Consumer complaint received 2026-04-23 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Credit denial
Company: PRANCER CAPITAL CORP
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Prancer Capital Failure to Provide ECOA Adverse Action Notice, Misrepresentation of Approval Status, Mishandling of Personal Information, and Possible Identity Misuse I am filing this complaint because Prancer Capital failed to provide the disclosures required under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) regarding a credit application submitted on or about XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). The dealership informed me that Prancer Capital approved my application. Based on this approval, I was allowed to take the vehicle home and insured it through XXXX XXXX. The Declaration Page listed Prancer Capital as the lienholder, which can only occur if the lender approved the financing or the dealership represented that it had been approved. ( Declaration Page Uploaded ) ( Picture of Vehicle Uploaded ) Several days later, I was told to bring the vehicle back to the dealership Prancer Capital had reversed the approval and denied the application. I never received the required Adverse Action Notice, the credit bureau used, or any written explanation. This is a direct violation of ECOA 1691 ( d ) and Regulation B ( 12 CFR 1002.9 ). Written Demand Sent to Prancer Capital On XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I emailed XXXX, addressed to the Compliance Officer, attaching a formal ECOA/FCRA demand letter and notifying them that the same request was being sent via USPS Certified Mail XXXX I requested : XXXX. A copy of the Adverse Action Notice XXXX. A sworn statement confirming the final status of the application XXXX. Copies of any credit scores, credit data, and the name of the credit reporting agency used I also mailed a physical copy to : Compliance Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX No response was received to either the email or the mailed request. Communication Attempts and Concerning Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : I called ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX and spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She stated the company does not issue any documents regarding approvals or denials, refused to provide a funding letter, and transferred me to Compliance. No one answered. I left a detailed voicemail. XX/XX/XXXX : I received a call from XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I returned the call at XXXX XXXX and left a voicemail. I left another voicemail at XXXX XXXX requesting a return call. XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX second recorded call ) : I spoke with XXXX, who stated that XXXX was the highest person available. During the transfer, XXXX ( XXXX ) answered and stated : This is not my desk. We dont issue letters for approvals or denials. We dont provide anything. An adverse action notice is not legal. XXXX refused to provide her managers name. XXXX then asked whether I was requesting a letter of denial. I explained I had already been told the company does not issue approvals or denials. She confirmed : We dont. No, that is not something we do. When I asked what documentation the company does provide, she repeated : We dont provide anything. At her request, I provided my name. XXXX then stated she had spoken with upper management, including the owner of the company. She asked whether my inquiry concerned a XXXX XXXX XXXX. When I asked why she referenced that vehicle, she immediately said No maam, spoke over me, and appeared confused. She stated the XXXX XXXX was referring to had a finalized loan. I clarified the date of my application on or about ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I asked whether the owner she referenced was XXXX XXXX ; she said no. I asked whether it was XXXX ; she placed me on hold and never returned. This raises serious concerns about identity confusion, mixed files, or improper access to consumer information. Why This Conduct Is Concerning Prancer Capitals behavior raises multiple federal concerns : Failure to provide an ECOA required Adverse Action Notice Misrepresentation of approval status Lienholder listed on insurance despite alleged denial Confusion about my identity and reference to another consumers vehicle Possible mixed file or identity misuse Mishandling of sensitive personal information ( name, address, SSN ) False statements that adverse action notices are not legal Refusal to identify supervisors or compliance personnel Evasive behavior and refusal to return calls Pattern of unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ) Prancer Capital had multiple opportunitiesvia phone, voicemail, email, and written mailto comply with federal law and refused to provide any documentation. Requested Action Supporting documentation ( call logs, screenshots, insurance declaration page, and dealership records ) is available upon request.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation