Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
Formal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Complaint : Loan Servicing Malpractice and Principal Theft This is a formal complaint submitted against USAA regarding systematic loan servicing malpractice, the unauthorized reversal of cleared funds, and deceptive lending practices that violate federal consumer protection laws. COMPLAINT OVERVIEW AND PRIMARY GRIEVANCES This filing details a pattern of egregious servicing failures and what can only be described as " principal theft. '' Despite the consumers continuous good-faith efforts to fulfill their debt obligations, the institution has systematically rejected cleared payments and manipulated the account ledger using internal software commands. The core issues of this dispute include : * Unauthorized Auto-Payments : The institution forced a XXXX payment cycle against the consumer 's explicit requirements and refused to cancel the auto-pay feature despite numerous verbal and written requests. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Reversal Codes : The use of internal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX commands to reverse successful payments that had already cleared the consumers XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. * Principal Theft and Interest Stacking : Approximately {$12000.00} in successful payments cleared the consumers external account but were never applied to the principal or returned, resulting in {$16000.00} in mathematically impossible interest charges. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX : A calculated failure to provide secure document upload channels, followed by a total digital lockout that prevented the consumer from managing their own financial ledger. * Bad Faith Resolution Practices : Institutional representatives, specifically a Subject Matter Expert ( SME ) identified as " Therese, '' attempted to shift the " burden of proof '' onto the consumer to explain the institution 's own internal software codes. CHRONOLOGY OF LOAN SERVICING ERRORS Deceptive Loan Terms and Due Date Manipulation At the inception of the loan, ] explicitly requested a payment due date of the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to align with their household income. USAA representatives forced a XXXX cycle, falsely asserting that the date could be moved after XXXX successful cycles. When the consumer attempted to rectify this as promised, they were told the change was impossible without a total refinance. This deceptive act initiated a cycle of artificial delinquency used to justify further malpractice. Unauthorized Auto-Pay and Communication Failures Despite multiple requests to terminate auto-pay and attempts to manage the account via manual phone payments, USAA continued unauthorized withdrawals on the XXXX. Internal ledgers erroneously labeled manual phone payments as " auto-pay, '' creating systemic accounting confusion. Furthermore, USAA has actively obstructed my ability to investigate these account errors by refusing to provide the specific login logs and call logs I requested. Instead, USAA halted all investigation into the missing {$10000.00} and the unauthorized auto-pays, demanding I surrender XXXX XXXX of complete, unredacted personal bank statements from my external bank before they would proceed. This unreasonable demand serves as a stall tactic designed to shift the burden of proof onto the consumer, especially since USAA already possesses the internal transaction ledgers showing their own system 's XXXX ' reversals. The " XXXX '' Interaction and Digital Obstruction During attempts to resolve these discrepancies, the consumer encountered a Subject Matter Expert ( SME ) named " XXXX. '' This individual demonstrated significant bad faith by initially denying the existence of the " XXXX '' internal codesdespite multiple other departments ( XXXX, XXXX, loan servicing, and collections ) being able to see them. XXXX subsequently refused to provide a secure link for bank statement uploads and demanded the consumer " prove '' the validity of the institutions own internal software commands. Following this encounter, the consumer was locked out of the digital portal, effectively blinding them to the theft of their equity. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS : SYSTEMATIC XXXX XXXX XXXX REVERSALS & FINANCIAL IMPACT A forensic audit of the consumer 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX statements confirms that funds were successfully debited from the consumer 's account, yet USAA utilized internal " XXXX XXXX '' and " XXXX XXXX '' commands to reverse these payments on their end without returning the money to the source. XXXX Payment Verification vs. USAA Reversal Claims Transaction Date Amount XXXX Status USAA Internal Action XXXX {$770.00} Cleared/Paid Reversed via Code XXXX XXXX {$770.00} Cleared/Paid Reversed via Code XXXX XXXX {$850.00} Cleared/Paid Reversed via Code XXXX XXXX {$840.00} Cleared/Paid Reversed via Code XXXX XXXX {$650.00} Cleared/Paid Reversed via Code XXXX Total Financial Impact : The systematic reversal of cleared funds has resulted in XXXX in unaccounted money XXXX XXXX By failing to apply these funds, USAA maintained an artificially high principal balance, leading to the accrual of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in stacked interest. This is a compounding theft effect : interest is being charged on a principal balance that exists only because the institution stole the payments intended to reduce it. REGULATORY VIOLATIONS ( TILA, MLA, & UDAAP ) 1. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violations : Failure to credit payments to the consumer 's account as of the date of receipt. Clearing funds and then " internally reversing '' them while retaining the cash is a fundamental breach of fiduciary duty. 2. UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ) : Telling a consumer a due date can be changed to secure a loan and then claiming it is impossible after the loan is signed is a textbook deceptive act. 3. Military Lending Act ( MLA ) Failures : The refusal to accept good-faith manual payments and the creation of artificial delinquency has destabilized a protected family, violating the spirit and protections of the MLA. 4. Inaccurate Fee Assessment : Forensic evidence from XXXX statements shows multiple " double-penalty '' {$29.00} fees within a single cycle for payments that had already cleared the consumer 's bank. 6. COMPOUNDING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP & ECONOMIC DAMAGES The mismanagement of this account occurred during a significant medical emergency. In XXXX, the consumer was hospitalized for a XXXX and a subsequent XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and communications were disconnected ( phones and home internet ) rendering the consumers incapable of communicating with family and checking on their children. Specific Collateral Damages Include : * The Communication Blackout : USAAs accounting errors led to the disconnection of the familys phone and internet services while the mother was hospitalized with an XXXX. This prevented a mother in a medical emergency from communicating with her children, causing extreme anguish. * Third-Party Debt Obligation : Because USAA withheld XXXX of the family 's liquid capital, they were forced take out personal loans from predatory entities and now face litigation over their inability to pay them. The consumer was also forced to borrow XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from friends and family to cover basic living expenses. * Loss of XXXX % Mortgage Rate : USAAs negative credit reporting ( based on reversed payments ) destroyed the family 's credit profile. This directly caused the loss of their XXXX % mortgage rate, forcing a refinance to XXXX % +. This increased their monthly housing cost from {$1300.00} to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, an annual loss of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX that will compound over the life of the XXXX loan. USAA has had the interest-free use of the consumer 's {$12000.00} for over XXXX years via internal software-induced reversals. The burden of proof rests entirely on the institution to explain the " XXXX '' codes and the location of these cleared but unapplied funds.

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