Consumer complaint received 2025-11-07 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Confusing or misleading advertising or marketing
Company: Bizcorp, LLC
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX I obtained a personal-use auto loan from Preferred Loans , LLC for a vehicle I used as my personal transportation. The Promissory Note and attached Truth-in-Lending disclosure on the face of the contract identify the paper as a Promissory Note / Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statement and explicitly reference consumer disclosures. Yet the lender checked and labeled the contract as XXXX or XXXX ( La. XXXX. XXXX ) rather than the Louisiana XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that governs consumer auto loans ( La. R.S. 6:951 et seq. ). The form is also personally stamped at the top of the Promissory Note by XXXX XXXX, this instrument, indicating negotiable/non-negotiable-instrument characterization governed by La. Civ. Code art. 3498. 

This is a plain and material misclassification : the transaction was consumer in nature ( natural person, personal vehicle ) and the forms own Truth-in-Lending language confirms that. By labeling a consumer auto loan as commercial, XXXX XXXX deprived me of mandatory consumer protections and disclosure obligations under state and federal law. The misclassification is intentional as at the time of signing Lender Stated this Check Box specifically must be selected, and is the product of reckless compliance failure because the same document on its face contains consumer disclosures while designating the account as commercial. 

The company had possession of the vehicle by the middle of XXXX and sold at auction in XXXX. Despite that history and the documents own instrument characterization ( which additionally, even further triggers the five-year prescriptive period for negotiable/non-negotiable instruments ), the company attempted collection in XXXX. I raised the matters with the company by certified correspondence in XXXX, and again via email XX/XX/XXXX, and received no substantive response. I now submit this complaint to request investigation of XXXX XXXX practice of misclassifying consumer auto loans as commercial to avoid statutory consumer protections and disclosure obligations ( including TILA ), and to determine whether this is a pattern or practice affecting other borrowers. This is believed to raise serious compliance issues under federal laws like the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and further believed to be treated as a false or deceptive classification, which voids or reforms the contract under Louisianas consumer-credit statutes. 

Nature of the transaction : Personal vehicle purchase, not business-use. Disclosures included Truth-in-Lending language, which only applies to consumer loans, not commercial. 

Misclassification : The contract box marked Business or Commercial ( La. R.S. 9:3509 ) was selected. That statute governs non-consumer, commercial loans, which excludes consumer protections and TILA coverage. Therefore, the lender intentionally or negligently misclassified the loan to circumvent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and federal consumer laws. 

I am attaching a copy of the promissory note showing the Business/Commercial box checked and the Truth-in-Lending disclosures, documentation of repossession/sale, and my certified correspondence. I request CFPB review for regulatory violations and referral to appropriate state enforcement if a pattern is found.

Company response to consumer: Untimely response