Consumer complaint received 2026-04-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened to arrest you or take you to jail if you do not pay
Company: World Omni Financial Corp.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Subject : SETF threatened harassment and law-enforcement escalation while refusing to reconcile contradictory surrender, payoff, title-transfer, and credit-reporting records Complaint body addition : This complaint also concerns SETFs use of threats and communication-suppression tactics after I raised evidence-backed questions about contradictions in official records. On XX/XX/XXXX, SETF sent me a cease-and-desist letter accusing me of harassment, intimidation, and threats, demanding that I cease email communications with SETF representatives, and warning that SETF could refer the matter to law enforcement or pursue legal action. SETF sent this letter even though the underlying issue remained unresolved and even though I was seeking clarification of contradictory official records. Those contradictions are substantial. In XX/XX/XXXX, my attorneys office stated that SETF showed the XXXX XXXX XXXX as surrendered. Other records show title transfer / inactive title/ surrendered out of state activity on or around XX/XX/XXXX. At the same time, other records reflect a third-party payoff / trade / paid-off treatment. Meanwhile, credit reporting does not appear to reflect a consistent event sequence for both obligated parties. For example, if SETF truly treated the vehicle as surrendered and took or accepted possession through a surrender-related process, that requires a clear explanation of how that event occurred, when possession or control changed, and why the same vehicle was also processed or reported as trade / paid off without a coherent reconciliation. If the company contends the payoff occurred before or instead of surrender completion, it must identify the exact posting, title, and possession sequence. This matters because the company appears to have maintained mutually inconsistent records regarding the same collateral and the same loan. The records indicate combinations of : bankruptcy treatment, surrender treatment, title transfer/ surrendered out of state, payoff / trade treatment, and inconsistent borrower/co-borrower credit consequences. If XXXX XXXX remained on the account and her credit file reflected payoff treatment rather than repo or surrender-related treatment, while SETFs internal or bankruptcy-related records reflected surrender, that contradiction requires a written, date-specific explanation. SETF has not provided one. Instead of reconciling these official documents and records, SETF accused me of harassment and threatened law-enforcement escalation. That is improper and highly concerning because my communications were directed toward obtaining correction of contradictory official records, including bankruptcy-related treatment, title records, payoff treatment, and credit reporting. A company can not avoid accountability for inconsistent records by declaring the matter fully investigated while refusing to explain : whether the vehicle was surrendered, repossessed, traded, or paid off, how those events were sequenced, why title records reflect surrendered out of state / transfer treatment, why credit reporting appears inconsistent between parties, and why consumers were threatened for continuing to seek correction. I request that CFPB require SETF to provide a full written reconciliation of the event sequence for this vehicle, including : 1. the exact basis for any surrendered coding or representation ; 2. whether a repo or recovery vendor was used, and if so, who, when, and under what authorization ; 3. the date SETF first obtained or accepted possession or control of the vehicle, if applicable ; 4. the exact posting date and treatment of any third-party payoff or trade proceeds ; 5. the reason title records reflected transfer / inactive / surrendered out of state on or around XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX the exact furnishing sent to each credit bureau for both obligated parties ; 7. why XXXX XXXX credit treatment appears inconsistent with a surrender event if SETF claims surrender occurred ; 8. why SETF threatened harassment and law-enforcement consequences instead of correcting or reconciling the records.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation