Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This complaint alleges that Credit Acceptance Corporation ( CAC ) is knowingly furnishing a materially inaccurate debt balance, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by attempting to collect a debt that was legally satisfied by the sale of its own collateral. 
I. The Factual and Legal Impossibility 1. The Collateral Sale Result : My vehicle was sold by the City of Detroit following a forfeiture. In their letter to me dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Submitted as Exh. A ), CAC explicitly admitted that the City

's auction generated a {$2100.00} SURPLUS that the City owes to me, the debtor.

2. The Legal Contradiction : Under Michigan 's secured transaction law ( MCL 440.9615 ( 4 ) - UCC 9-615 ), a surplus can only be generated for the debtor after the Creditor 's entire secured obligation has been paid in full by the sale proceeds. The surplus proves the debt was legally satisfied.

3. The FCRA Inaccuracy : Despite this legal reality, CAC continues to report the account as an OPEN, DELINQUENT DEFICIENCY BALANCE of \bm { \text { \ {$17000.00} } }. This reported balance is an objective, factual impossibility because a debt can not be satisfied ( generating a surplus ) and still owe a deficiency simultaneously. 
I am not disputing my past default ; I am disputing the current false balance and the resulting misleading account status.

II.

The Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation 1. Violation of \bm { \text { 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) } } : I submitted CAC 's own letter ( Exh. A ) to th

e Credit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) during the dispute process. A reasonable investigation requires a furnisher to look beyond its internal ledger and reconcile its records with objective documentary evidence it authored. 2. Per Se Unreasonable : CAC failed to reconcile the debt, chose to ignore their own admission of the surplus, and certified the false \bm { \text { \ {$17000.00} } } balance as accurate. This conduct is considered per se unreasonable under the FCRA. 
III. Supporting Case Law for Deletion Courts have consistently ruled that the FCRA 's requirement for " accuracy '' must reflect the legal status of the debt, not just the furnisher 's flawed bookkeeping : XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : Ruled that reporting a debt was inaccurate because state law had extinguished the borrower 's personal liability, overriding the creditor 's internal records. My debt was extinguished by state UCC law. 
XXXX v. XXXX & XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : Established that even technically true information can violate the FCRA if it creates a materially misleading impression. Reporting a satisfied debt as \bm { \text { \ {$17000.00} } } owed is the definition of misleading. 
Systemic Failure : CAC 's business model, which often results in high, disputed post-repossession deficiencies, is already the subject of major legal action by the CFPB and the New York Attorney General.

IV. Resolution Demanded I demand that CAC delete this tradeline immediately. The only legal balance for this account is \bm { \text { \ {$0.00} } }. Failure to correct this verifiable inaccuracy constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA.

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