Consumer complaint received 2026-04-09 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle
Company: World Omni Financial Corp.
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Subject : XXXX furnished false and materially misleading account information, falsely claimed adverse marks were removed, and then issued a cease-and-desist after evidence-backed disputes I am submitting this complaint against World Omni Financial Corp. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) regarding account ending XXXX. XXXX sent written CFPB response letters to me and my husband XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that : ( 1 ) it properly obtained a Relief from Bankruptcy Stay, ( 2 ) the vehicle was subsequently traded-in and paid off by a dealership, ( 3 ) it had previously submitted an update to the consumer reporting agencies to remove such credit marks, and ( 4 ) it was properly reporting the status of the account as paid in full/closed with a {$0.00} balance as of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX also stated it would not make changes or take further action regarding any future disputes and considered the matter fully resolved. Those representations are contradicted by the actual XXXX reporting I reviewed after XXXX made those statements. The tradeline still displays Paid, Closed ; was 30 days past due, with Date Updated XX/XX/XXXX, Last Payment Made XX/XX/XXXX, Payment Received {$19000.00}, Date Closed XX/XX/XXXX, Balance {$0.00}, and an XX/XX/XXXX payment-history rating of XXXX. The tradeline also shows Account previously in dispute-now resolved. reported by credit grant ; CLOSED. In other words, XXXX told CFPB and both consumers that adverse marks had already been removed, yet the derogatory XXXX delinquency remained embedded in the tradeline at the exact closure/payoff event. That is not a minor display issue. It is materially misleading furnishing. If XXXX position is that the account was paid off by a dealership, closed with a XXXX balance on XX/XX/XXXX, and adverse marks were removed, then XXXX must explain what specific missed payment and what specific billing cycle allegedly caused a XXXX delinquency to appear at the same moment the account was closed and paid. A furnisher can not describe an account as cleanly paid and closed while preserving a derogatory late-payment event tied to the same closing date, then shift blame to the credit bureaus display. The derogatory code originates from the furnishers data, not from XXXX inventing facts. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letters also appear to be template denials rather than reasonable investigations. The letters sent to me and to XXXX XXXX use the same narrative and same conclusions, even though the disputes involved different consumers, different reporting consequences, and different factual issues. The letters assert there was no evidence supporting repossession-pressure claims, insist relief from stay was obtained, and repeat that the vehicle was traded in and paid off by a dealership. This reads less like a consumer-specific investigation and more like a prewritten narrative pushed onto both files. After these evidence-backed disputes, XXXX then issued a separate cease-and-desist letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, accusing me of harassment, intimidation, and threats, demanding that I cease all email communication with XXXX representatives, declaring that my disputes had been fully investigated and are deemed resolved, and threatening referral to law enforcement or civil action if I continued direct communications. That letter was sent while the inaccurate derogatory reporting remained on file and after XXXX had already represented to CFPB that corrections were made. The sequence matters. XXXX did not actually resolve the data problem and then tried to cut off further direct dispute activity by threat language. My concern is not just one bad tradeline. My concern is that XXXX appears to have done all of the following at once : furnished a materially misleading delinquency at payoff/closure, falsely told CFPB and both consumers that adverse marks had already been removed, blamed the consumer reporting agencys display for derogatory information that came from XXXX furnishing, and then issued a cease-and-desist to suppress further direct challenge after being confronted with documentary contradictions. I request that CFPB require XXXX to provide a substantive, document-backed response instead of another template denial. Specifically, I request : 1. A complete account-level furnishing history sent by XXXX to each consumer reporting agency for this tradeline, including all XXXX XXXX or equivalent status, rating, payment-history-profile, special comment, compliance condition, account status, and date fields furnished from XX/XX/XXXX through the present. 2. The exact date and content of every update XXXX XXXXlaims it previously sent to remove such credit marks, including the fields changed, the date sent, the recipient consumer reporting agency, and proof of transmission. XXXX made that representation in writing. 3. Identification of the specific missed payment, due date, and billing cycle that XXXX contends supports the 30-day late notation that remained on the account at the same time XXXX says the account was paid off and closed on XX/XX/XXXX. 4. All records supporting XXXX statement that it properly obtained a Relief from Bankruptcy Stay and that the vehicle was traded-in and paid off by a dealership, including the stay-relief filing, order, dealership payoff records, trade documentation, account transaction history, and disposition records. 5. A written explanation of why XXXX told both consumers that adverse marks had been removed while the 30-day late remained on the XXXX tradeline , and why XXXX believes that is not false or materially misleading. 6. Immediate correction or deletion of any derogatory payment history, late notation, or materially misleading status on all consumer reports if XXXX can not produce contemporaneous records supporting each furnished field. I also request that CFPB evaluate whether XXXX conduct reflects an unreasonable dispute investigation and false or misleading furnisher responses, particularly where XXXX represented that corrections had already been made, refused further action, and then issued a threat-based cease-and-desist rather than correcting the record. XXXX does not get to say paid, closed, adverse marks removed with one hand and leave a 30-day late on the file with the other. That is not resolution. That is a paper mask with the price tag still hanging off it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation