Consumer complaint received 2026-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: DE

Complaint narrative:
Santanders response is factually incomplete and misleading. While Santander asserts a 132-day delinquency, it omits material information regarding the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX, which was in effect and contractually modified the payment obligations during the relevant period. By failing to disclose or account for this active loan extension, Santander misrepresents the true delinquency status of the account and obscures the context under which enforcement actions were taken. 

This omission is significant. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously sanctioned Santander for deficiencies in accurately reporting and disclosing the impact of loan extensions and servicing modifications on consumer accounts ( see CFPB Consent Order No. XXXX ). Santanders failure to acknowledge the Extension Agreement in its CFPB response reflects the same servicing and disclosure deficiencies previously identified by the Bureau.

As a result, Santanders characterization of the account status is unreliable and materially misleading, and its repossession decision was made without full and accurate consideration of the contractual forbearance and extension then in effect.

Furthermore, Santanders response contains a fundamental contradiction regarding my Identity Theft Claim. Santander acknowledges the account was under a fraud investigation initiated by the credit bureaus on XX/XX/XXXX. During this time, the account was effectively blocked/suppressed from my credit file to prevent inaccurate reporting. 
It is a deceptive and abusive practice to 'block ' an account from reporting for fraud while simultaneously accelerating the delinquency clock ( claiming 132 days past due ) and proceeding with a repossession. By 'blocking ' the account, Santander acknowledged the debt was in question ; by repossessing it, they ignored their own investigative 'block ' to the detriment of the consumer. This lack of coordination between their Fraud and Collections departments resulted in a wrongful repossession while the accounts validity was legally and procedurally suppressed. '' " I have also initiated legal action in the Delaware Justice of the Peace Court ( JP Case No. : [ Insert your case number here ] ) regarding this matter. Santander 's actions are causing immediate and irreparable financial harm, which is the subject of this separate court action.

In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 605B, all items related to this account should remain 'blocked ' during the fraud investigation. Continuing aggressive collection activities, including the repossession and planned sale on XX/XX/XXXX, while the account 's validity is in question and being litigated, is a violation of federal law and an abusive practice. 
I seek recourse through the CFPB for the unlawful servicing practices and demand that Santander adhere to the XXXX Forbearance Agreement 's arbitration clause to resolve this dispute. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation