Consumer complaint received 2025-12-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: CIG FINANCIAL LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding inaccurate delinquency communications, misleading default escalation, repossession-related fee assessments, and inaccurate or uncorrected credit reporting associated with my AutoNation Finance auto loan.

AutoNation Finance has formally admitted in writing that a delinquency notice sent to me on XX/XX/year> was factually inaccurate. Despite this admitted error, repossession escalation and fee assessments proceeded during the same period, and no remediation has been provided for the consumer harm created by the incorrect communication. 



Detailed Narrative On XX/XX/year>, AutoNation Finance sent me a delinquency notice stating my account was three ( 3 ) months past due, along with a reinstatement amount based on that representation. 

On XX/XX/year>, AutoNation Finance acknowledged in writing that this notice was incorrect, and that the account was actually four ( 4 ) months past due at that time. The company apologized for the confusion caused by this inaccurate communication. 

This incorrect delinquency notice was issued during an active default and repossession escalation window. However : No corrective or clarifying delinquency notice was provided prior to enforcement Repossession-related fees were assessed during the same period Reinstatement calculations relied on delinquency assumptions that were not accurately communicated No remediation was offered following the companys admission of error AutoNation Finance now asserts that although the XX/XX/XXXX communication was inaccurate, repossession actions and fees were still valid under its internal calculations. This position fails to address the consumer impact of misleading default communications, particularly when such communications occur immediately prior to enforcement actions. 



Payment Application and Consumer Confusion AutoNation Finance acknowledges that : Partial payments were applied differently depending on internal account status Certain payments were applied to principal only A payment deferment was granted in XX/XX/year> These payment application mechanics were not clearly explained in real time, and the inaccurate delinquency notice materially distorted my understanding of : My true delinquency status My ability to cure or reinstate the account The urgency and structure of enforcement actions Even if AutoNation Finance believes its accounting methodology complies with contract terms, the presentation of delinquency and escalation was misleading, inconsistent, and unfair to a reasonable consumer. 



Repossession Escalation and Fee Assessment Concerns AutoNation Finance repossessed my vehicle and later released it back to me around XX/XX/year>, confirming that no sale or deficiency balance resulted. 

However, repossession escalation and related fee assessments occurred without correcting a known inaccurate delinquency notice. Repo-related fees and transport charges were assessed during a period in which AutoNation Finance has admitted its delinquency communication was incorrect. 

These fees were directly tied to enforcement actions influenced by misleading information and should be subject to remedial review. 



Credit Reporting Concerns AutoNation Finance has not confirmed that credit bureau reporting associated with this event reflects the corrected delinquency timeline. 

Specifically, AutoNation Finance has not addressed whether : Any 90+ day delinquency reporting tied to this period was corrected Any repossession indicators were suppressed or removed Late payment markers associated with the inaccurate notice period were adjusted If inaccurate delinquency information was communicated to me, any credit reporting based on the same framework is presumptively unreliable and must be reviewed and corrected. 



Regulatory Concerns This matter raises concerns under : CFPB UDAAP standards ( unfair and deceptive acts or practices ) Federal consumer credit disclosure principles requiring accurate, non-misleading delinquency communication Good-faith enforcement obligations when escalating to repossession The issue is not whether repossession is permitted under contract terms in theory, but whether enforcement occurred following misleading delinquency communications that materially affected a consumers ability to respond.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation