Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this third complaint because Wells Fargos latest response still does not fully answer the key unresolved issue in this matter : when I first notified Wells Fargo by phone that I had moved to New York, and whether Wells Fargo failed to properly process or use that information before sending repossession-related notices. Wells Fargo states that the Right to Cure notice was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX to the New Jersey address on file, and that the Notice of Intent was mailed on XX/XX/XXXX to that same New Jersey address. Wells Fargo also states that no updated address had been provided before those notices were issued. I dispute that statement. I informed Wells Fargo by phone before the repossession that I had moved to New York and that correspondence should be sent to my New York address. The proof of this should be in Wells Fargos call recordings. Wells Fargos response focuses on the date its system shows the address was updated, but that does not answer when I first gave Wells Fargo the New York address by phone. The system update date only shows when Wells Fargo processed the change. It does not prove when I first provided the information. Wells Fargo states that my address was updated on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY. That update was triggered during a phone call with a Wells Fargo representative after I again provided my New York address. However, I had already informed Wells Fargo by phone before that call that I had moved to New York. The fact that the address was finally updated during a phone call on XX/XX/XXXX shows Wells Fargo was capable of processing the address when handled correctly. The unresolved issue is why Wells Fargo failed to process or use my New York address earlier, before repossession-related notices were mailed. Wells Fargo says it reviewed service concerns and confirmed one instance of misinformation on XX/XX/XXXX regarding reinstatement. However, Wells Fargos response does not show that it conducted a targeted review of the call recordings for my address-change statements. A general call review, or a review focused only on reinstatement misinformation, is not enough. I am requesting a targeted re-review of the call recordings specifically to determine when I first informed Wells Fargo that I had moved to New York and requested correspondence be sent to my New York address. If Wells Fargo claims the calls were already reviewed for the address issue, I request that Wells Fargo identify the specific call dates reviewed, state whether my New York address was discussed during those calls, and explain why the address was not updated until XX/XX/XXXX if I had already provided that information earlier. This issue matters because Wells Fargo is relying on the New Jersey address to deny reinstatement and demand full redemption of {$61000.00}. Wells Fargo states that New Jersey law applies because notices were mailed to the New Jersey address. I dispute that conclusion because it depends on the assumption that Wells Fargo had no prior notice of my New York address. If Wells Fargo failed to properly process or use address information I provided by phone, that servicing failure should not be used against me to deny reinstatement or justify sending critical notices to an outdated New Jersey address. The Notice of Intent was a time-sensitive sale notice stating that the vehicle could be redeemed or sold after XX/XX/XXXX. Wells Fargo says the Notice of Intent was issued on XX/XX/XXXX, the same date my New York address was updated. Wells Fargo should explain whether the Notice of Intent was generated before or after the phone call where my address was updated, whether it was mailed before or after the address update, and why it was not reissued or resent to my New York address once Wells Fargo confirmed the New York address. Wells Fargo also admits that misinformation was provided to me on XX/XX/XXXX regarding reinstatement. I was told the account was eligible for reinstatement and was given reinstatement information. I had funds available to pay a valid reinstatement amount. Wells Fargo later reversed its position and told me I could only recover the vehicle by paying the full redemption balance. This was not a harmless mistake. The misinformation occurred during a time-sensitive repossession period while I was actively trying to recover the vehicle before sale. Wells Fargo says the issue was addressed internally, but internal coaching does not fix the harm caused to me. If Wells Fargo gave me incorrect reinstatement information during the exact period when I was trying to recover the vehicle, then Wells Fargo should provide a meaningful remedy by restoring my opportunity to reinstate. Wells Fargo can not treat the reinstatement misinformation as an isolated mistake while refusing to fully investigate whether a similar servicing failure occurred with my address. Both issues affected my ability to recover the vehicle. Wells Fargo has already confirmed one servicing error on the account. I believe the address issue is another servicing failure because I notified Wells Fargo by phone of my New York address, but Wells Fargo failed to properly process or use that information before sending repossession-related notices. My prior complaint already explained that my dispute is not only whether Wells Fargo can now produce copies of notices. My dispute is whether notices were properly sent to the correct address, whether Wells Fargo had notice that I lived in New York, whether Wells Fargo improperly relied on an outdated New Jersey address to deny reinstatement, and whether Wells Fargos admitted misinformation affected my ability to recover the vehicle. There is also an urgent harm issue. If Wells Fargo proceeds with auction or sale activity while the address-call dispute remains unresolved, the vehicle may be sold before Wells Fargo confirms whether it failed to process my New York address correctly. That would make a fair remedy much harder or impossible. It would also create additional dispute issues regarding the validity of the sale notice, the commercial reasonableness of any sale, and any later deficiency balance. For that reason, Wells Fargo should pause all auction and sale activity while it completes a targeted review of the call recordings related to my address change. I am requesting that Wells Fargo do the following : Conduct a targeted re-review of the call recordings specifically for my address-change statements. Identify the specific call dates reviewed for the address issue. Confirm whether I informed Wells Fargo by phone before repossession that I had moved to New York and that correspondence should be sent to my New York address. Explain why Wells Fargos system was not updated earlier if I had already provided my New York address by phone. Confirm that the XX/XX/XXXX update to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY was triggered during a phone call with a Wells Fargo representative. Explain whether the XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Intent was generated before or after the phone call where my address was updated. Explain whether the XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Intent was mailed before or after the address update was completed. Explain why the Notice of Intent was not reissued or resent to my New York address after the address was confirmed and updated on XX/XX/XXXX. Explain why Wells Fargo relied on the New Jersey address to deny reinstatement if I had already notified Wells Fargo by phone that I moved to New York. Explain why Wells Fargos admitted reinstatement misinformation resulted only in internal coaching instead of restoring my ability to reinstate. Immediately pause all auction activity, sale activity, transfer activity, disposal activity, collection activity, deficiency balance activity, and negative credit reporting while this complaint is under review. Preserve all call recordings connected to this account, especially calls before repossession and calls on XX/XX/XXXX. I am requesting a meaningful remedy. Wells Fargo should restore my opportunity to reinstate the loan by allowing me to pay the past-due amount, repossession fees, storage fees, and other valid charges instead of requiring full redemption of {$61000.00}. If Wells Fargo refuses to allow reinstatement, I request a detailed written explanation based specifically on the targeted call-recording review, not only the date shown in Wells Fargos system . The date Wells Fargo processed the address update does not prove when I first provided the New York address by phone. If the vehicle has already been sold, I request an equivalent remedy, including correction or removal of negative credit reporting related to the repossession, waiver or reduction of any deficiency balance, refund or credit of improper fees, and a complete accounting of the sale. The fair resolution is to pause auction activity immediately, conduct a targeted review of the address-related call recordings, and restore my reinstatement opportunity.

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