Consumer complaint received 2026-01-20 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Voluntary repossession
Company: Auto Now Financial Services, Inc., Phoenix, AZ Branch
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I dispute the companys response and assertion that no new evidence has been provided. The attached XXXX text-message screenshots are between my XXXX  XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX with timestamps, constitute contemporaneous documentary evidence that directly contradicts several of the companys statements and demonstrates misrepresentation, shifting narratives, and post-hoc justification of contractual terms. XXXX Representation Contradicted by Contemporaneous Communications- The company states that XXXX XXXX XXXX initiated but never completed the co-signer application and was therefore never added. However, XXXX XXXX show : A. On XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, beginning at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX, dealership staff explicitly discussed running credit, down payment terms, and trade-in considerations while treating both parties as participants in the transaction. XXXX  At XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX received a direct application link from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, demonstrating that the dealership itself initiated the co-signer application process. XXXX Subsequent messages between XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX  show active troubleshooting with dealership staff, including : XXXX. Staff acknowledging application submission issues staff stating they would send a fresh link. XXXX. Staff confirming, they were adding me now to send the link directly. XXXX XXXX confirming they had taken XXXX XXXX XXXX and ID. These messages directly contradict the claim that the co-signer process simply was not completed without dealership involvement. They demonstrate affirmative representations by dealership staff that the co-signer was being processed, not rejected or abandoned. XXXX. Trade-In Vehicle Inconsistent with Pre-Contract Discussions- The company asserts that the XXXX XXXX XXXX was never accepted as a trade-in because it was inoperable and that the consumer was explicitly informed of this. However, XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) documents dealership staff asking : Hes asking if were wanting to trade in the expedition still? This establishes that : A. Trade-in discussions were active before contract execution, XXXX. The dealership continued trade-in negotiations while credit was being run, XXXX There was no contemporaneous rejection of a trade-in at that stage. The claim that the consumer was explicitly informed the vehicle could not be traded is not reflected in any contemporaneous communication provided by the company. XXXX. Down Payment & Deal Finalization Evidence of Reliance ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX show : A. Dealership confirmation that applications were being checked and submitted successfully, XXXX. Statements that they know who we are and they remember you from earlier, XXXX Confirmation that XXXX XXXX XXXX and ID were collected, XXXX Statements indicating the vehicle was being sourced from another lot, XXXX XXXX reliance statements ( Its about to happen, I got the money and this car is history ). This demonstrates reasonable reliance on dealership representations that financing terms ( including co-signer participation ) were proceeding as represented. XXXX. Proof of Residence Requests Post-Approval Scramble ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX shows last-minute document requests for proof of residence after the deal was represented as moving forward. This further supports that the dealership treated the transaction as effectively approved and ongoing, not abandoned or conditional. XXXX. Conflicting Statements to Agencies Substance, Not Length- The company claims its statements to the XXXX Police Department XXXX XXXX  Attorney General, and CFPB XXXX only in length and detail. This is incorrect. The substance materially changes, including : A. Whether the co-signer declined, failed to complete, or was merely sent links, XXXX. Whether a trade-in was discussed, attempted, or categorically rejected, XXXX XXXX notice was properly sent before repossession or generated afterward. The attached screenshots establish what was represented at the time of the transaction, which conflicts with later regulator-facing explanations. XXXX. Post-Repossession Notice Timing Email Metadata Remains Unrefuted- The company claims the XX/XX/XXXX email was merely a courtesy copy. However : A. The email metadata shows first transmission on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX I never received a receipt of any earlier mailed notice, XXXX The timing coincides directly with the filing of complaints. This creates a credibility issue that can not be resolved by unsupported assertions alone. XXXX. Law Enforcement Involvement Clarification Requested- I have referenced XXXX Police Department XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, led by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, in which four arrests have been made in relation to this case. The companys categorical denial of any relevance further underscores the need for independent review. XXXX. This Filing Contains New Evidence- Contrary to the companys claim, this complaint includes : A. XXXX contemporaneous text-message screenshots, XXXX Time-stamped communications initiated by the dealership, XXXX Evidence of representations inconsistent with the final contract and post-repossession narrative.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation