Consumer complaint received 2025-10-16 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint supplements CFPB Case XXXX XXXXXXXX, originally filed XX/XX/year>. Subsequent correspondence between Hyundai Capital America ( XXXX ) and the Arkansas Attorney General confirms XXXX direct involvement and contradictory statements regarding the unresolved titling and registration failure for my leased vehicle from XXXX XXXX of XXXX, Arkansas. 

In its XX/XX/year> letter to the Attorney General, XXXX stated that no title has been received for his vehicle and that the vehicle is titled by the Dealer at the time the customer enters into the lease agreement. XXXX further represented that it has made multiple attempts to obtain registration and titling information from the Dealer but has been unsuccessful. These admissions confirm that XXXX knew the vehicle was never titled, possessed the ability to intervene, and failed to act for months despite having notice. 

XXXX had actual notice as early as XX/XX/year>. I made a good-faith attempt to register the vehicle in Texas following XXXX instructions and filed a state-to-state title transfer request through XXXX online portal listing XXXX as XXXX. This filing, along with the associated XXXX paperwork, demonstrated that the vehicle was untitled in any state. XXXX  internal systems and XXXX  status would have reflected this immediately. Over the following months, I had multiple phone conversations with XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX, and in XX/XX/year> I sent a follow-up email to XXXX  Titles XXXX  email that was read but never answered. XXXX therefore can not claim ignorance or lack of awareness. 

As XXXX  and beneficial owner under XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX can not credibly claim to be a detached indirect lender. The Texas XXXX has confirmed that, for leased vehicles, the lienholder is legally recognized as the vehicles owner. XXXX  assertion of ownership for contractual purposes, while denying responsibility for titling compliance, is contradictory and misleading. 

Both the dealer and XXXX were aware by XX/XX/year> that the vehicle had not been titled or registered, yet neither took corrective action until XX/XX/year>, when the Attorney XXXX office became involved. Even then, their proposed resolution to assist with registration and tax costs merely attempts to correct a long-standing failure, not compensate for XXXX months of non-performance and loss of use. This offer is also disingenuous, as the lease contract already includes a {$130.00} XXXX and XXXX XXXX that was charged to me at origination. XXXX and the dealership have therefore collected payment for a service that was never performed. 

XXXX  conduct demonstrates knowledge, control, and direct responsibility over the transaction. It can not claim to be uninvolved while communicating with state regulators, directing the dealer, and tracking the title. The companys own correspondence disproves its indirect lender claim and reveals systemic failure to protect the consumer. 

I will be attaching XXXX  letter to the Attorney General as supporting documentation. Any further documentation, questions, or clarification can be directed to me

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation