Consumer complaint received 2025-09-26 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Credit denial
Company: The LGM Co., Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX first confirmed my application in progress under ID XXXX, then issued a denial stating I was not prequalified for the XXXX driver special program, and the following day, XX/XX/year>, they issued an approval notice without my knowledge for consideration. That included fixed credit terms of 19 % APR, {$38000.00} financed amount, a XXXX term, and {$320.00} per week in payments, despite the fact that I had not yet chosen a vehicle. The dealership, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Georgia, initially asked me how much I could put down for a down payment and I told them {$500.00}, but they later raised this to {$5000.00}, claiming lender requirements, and after denying the use of multiple lenders, later admitting to shot gunning my application to different finance sources. They also used XXXX XXXX ( through XXXX ) to access my XXXX banking account, after they asked for proof of income. I had already uploaded my bank statements to the XXXX XXXX, and they asked me for paystubs. XXXX  workers do not receive paystubs as we are XXXX. The program is based on rental history and gig income and I showed proof for both. I received XXXX XXXX notifications confirming my information was onboarded into dealer platforms without full disclosure. The dealer also claimed that my XXXX approval was tied to a vehicle under {$15000.00} even though I never selected such a car. After I clearly stated in writing that I no longer wished to move forward and would escalate to higher authorities, my XXXX  report showed new hard inquiries the very next morning, proving that credit pulls were made after I revoked consent. XXXX XXXX  its Path to Ownership program with vague promises of flexible loan terms, alternative financing, nontraditional rules, and tailored solutions, but there is no published clause requiring weekly payments only, and the prominent Get Prequalified language paired with fixed terms that were not honored amounts to misleading advertising. XXXX headquarters are located in XXXX, Pennsylvania ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ), but it is not publicly confirmed that they hold a Georgia Installment Lender license as required by state law. XXXX XXXX XXXX operates at XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, Georgia, but no public license number appears in the states dealer XXXX, raising questions of compliance with Georgias Used Motor Vehicle Dealer licensing requirements. 
The legal violations are numerous. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681b and 1681s-2, multiple unauthorized credit pulls were made without consent, adverse action notices were not issued for each denial, and post-withdrawal inquiries were clear violations of 1681b ( f ). Under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1638 and 1662B, down-payment requirements were misrepresented, disclosures were made with fixed APR and finance amounts without identifying collateral, and preapproval notices with binding terms later withdrawn amounted to misrepresentation. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ), was violated because adverse action reasons were not properly provided and conflicting denial and approval notices were issued without lawful explanation. The conduct also constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices : bait-and-switch marketing where a program advertised as based on rental history and gig work was switched into subprime channels, misleading preapproval advertising that contained firm terms without a vehicle identified, ambiguous use of words like flexible and nontraditional to hide unfavorable terms, and continued processing of credit after explicit revocation of consent. Both XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX may also be in violation of state licensing laws, as ACCs installment lender license for Georgia has not been verified and XXXX XXXX XXXX license number does not appear in public records, suggesting possible unlicensed activity. Contractually, the XX/XX/year> preapproval from XXXX with fixed terms constituted a firm offer of credit under FCRA 1681a ( l ). Once those terms were extended, XXXX is legally obligated to honor them because I met their criteria. As the consumer, I retain the right to negotiate for better payment structure, particularly because {$320.00} per week is far above reasonable, but the presence of a firm offer gives me leverage to negotiate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation