Consumer complaint received 2024-07-04 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Tesla, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Failure to Communicate and Provide Reasonable Resolution - CFPB Complaint Ref # XXXX XXXX and XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I am writing again regarding my ongoing complaints against Tesla Finance LLC 's deceptive and unlawful lending practices, which has now been compounded by an outright failure to communicate and make any good faith efforts towards resolution by their Staff Case Manager XXXX XXXX in violation of established legal precedents. 

In the CFPB 's response to my original complaint ( Ref # XXXX ), XXXX XXXX explicitly stated : " Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. '' Taking her statement as an open line of communication, I sent a detailed follow-up email to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX pointing out the contradictions in her response compared to evidence and internal emails from other Tesla personnel XXXX 

However, XXXX XXXX simply disregarded and failed to respond to my outreach attempting to facilitate a dialogue and get to the truth of the matter. Her lack of any reply was unprofessional and showed bad faith. 

Unsatisfied, I then filed a supplemental complaint ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX methodically laying out all the demonstrably false statements and contradictions in XXXX XXXX 's previous response that required addressing. 

Merely two days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX provided an abrasive written response stating : " Tesla respectfully disagrees with XXXX XXXX 's allegations and has previously responded to this complaint. Tesla will not be commenting further on this matter. '' By outright stating " Tesla will not be commenting further on this matter, '' XXXX XXXX has effectively issued a blanket refusal to address the contradictions raised and shut down any further communications toward resolution. This appears to violate established legal precedents involving fair lending laws that the CFPB enforces. 

Specifically, in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ruled that mortgage lenders have an obligation under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) to properly respond to qualified written requests from borrowers seeking information related to loan servicing. The court found that issuing a " blanket refusal '' to address allegations without reasonable explanations violates RESPA 's response requirements. 

Similarly, in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX XXXX reinforced that an " institutional inability or unwillingness '' does not excuse regulated lenders from complying with consumer communication and disclosure requirements under statutes like the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). 

By dismissively stating Tesla " will not be commenting '' further on this matter, XXXX XXXX has adopted the same posture of blanket refusal and institutional unwillingness to maintain proper communications that the XXXX XXXX has determined violates the reasonableness standards for lenders under RESPA, TILA and other fair lending laws the CFPB oversees. 

So after originally offering an open line of communication, then disregarding my attempted follow-up, XXXX XXXX has now summarily shut down any further dialogue or efforts towards an reasonable resolution- despite the considerable evidence I've provided exposing Tesla Finance 's deceptive conduct and her own false statements. This course of action demonstrates : 1. A failure to provide any reasonable means of communication, negotiation or dispute resolution as a customer service professional, contradictory to 9th Circuit precedents.

2. An outright refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address, the contradictions and inconsistencies in her previous statements that were proven false by evidence, violating recognized response obligations. 

3. A dismissive stonewalling of all allegations without any substantive rebuttal or offer to review the evidence provided, exhibiting institutional unwillingness to comply with disclosure duties.

4. A complete disregard for her professional obligation to make any effort to resolve this matter reasonably, transparently and consistent with fair lending laws like those at issue in XXXX XXXX XXXX 

As the bureau tasked with supervising large lending institutions like Tesla Finance, the CFPB must step in and compel XXXX XXXX and her firm to : 1. Provide an appropriate channel and designated personnel for continued open communications around resolving this matter, consistent with XXXX XXXX requirements for reasonable responses. 

2. Directly address and reconcile the contradictions, inconsistencies and demonstrably false statements that have been clearly evidenced, consistent with TILA and RESPA disclosure duties. 

3. If unable to provide reasonable explanations, make appropriate compensations for the quantifiable damages I have incurred from Tesla Finance 's deceptive and discriminatory lending practices. 

4. Submit to disciplinary review of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX handling of this matter for potential violations of professional conduct policies and duties established in fair lending precedents. 

I have documented extensively my efforts to facilitate dialogue and reach a reasonable resolution through proper channels. However, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX actions constitute the very type of dereliction of communication and resolution duties that the XXXX XXXX has explicitly determined violates established standards for regulated lenders. 

This appears to warrant immediate CFPB intervention and potential enforcement actions to compel Tesla Finance to conform to federal lending laws and legal precedents mandating reasonable consumer response standards - responsibilities XXXX XXXX has clearly abdicated throughout her handling of this matter. 

I sincerely hope the CFPB will uphold its mandate to properly supervise bad actors and enforce lending laws consistent with the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  interpretations. Regulated industry professionals like XXXX XXXX can not simply " dismiss '' evidence and " refuse to comment '' without making any efforts toward equitable resolutions and reconciling contradictions as required. 

I await your directives on appropriate next steps, as XXXX XXXX 's blanket refusal posture creates the impression that Tesla Finance is operating in open defiance of recognized federal court precedents involving fair lending statutes. Harsh accountability measures certainly appear justified at this stage given the egregiousness of her actions.

Company public response: Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation