Consumer complaint received 2025-04-25 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Was not notified of investigation status or results
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Formal Complaint and Allegation of Civil Rights Violations , Insurance Fraud, and Governmental Negligence I submit this complaint to formally allege that my civil rights have been violated and that I am the victim of a fraudulent scheme involving a motor vehicle dealership, an individual affiliated with XXXX, and potentially personnel within the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV ). Additionally, the New York State Department of Financial Services ( DFS ) and the DMVs Fraud Investigation Unit have, to date, failed to conduct an adequate investigation or to provide appropriate redress.

I. Unauthorized Insurance Policy and Identity Misuse I have uncovered that an individual identified as XXXX XXXX was listed as the policyholder providing insurance coverage for my vehiclewithout my knowledge, consent, or authorization. I categorically affirm that I did not authorize or approve the issuance of any such insurance policy, nor was I informed that such coverage was being obtained. This constitutes an unauthorized issuance of insurance and may rise to the level of insurance fraud under New York State law.

As the sole legal owner of the vehicle in question, I maintain that only I possessed the authority to procure insurance coverage for said vehicle. Unless XXXX XXXX was acting under explicit, written authorization from either the dealership or the lienholder, her involvement was both improper and unlawful.

II. Fraudulent Dealership Conduct and Deceptive Business Practices If this unauthorized policy was arranged or facilitated by the dealership in order to expedite the release or registration of the vehicle, such conduct amounts to deceptive business practices and violates both state and federal consumer protection laws. Any misrepresentation or concealment of material facts in furtherance of this scheme would also constitute fraud and intentional misrepresentation.

III. XXXX  Negligence and Breach of Duty XXXX  issuance of an insurance policy under these circumstances represents, at minimum, gross negligence and potentially willful misconduct. The insurer either failed to verify the identity and authority of the requesting party or deliberately ignored red flags indicative of fraud. This failure to exercise due diligence constitutes a breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing to consumers.

Furthermore, by underwriting an insurance policy connected to a financial transaction involving my personal property, XXXX assumed a fiduciary duty to act with honesty, loyalty, and due care. That fiduciary duty was breached when XXXX failed to secure proper authorization or to protect my interests as the lawful property owner.

IV. Procedural Failures Within the DMV The fact that this unauthorized policy was accepted and validated within the DMV system raises serious concerns regarding internal controls and oversight. The DMVs apparent recognition of these fraudulent records suggests a failure to detect or prevent the misuse of personal and vehicle-related data, potentially exposing consumers to systemic vulnerabilities and further abuse.

V. Institutional Negligence by XXXX an

d DMV Fraud Unit Despite my repeated attempts to bring this matter to the attention of appropriate state agencies, including the New York State Department of Financial Services and the DMV Fraud Investigation Unit, no thorough or impartial investigation has been conducted. Their failure to act meaningfully exacerbates the harm done and may constitute institutional negligence or even willful dereliction of duty. VI. Role of Credit Acceptance Corporation Finally, it appears that Credit Acceptance Corporation enabled or failed to identify the fraud by accepting an insurance policy in connection with a vehicle loan, despite the fact that the named policyholder was not a party to the loan or the vehicle purchase agreement. This oversight allowed the scheme to proceed unchecked, in violation of basic due diligence protocols and lending standards.

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