX had already confirmed, on record, that XXXX had given me full authorization to manage this matter, and this authorization is documented on both your records and mine. Despite this, XXXX returned to state that she required authorization, and XXXX attempted to double down by insisting she needed to speak to XXXX again. This contradicts the prior confirmation and demonstrates an intentional refusal to acknowledge documented authority. 

During these interactions, both XXXX and XXXX hung up without providing substantive responses to my inquiries. When I informed XXXX that I would escalate the issue regarding her actions, including refusal to accept payment and other failures to comply with lawful procedures, she argued and stated repeatedly, No, Im not in response to accountability, implying that her job isnt at jeopardy for these actions that she is not going to get reprimanded or fired for these actions, which reflects a refusal to acknowledge or take responsibility for their conduct. 

These actions, including repeated hang-ups, failure to respond to lawful requests, and misrepresentation of authorization, constitute unlawful business practices under California law XXXX and demonstrate willful obstruction, harassment, and refusal to comply with legal obligations owed to a consumer. This conduct is well-documented in public complaints on XXXX  and other consumer review sites, and unless addressed by regulatory or legal intervention, it will continue to harm consumers. I am therefore formally notifying OneMain Financial that I intend to hold the company, and the individuals involved, accountable through all available legal remedies, including but not limited to pursuing a formal lawsuit to address these violations. 


Sincerely, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( authorized representative ) See photos below

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation