Consumer complaint received 2025-12-02 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with the interest rate
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This letter serves as a formal complaint, notice of rescission, and demand for full refund regarding the financing and sale of a XXXX XXXX XXXX, purchased through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and financed by Exeter Finance LLC. 
The transaction contains predatory lending practices, forged signatures, invalid electronic consent, inaccurate disclosures, and unconscionable financing terms, all of which constitute violations of federal consumer protection law, Florida state law, and governing motor vehicle finance regulations. These defects render the contract void, unenforceable, and subject to rescission. 
II. BASIS FOR RESCISSION 1. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ; Regulation Z ) The Retail Installment Contract lists a 28.00 % APR, yet calculations of the actual financed amount, fees, and payment schedule show an APR of 28.9 %.

This 0.9 % discrepancy is a material TILA violation because : TILA and Regulation Z require lenders to disclose APR accurately and clearly.

A misstatement of nearly 1 % materially understates the true cost of credit.

The discrepancy directly affects the finance charge, total of payments, and amount financed.

Lendersnot dealersare strictly liable for inaccurate TILA disclosures.

Effects on Borrower : Over the life of the loan, this understated APR represents XXXX  of dollars in concealed finance cost, constituting predatory and deceptive lending and justifying immediate contract rescission and statutory damages.

2. Forged Signature and Invalid Electronic Consent The signature affixed to the Retail Installment Contract is not my signature. 
XXXX claims electronic consent was obtained ; however : They can not produce valid audit logs, No electronic signature authentication record exists, and The signature does not match my handwriting or electronic signature history. 
A contract containing a forged signature is void ab initio under : The E-SIGN Act, The Florida Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and Basic contract law principles ( intent, authentication, consent ).

A lender can not enforce a contract that was never validly executed.

Exeters reliance on this contract constitutes knowing enforcement of a fraudulently executed agreement.

3. Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ) Fla. Stat. 501.201501.213 This transaction exhibits hallmark indicators of unfair and deceptive trade practices, including : Excessive APR ( actual 28.9 % rather than disclosed 28.0 % ) Finance charge exceeding principal Total payments more than double the vehicles value Minimal down payment of only {$1000.00} Add-ons and fees financed without meaningful disclosure Under Rollins , Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 ( Fla. 2d DCA 2006 ), FDUTPA prohibits : deceptive practices, material omissions, unconscionable financing structures, and misleading APR or price representations.

This transaction satisfies multiple FDUTPA triggers, making the contract subject to rescission and damages.

4. Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act Violations Fla. Stat. 520.07, 520.08 The financing disclosures violate Floridas vehicle finance requirements, including : Improper itemization of the amount financed Price packing ( inflated cash price ) Bundled add-on products without authorization Misrepresentation of the true cash value of the XXXX XXXX XXXX Failure to disclose the actual APR or accurate finance charges Section 520.07 requires accurate and truthful disclosures of all financing terms.

Section 520.08 prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive statements in connection with retail motor vehicle financing. 
The XXXX XXXX financing contract violates both sections, rendering the agreement unenforceable under Florida law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation