Consumer complaint received 2025-12-08 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Santander Consumer USA for conduct that appears to violate multiple Florida statutes governing motor-vehicle related refunds, GAP/service-agreement cancellations, and consumer-protection laws, as well as potentially violating federal prepaid-account disclosure rules. 



1. Refusal to disclose refund policies relied upon ( XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Santander representatives stated that I am not allowed to view any internal refund policies unless I obtain a subpoena, even though the company is relying on those undisclosed policies to determine my refund method and eligibility. 
Refusing to disclose the basis of an adverse decisionwhile enforcing that policy against meconstitutes an unfair or deceptive act under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). 
Santander has its own recorded call documenting this refusal. 



2. Improper refund method and inconsistent fee disclosures ( XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; disclosure violations ) Santander informed me that any refund under {$400.00} would be issued via a prepaid/debit card, not by check or direct deposit. I was not given any choice, and I did not consent to a refund instrument that carries fees. 
I also received two separate documents from Santander listing two different fee amounts for the same prepaid card. This inconsistency is misleading and violates basic disclosure standards expected in consumer financial transactions.

Issuing a refund on a prepaid/debit card with fees may also violate XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which restricts post-sale fees on certain stored-value/gift-type instruments and supports the principle that refund instruments must not impose undisclosed charges. 

This conduct is deceptive and unfair under XXXX, because the method of refund and fee structure were not disclosed, not agreed to, and contradictory in writing. 



3. Late GAP/service-agreement refund in violation of Florida refund-timing laws My refund concerned a XXXX or service-agreement-related product. Florida law requires timely refunding of unearned amounts : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( service agreements ) : requires return of unearned amounts upon cancellation and prohibits unreasonable delay. 
XXXX XXXX. XXXX or XXXX ( depending on classification ) : Florida insurance refund statutes require prompt return of unearned premiums after cancellation. 
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX principles : XX/XX/XXXXrequires refunds connected to vehicle sales/financing to be issued within a reasonable time, and delays may constitute deceptive practice under XXXX. 

Santander issued my refund only after an extended delay that does not meet the reasonable time standard required under Florida law for automotive-related refund obligations. 



4. Federal law concerns Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. 1005 ) By issuing a refund via a prepaid card without providing me a choice of refund method, without advance disclosure of card fees, and while providing contradictory documentation, Santander may be out of compliance with Regulation E rules governing prepaid accounts and fee disclosures. These rules require clear, consistent, and accurate fee disclosures before a consumer is issued a prepaid card.

5. Summary of Legal Issues Santanders actions appear to violate : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( FDUTPA deceptive or unfair acts ). 
XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( service-agreement refund timing ). 
XXXX XXXX. XXXX and related unearned premium refund provisions ( timely refund requirement ). 
XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( restrictions on post-sale fees on certain stored-value instruments ). 
Federal Regulation XXXX ( XXXX C.F.R. XXXX ) prepaid account disclosure rules. 

Santanders refusal to disclose policies, inconsistent fee documents, forced use of a fee-bearing refund method, and delayed issuing of a legally required refund collectively constitute unfair, deceptive, and non-compliant behavior under these laws.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation