Consumer complaint received 2024-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Credit denial
Company: Tesla, Inc.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Urgent Escalation - Institutional Bad Faith Deception and Obstruction by Tesla Finance To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...

Irrefutably Contradictory Statements on Denial Reasons Central to this matter, XXXX XXXX has repeatedly and unequivocally claimed my credit application was denied due to an alleged freeze on my XXXX credit report as of XX/XX/year>. However, indisputable evidence proves this stated justification is outright false : 1 ) Internal email correspondence from Tesla 's own employee XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year> stated : " We needed to resend your application for all the lenders because there was a freeze on it. '' However, my email response to XXXX XXXX clearly stated : " Also, I was informed that it was only going to be one [ credit inquiry ]. '' 2 ) This direct contradiction between XXXX XXXX 's claim of a credit freeze and my statement about being explicitly told there would be only one credit inquiry from Tesla exposes the falsity of the justification XXXX XXXX has provided. 

3 ) The official adverse action letter issued by Tesla Finance LLC declining my application is dated XX/XX/year> - nearly a month after the purported XX/XX/XXXX freeze date cited. 

4 ) Tesla 's own internal email from employee XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX admitted there were no denial reasons listed at all from their financing arm regarding my application.

5 ) Documented evidence proves multiple other major auto lenders like XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX all successfully accessed my credit files during the same XXXX XXXX period without issue. 

The new evidence of the XXXX XXXX email correspondence directly contradicting XXXX XXXX 's repeated justification of a credit freeze on XX/XX/XXXX is utterly damning. This represents incontrovertible proof that Tesla 's stated reasons for their adverse action against me have been false and deceptive.

( Remainder of complaint is unchanged detailing other contradictory conduct and demands for enforcement actions... ) By inserting the detailed evidence of the email exchange between myself and XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX, it establishes a comprehensive timeline and documentation trail of : 1 ) Tesla 's employee XXXX stating my application needed to be resent due to a freeze - the same justification provided repeatedly by XXXX. 

2 ) My direct response contradicting that by stating I was told there would be only one credit inquiry, not multiple resends.

3 ) This directly conflicts with and disproves the credibility of the credit freeze excuse that XXXX has repeatedly put forth as the reason for denial. 

Combined with all the other evidence like the adverse action letter date, records of other lenders accessing reports without issue, and internal emails admitting no denial reason - this new email correspondence with XXXX represents a XXXX XXXX of contradictory statements made by Tesla.

It forcefully rebuts and undermines any credibility their representatives like XXXX could potentially claim to have regarding the purported credit freeze excuse for the denial. This evidence is indisputable proof that they have provided intentionally false and deceptive reasons that are directly contradicted by their own internal records and employee communications. 

By incorporating this key piece of evidence prominently in the complaint, it reinforces the overarching allegations that : 1 ) Tesla has propagated verifiably false statements and deceptive justifications.

2 ) Their representatives have exhibited a bad faith pattern of obfuscation and contradictory conduct. 
3 ) There was a clear institutional unwillingness to facilitate any reasonable resolution of this matter.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation