Consumer complaint received 2021-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: Titanium Funds
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
On or about, XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a vehicle from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX XXXXs '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, UT. The salesman, XXXX, completed all of the paperwork for the purchase agreement, as well as, the loan application and the finance agreement for XXXX  's in-house finance company, Titanium Funds ( XXXX XXXX 's XXXX XXXX ). XXXX completed the signing of each agreement XXXX well over 30 pages of documents ) using a small tablet device, and the entire process lasted XXXX hours. During the signing of these agreements, XXXX made several misrepresentations of material facts, the one most pertinent to this complaint regarded the flexibility of the payment schedule associated with the finance agreement and the finance company, Titanium Funds. 

XXXX represented Titanium Funds and the terms of the agreement to be far more flexible than Titanium Funds allows. In fact, XXXX stated that Titanium Funds would work with debtors in the event that they had to make a late loan payment on the vehicle, although XXXX did state that Titanium Funds would report all payments, late or not, to the credit bureaus. 

The fact of the matter is, Titanium Funds is possibly the most rigid lender doing business, and their inflexibility surrounding loan payments can not be described as anything but mandatory strict compliance with the contract terms. Evidence of this fact can be found in my dealings with Titanium Funds on XXXX XXXX, 2021. 

On or about, XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Titanium Funds and spoke with a representative, XXXX, I believe her name was, to discuss a payment plan or a possible extension of the payment deadline on my loan which was due on XX/XX/XXXX. I inquired as to whether or not I could make a partial payment on XX/XX/XXXX and pay the remaining balance two ( 2 XXXX business days later on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX informed me that Titanium Funds ' policy was to not accept partial payments. I then inquired as to whether or not I could get an extension on the payment deadline to make the full loan payment on XX/XX/XXXX rather than XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX informed me that it was Titanium Funds ' policy to only allow a XXXX ( XXXX ) day grace period to debtors before the vehicle would be disabled automatically using a starter interrupt device XXXX " SID '' ) unless the debtor submitted to inspection by Titanium Funds the financial conditions ( e.g. a note from a doctor, a low paycheck amount, etc. ) giving rise to the request so that a loan administrator could approve it - such a request from a creditor was previously unheard of by me prior to Titanium Funds ' request. 

At that point, I began to discuss, adversarially, the numerous misrepresentations of material facts that XXXX had made during the signing of the contracts, his failure to disclose the condition of the vehicle, and more. XXXX then asked if I would like to speak to their attorney, and I started that I would. XXXX then transferred me to voicemail, and I left a message. As of the time of this writing, I've received no return phone call from anyone representing themselves as Titanium Funds ' attorney. 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Titanium Funds a second time to speak with their attorney. In an effort to reach the attorney, I explained the situation to the representative who reiterated Titanium Funds ' strict compliance position. I then requested to speak with the attorney. The representative then transferred me to another representative who stated that she was the paralegal in Titanium Funds ' legal department. 

I reiterated to the alleged paralegal that I desired to speak with the licensed attorney for Titanium Funds to which she responded that the attorney does not speak to debtors but will only speak to other attorneys representing debtors. She then solicited the details regarding my position which I explained but quickly became aware that she was neither competent to address or willing to address. Instead, the paralegal simply repeated over and over again that their contracts were iron clad. Eventually, the representative terminated the phone call. 

A short time later, I called Titanium Funds back and asked to speak with the attorney. Again, the paralegal answered the phone and the situation resulted in a similar result to the first with the paralegal again refusing to put me in touch with Titanium Funds ' attorney and the representative demanding that I do not call the legal department again. 

Now, there are several issues that I want to bring up in this complaint : XXXX. XXXX 's made several misrepresentations of material facts surrounding the terms of the finance agreement, specifically, the flexibility of the payment terms ; XXXX. XXXX and XXXX 's had an impermissible conflict of interest that tainted the finance agreement and motivated XXXX to make these misrepresentations of material facts, to omit material facts regarding the true conditions of the vehicle, and to fail to disclose material facts pertaining to negative equity or unsecured debt and/or to limit the terms of the finance agreement to only secured debt or the actual value of the vehicle ; and 3. The use of coercive tactics, threats, and/or harassment in the collection or enforcement of the unconscionable finance agreement tantamount to a debtor prison or indentured servitude executed by a digital leash, fence, and/or arrest device ( i.e. geolocation devices, starter interrupt device XXXX in their efforts to enforce the debtor 's strict compliance with an unconscionable and/or unenforceable finance agreement. 

Without question, Titanium Funds is a predatory lender offering subprime auto loans to consumers who wish to purchase vehicles from the partner/affiliate dealership XXXX XXXX 's ), and they use this vertical integration to bypass the fair, honest, and good faith protections available to consumers in m with better credit ratings in order to exploit high risk debtors using deceptive, oppressive, and fundamentally unfair business practices centered on the vertical integration of a dealer that sells vehicles at the highest imaginable price which they then finance at the highest imaginable interest rates while they manufacture debtor default through onerous finance agreement terms in order to seize the vehicle at the first available opportunity so that they can collect interest payments under that agreement while maximizing the principle of the loan when it comes time to resell the vehicle and obtain judgment for a deficiency. 

If this is legal, then there is no point in complying with the law because the law is a threat to the consumer 's well being.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation