Consumer complaint received 2025-06-14 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this formal complaint against Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX I, XXXX, for operating an alleged illegal auto finance and debt collection scheme in California in violation of the California Financing Law ( Fin. Code XXXX ), the XXXX Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX et seq. ), the Unfair Competition Law ( XXXX. & XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. ), Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ). 

In good faith and based on my due diligence and review of public records, I believe these companies were not properly licensed to originate, assign, service, or collect auto loans in California during the relevant period. Upon purchasing a vehicle in California, I signed a contract with XXXX, an entity not licensed to originate loans in the state, but rather a vehicle retailer based on the California XXXX site. The contract was immediately assigned to Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, whose only license is as a debt collector in Maryland not as a lender or servicer in California. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I rescinded the contract and demanded debt validation. None was provided. On XX/XX/XXXX, despite pending federal litigation ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), my vehicle was forcibly repossessed with assistance from local law enforcement, without proof of debt ownership, valid licensure, or a legal notice. This constituted a state-aided XXXX, in violation of my due process rights under the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( a ) of the California XXXX. The involvement of law enforcement to enforce a void, unvalidated contract further violated XXXX. XXXX. Code XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 

Following the repossession, I discovered through due diligence that the account that was reassigned to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX could be a possible shell entity that is not found in the XXXX  database, not licensed to lend or collect in California, and sharing the same XXXX, Arizona address as both Bridgecrest and XXXX. This reassignment was communicated via a vague email stating no action required and without formal notice or proof of assignment. 

I have reason to believe the contract was pre-assigned for securitization as XXXX filings confirm only the existence of Bridgecrest XXXX XXXX XXXX Trusts XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, all registered under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( CA Fin. Code XXXX ), with no active dates, public disclosures, or borrower notification and no debt collection license for California, despite what was self-inputted on the XXXX  site. 

This suggests that signed contracts like mine are being securitized as financial instruments without transparency, borrower consent, or compliance with disclosure laws. The written email I received from Bridgecrest included the statement : For California Residents : California Collection License ( License Pending ). Under Fed. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ), this is a party admission that Bridgecrest lacked proper licensure at the time they enforced the repossession. 

These actions violate : California XXXX XXXX XXXX Unlicensed origination XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. Code XXXX ) False creditor representation TILA ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Failure to disclose true creditor FDCPA ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) Misleading representation and debt validation failure CA XXXX XXXX XXXX Illegal GPS tracking CA XXXX XXXX Deceptive and unlawful business practices XXXX XXXX / XXXX Enforcement of void instrument Fraud in the Inducement Contract monetized without disclosure My signed agreement was likely to have been securitized without my knowledge, and the parties involved used XXXX entities to bypass licensing, chain of title requirements, and debt validation. The contract was never a legitimate loan no actual money was lent, and the structure resembles a securitization pipeline disguised as consumer finance. 

A federal Temporary XXXX Order ( TRO ) and preliminary injunction have been requested to prevent the auction or sale of the vehicle, and I have submitted formal investigation letters to the XXXX and California Attorney General XXXX requesting further investigation into these entities, their licensing gaps, and shared locations in XXXX, AZ. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB investigate this matter, publish the complaint for public awareness, and coordinate with XXXX and FTC to review all lending, securitization, and collection activities conducted by these parties in California. I do not consent to a private settlement or XXXX. This is not just a repossession it is a systemic violation of consumer lending laws that warrants regulatory and public XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation