Consumer complaint received 2026-03-18 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options
Company: Stellantis Financial Services US Corp.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Summary : Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have repeatedly requested a financial hardship review and loss mitigation assistance from Stellantis Financial Services. Despite numerous phone calls and more than a dozen written requests, the company has refused to connect me with their Loss Mitigation department, repeatedly citing a previous one-month deferment from XX/XX/XXXX as grounds for ineligibility. I have received no written notice of repossession, only verbal warnings from Collections staff that my account would " go to review for repossession '' on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX me no time to resolve an account that the company refuses to address through proper channels. Detailed Timeline : XX/XX/XXXX Initial Contact Attempts : I made at least XXXX phone calls to Stellantis Financial Services between XXXX and early XX/XX/XXXX to request hardship assistance. During these calls, I explained my situation and asked to speak with someone in the Loss Mitigation department. I was told : " The system won't generate any new assistance programs for you '' and " I can not transfer you to Loss Mitigation. '' When I asked why, I was informed that I was ineligible for hardship assistance because I had received a one-month deferment in XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Escalation to Written Requests : Beginning in early XX/XX/XXXX, I sent multiple written requests ( more than a dozen emails ) to Stellantis asking for : XXXX. An official hardship application XXXX. A formal financial hardship review XXXX. Connection with the Loss Mitigation department Each email response reiterated the same reason for denial : the XX/XX/XXXX deferment made me ineligible for further assistance. XX/XX/XXXX Request for Attorney Information : Most recently, when I continued to request Loss Mitigation assistance via email, Stellantis responded by requesting my attorney 's contact information " to connect with Loss Mitigation. '' I replied that I would prefer to speak with someone there myself first, and that email has gone unanswered. This email from Stellantis is problematic because I should not need to hire an attorney to access a standard loss mitigation review. The company is using this as another barrier to assistance rather than providing the service directly. I believe this suggests the company knows they should be engaging with me but is deflecting. Repossession Threat No Written Notice : In XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, during phone calls with a Collections manager, I was verbally warned that my account would " go to review for repossession '' on XX/XX/XXXX. However, I have received no written notice of this action. This verbal-only notification is inadequate and does not comply with standard lending practices. Furthermore, I can not access my online account anymore to see the status of my account ; the login screen only displays my XXXX account number and a message to call their standard customer service number. XXXX XXXX ( as of XX/XX/XXXX ) : My account is XXXX months behind on payments. As mentioned, I can not access my online account, and I have received no official written communication about repossession, only verbal warnings. The company continues to refuse connection with Loss Mitigation despite my repeated requests. The Company 's Violation : Stellantis Financial Services has : XXXX. Refused to provide a hardship review Despite my clear request and documented financial hardship, the company has denied access to loss mitigation without properly evaluating my current circumstances. XXXX. Misapplied a previous deferment as permanent ineligibility A XXXX-month deferment from XX/XX/XXXX should not preclude a new hardship review based on changed circumstances ; the company is using this as an excuse rather than genuinely assessing my situation. XXXX. Blocked access to the Loss Mitigation department When I specifically requested to speak with Loss Mitigation, I was told I would not be transferred, effectively cutting off my access to the appropriate department. XXXX. Failed to provide adequate notice of repossession Verbal warnings only, with no written notice or opportunity to cure before action is taken. XXXX. Created barriers to assistance By requesting attorney information before engaging with Loss Mitigation, the company is discouraging consumers from seeking help. Harm : My vehicle is my primary residence and my only transportation to my part-time job. Repossession would leave me homeless and unemployed, directly undermining my recovery from XXXX XXXXXXXX caused by a XXXX school shooting. I am actively working to improve my financial situation through multiple income streams, but the company 's refusal to engage with me prevents me from exploring legitimate loss mitigation options.

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