Consumer complaint received 2025-11-05 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Deficiency balance after repossession
Company: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Summary of Violations and Unresolved Issues Toyota Financial Services response fails to adequately address or correct multiple violations under federal and state law related to my vehicle repossession, account balance, and post-sale deficiency reporting. Based on the documents Toyota provided including the Notice of Our Plan to Sell Vehicle ( dated XX/XX/year> ) and Deficiency Notice ( dated XX/XX/year> ) I am disputing both the accuracy and lawfulness of Toyotas actions and records.

1. Inaccurate Deficiency Calculation ( UCC 9-615 ( f ) ) Toyotas post-sale calculation lists a Gross Obligation of {$30000.00}, even though the most recent account history before repossession shows a principal balance of {$28000.00}. The difference of roughly {$1700.00} is unexplained and appears to include unearned or duplicate finance charges. Additionally, the Assessed Repo/Collection Fees totaling over {$2200.00} are inconsistently applied throughout the statements, suggesting possible inflation or double-billing in violation of UCC 9-615 ( a ) ( 1 ).

2. Incomplete or Misleading Notice ( UCC 9-614 ) Toyotas repossession notice may not meet the content accuracy standard required by UCC 9-614 ( 3 ) because it does not provide a full breakdown of accrued finance charges, lists estimated fees without disclosing how they were calculated, and includes repeated Assessed Repo/Collection Fees entries.

These omissions prevented me from exercising my right of redemption or reinstatement under Georgia law ( 11-9-623 ).

3. False or Inaccurate Credit Reporting ( FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) & 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) Toyota continues to report this account as a charged-off balance of {$17000.00} without acknowledging that the balance is formally disputed. Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), a furnisher must not report information it knows or should know is inaccurate. Toyota also failed to mark the account as in dispute, violating FCRA and CFPB Regulation V ( 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ).

4. Improper Data Disclosure ( FCRA 604 & Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 6802 ) Toyota shared my personal and account data with at least one third-party collector before verifying the accuracy of the debt. This constitutes an unauthorized disclosure under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and a violation of FCRA 604 ( a ), which restricts use of consumer information to permissible purposes.

5. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) Toyotas CFPB response does not include an itemized accounting of how the {$17000.00} was computed, documentation verifying the actual sale date, location, or proceeds of {$15000.00}, nor any explanation of why the deficiency balance differs from their ledger. Toyota has not satisfied its legal duty to conduct a reasonable investigation.

Requested CFPB Action 1. Provide complete documentation showing how the alleged balance was calculated, including receipts for all repo and sale expenses. 2. Correct or delete any inaccurate credit reporting tied to this account. 3. Cease collection activity on the disputed deficiency until verification is completed. 4. Confirm compliance with UCC, FCRA, and privacy regulations in writing. Conclusion Toyotas handling of this account shows multiple inconsistencies, inflated charges, and inadequate notice of rights. The companys response fails to demonstrate compliance with federal consumer protection laws. I request that this complaint remain In Dispute until Toyota provides verifiable documentation proving the validity of the alleged deficiency
balance and compliance with UCC and

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation