Consumer complaint received 2022-06-15 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem when attempting to purchase vehicle at the end of the lease
Company: Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this matter as a new complaint because my original complaint was closed after XXXX submitted a response without clearly identifying their fault regarding the wrongful repossession of my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The original CFPB Case number is XXXX In its recent response ( attached ), XXXX states : >> '' The Check was received on XX/XX/XXXX, and we subsequently released our interest on the title to the Vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX. The Check was not processed by our bank and on XX/XX/XXXX, it was sent back to XXXX XXXX  '' .<< This language is very misleading and dishonest. XXXX is intentionally using vague language to cover its XXXX by cleverly stating " the check was not processed by our bank ''. Checks aren't simply " not processed ''. When a cashiers check is not processed, someone is to blame. In this case it is clearly XXXXXXXX XXXX fault. 

For many weeks they have been telling me " the check was returned ''. Saying a check was returned implies wrongdoing by the customer- usually meaning a bad check. XXXX is now trying to avoid admitting wrongdoing by using vague language. 

Today I found out that the cashiers check was not processed by XXXX XXXX bank because XXXX failed to endorse the check properly when they deposited it. Endorsing a check for deposit is a most basic function in the banking industry and XXXX should have known better. The cashiers check was returned to XXXX because of its own fault. The check was NOT returned to XXXX XXXX but to XXXX. Everyone knows that when a check is returned, it is not returned to the issuer- it is returned to the payee. All they had to do was properly endorse the check and re-deposit it. I have no idea where the check is now, but it is not at XXXX XXXX and the funds have not been in my account for many months. 

XXXX intentionally fails to state who or why the check was returned as they are trying to cover up the fact that this was all caused by their failure to implement basic industry standards. Instead, they waited eight months and simply took my car. 

On the day after the repossession of my vehicle, I called XXXX and spoke to agent " XXXX '' badge number XXXX. On a recorded line, he stated that my car had been repossessed because the check had been returned for " Non-Sufficient Funds ''. This is false and, again, XXXX is demonstrating extreme XXXX 

In order to justify their error they attempted to blame me for having written a bad check. This is really outrageous! At no time did anyone at XXXX have any evidence to support that a CASHIERS CHECK was returned for Non-Sufficient Funds ''. I sent a cashiers check willingly and of my own decision- not because XXXX required it. Cashiers checks are rarely, if ever, returned NSF. I did not pay with a personal check. The money has not been in my account since XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX took action against me and denied me possession of my car. 

XXXX also states : >>Thereafter, it appears a repossession attempt was made on your Vehicle ( which possession of the Vehicle was immediately returned to you, and you currently have possession of the Vehicle ) .<< This is another false and misleading statement in a blatant effort to downplay what XXXX did. XXXX did not " apparently attempt a repossession on my my vehicle ''. XXXX ordered a repossession of my car, eight months after I paid it off entirely. They entered the parking garage at my workplace by opening a gate to gain access and a full repossession took place. 

XXXX did NOT immediately return the vehicle to me. Instead, I was forced to go to the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Police Department that very afternoon with a copy of the vehicle title in hand. The investigating XXXX called the repossession agent and explained the situation on the phone. After a phone call back to both myself and the police officer, the repo agent stated that XXXX refused to authorize releasing the vehicle to me. 

The next day I received a phone call from a XXXX agent asking me to give her the mileage on the car because they needed that in order to request a new certificate of title because they would be liquidating the car at an upcoming sale. I hung up the phone. 

Consequently, I frantically contacted the repo agent again and provided proof of the title with the release of lien and he delivered the car back to me AT MY REQUEST. XXXX did NOTHING to make this situation right. 

Currently, XXXX is alleging that they still have not received the funds. This means that I am possibly at risk of having my credit report negatively impacted. Given the absolute XXXX I have witnessed from XXXX, I am truly concerned about how much more damage they may yet still cause against me.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation