Consumer complaint received 2018-02-05 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Fraudulent loan
Company: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
Dear XXXX XXXX ; Reference to CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX There is missing information within your response which I want answered. When I originally contact your company it was not only about the payments. I was requesting other information in regards to our contract being fraudulent and your company being responsible for your part in this happening to me. Your company was notified by me by phone on several occasion requesting some sort of assistance in regard to the deceptive action on behalf of XXXX XXXX and all Im told is that I sign the contract. Which I do understand but when I signed I didnt know the dealership was going to send your company fraudulent information in order to secure me a loan. And Im not sure why NMAC did know either or is it that you didnt care. 

A lender-borrower relationship is a contractual relationship, which may result in a lender being held liable for breaching written, oral and implied contracts or agreements. Our contracted was breach when you as the lender failed to take action required under loan documents or interpret loan document properly. 

The breach of contract I am claiming is course of conduct between XXXX and NMAC as a factor in interpreting the language of a contract. The course of conduct should amend the written terms of the loan document because you deviated from the document terms. 

As a lender, you know that you are ultimately responsible for verifying all the information provided on a credit application. After all, your loan portfolio could be at significant risk if you end up loaning money to people who cant keep up with their monthly payments. In addition, there could be critical compliance ramifications. 

Which will be evidence that your company was engaged in predatory lending and putting your loan portfolios at risk. On XX/XX/XXXX, a CFPB complaint was filed asking that both the dealership and lender pay penalties to customer who received the loans, and put better verification processes in place for auto loan paperwork. Which I agree with because I trusted that both companies would have been honest and trustworthy. 

You state that NMAC is a separate and distinct entity from dealership and can not speak to what was discussed with XXXX XXXX during contract negotiations. Well I am not asking you to speak for them. Im asking you to speak for NMAC and your part in confirming that all information was true and accurate for such a large amount of money. 

So I would like for you to answer this questions. 

Did you verify any of my income information? Credit report? 

What process did you use when your company decided to extend me a loan? 

How do you handle application frauds with your customer? 

Do you try to get any kind of answers from dealership about the defraud application? 

Do you hold borrower responsible for the action of the dealership deceptive action? 

Do you demand they repay the money back for falsifying the loan application? 

What do you actually do about deceptive loan agreements? 

Since your car is a lemon are you responsible for repairs that manufacturer and service refuse to fix? Go after manufacturer and demand they repair the car? 

Is my loan a fixed-sum loan? Or a Hire Purchase agreement? 

Hire agreements are covered by the Supply of Goods ( implied Terms ) Act 1973. This say there are implied conditions in hire purchase agreement, including a condition that the goods will be of satisfactory quality and will be fit for purpose. 

Fixed-sum loan under Section 75 of the consumer Credit Act 1974 the lender may, in some circumstances, be equally liable with the dealer if something is wrong with the car. The car has and had all kinds of problems that the dealer service department and manufacturer refuse to give me a fair solution to this defects. 

Why when I notified your company of the action of the dealership did I not get any help? 

I would like a copy of all documents you received from dealership on XX/XX/XXXX. 

There are a horde of cases which have as their primary claim of culpability that the lender knew or should have know that the proposed contract did not pencil out, but NMAC wanted it fees and origination point and did not stop the loan from proceeding. Which make you negligence for not taking the necessary precaution when extending me a loan. 

Lender liability refers to a body of law amalgamated form assorted liability theories based in contract, tort, other common law and statutes. The common element that unifies these theories is that they are asserted against lenders, typically large financial institutions. Causes of action under these theories may arise when action taken or not taken by a lender in connection with a loan directly or indirectly results in losses to a borrower or third party. So XXXX defrauding me would be on you because NMAC did not take proper action when giving me a loan. 

The law does not impose the lender the duty to inspect, although that duty is a right generally bargained for in the loan documents. The loan documents should almost always, for reasons of practicality, allow for the duty to inspect, but should negate any duty to inspect for the borrowers or any third partys benefit. The right to inspect is not a duty and it is the prerogative of and for the sole benefit of the lender. If the right/ duty to inspect is not so limited then the borrower have a claim that the inspection was intended to be for it benefit and thus anything not found, discovered or vetted would theoretically be for the account of the lender if the borrower relies on the lenders inspection. 

Related to the duty to inspect is the question of disbursement. If a lender were, either pursuant to the documents or a course of practice, to disburse directly to the tradesmen and materialmen, then there is a higher degree of care. Especially since this was a very expensive loan. 

The National Consumer Credit Protection Act ( NCCP ) XX/XX/XXXX have given birth to statutory concept of responsible lending which apply to loans. 

Responsible lending under the NCCP provides that a credit assistance provider must, after making reasonable inquires and taking reasonable steps to verify information, make a preliminary assessment about whether the consumer contract or changes to the consumers contract will be not unsuitable and A credit provider must, after making reasonable inquires and taking reasonable steps to verify information, make a final assessment about whether the consumers contract or changes to the consumers contract will be not unsuitable. 

A loan will not be unsuitable if it meets the consumers requirements and objective and the consumer has the capacity to repay the loan without experiencing financial hardship. Which is why you should have check me out before giving me a loan. 

The responsible lending obligation requires reasonable inquires to be made about the consumers financial situation and their requirements and objectives. In XXXX XXXX XXXX page 12 states that the Financial Service Provider ( FSP ) suggest inquires to assess the consumer financial position. 

The consumers amount and source of income, including the length and nature of their employment. 
The consumers fixed expenses, such as rent, repayments to other loans/debts, child support, insurance. 
The consumers variable expenses. 
The consumers credit history Any existing debts that are to be paid from the loan The consumers age and number of dependant The consumers assets Reasonably foreseeable changes, such as the end of honeymoon period on a loan, impending retirement or the end of seasonal employment Then you gave a loan of almost {$33000.00} for a XXXX XXXX XXXX. Didnt you think that was a bit much for a car with a MSRP of {$19000.00}. you allow a mark up price for this car to process and you should be responsible for that. I am pretty sure you should have know that was a lot of money for a vehicle. 

I am also putting you on notice that the vehicle thats in question is a defective lemon on top of the defraud. Im unable to go after XXXX to requests a refund, since your company extended the loan you are responsible for buying a lemon and expect for me to pay for it. You first made the agreement with them and you should have them pay you back for I have been defrauded by them. Which Ive been in contact with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX About the defective issues and they are not honoring the manufacturer warranty. So at this point the car is deem unsafe to drive and have many pending lawsuits out for transmission, sunroof exploding and airbag issues. 

I feel NMAC and XXXX XXXX used Predatory Business Practices with this auto agreement due to the fact that I was scammed and NMAC gave me no help or solution to this issue since I made them aware of the defraud from XXXX. 

I felt like I had no control of the situation cause I was not being taken seriously from my lender. If so you would have assist me sooner to discuss option of what policy/ procedure that could have been used to possibility terminate this loan sooner. Because how I see it the loan was breach / voided because it was done in a fraudulent way. Furthermore, I should not be responsible or held bonded by an agreement that legally is not a contract. Because the information on it was false and Im for sure if my real income and credit information was properly submitted I would not be eligible for a loan. 

Since XXXX knew I had a loan 4months prior for more than {$35000.00} and to know that NMAC didnt use maladministration. Which mean an act or omission contrary to or not in accordance with a duty or obligation owed at law or pursuant to the terms ( express or implied ) of the contract between the Financial Service Provider and applicant. 

So I am presenting this claim to you to buy back this suspicious loan that was fraudulent and pay me for the discrepancies done for the loan. 

I am looking forward to your company to make a good faith approach to this bad deal. Because we was both involved in this scam. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I receive letter stating your intent to repossess vehicle. I am requesting that this situation be put on hold until we complete my complaint process. Because I feel your company has an obligation to review and give me feedback to this situation. You have not fully answered my question to this fraud situation you are involved in. 

If you do repossess vehicle i am requesting it not be sold because it's in arbitration with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX affair dept. 

Thank you for listening and I hope to hear back from you soon. 

XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation