Consumer complaint received 2025-07-17 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Changes in terms mid-deal or after closing
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX : XXXX XXXX ( a part of XXXX ) chose to work with Truist XXXX XXXX XXXX after running my credit with multiple financial institutions, because it knew it could get more points and get away with fraud when working with Truist XXXX I did not receive any official notice from Truist that they had checked my credit score. 

XXXX : I went into the Truist Branch to complain that a fraudulent loan was being initiated without my consent by XXXX XXXX XXXX but the banker at the Truist Branch pulled up my credit details and did not see that a loan was being processed two days before the fraudulent loan was approved. The Branch manager also said he had no way of reaching Truist legal and fraud protection lines to prevent the fraud. 

XXXX : I called the Truist XXXX line to complain that a fraudulent loan was being initiated without my consent, and the representative from the Truist XXXX XXXX line said that no loan was being processed on my behalf two days before the loan was approved. 
XXXX : Truist issued a loan without any verification with the customer and after the auto loan line had noted a fraud alert. Do fraud alerts not trigger a process for review? The loan was issued even after my credit had been frozen with the reporting agencies two days before the loan was approved, and after the auto loan line had noted a fraud alert. Truist failed to conduct due diligence, and did not verify my credit before approving and then issuing a loan on a frozen account with a pending fraud alert. 

XXXX : I called Truist and the representative on the Truist Fraud team decided to create an Identity Theft investigation even though that was not the kind of fraud in this case. 

XXXX : Truist hastily conducted and concluded their identity theft fraud investigation without receiving the requested physical copies of the requested documents. The decision was dated XX/XX/year>, while I did not send the requested documents ( Completed affidavit, Proofs of Identification and Residence, Police Report ) by certified mail until XX/XX/year>. Truist did not conduct a detailed investigation or fact finding. A system-generated auto-denial was generated without reviewing the case documents. 

XXXX : Truist ended their Identity theft investigation without further consideration to the merits of the case, particularly that the dealer packed the loan, inflated the loan, and claimed far more on the loan than the equity the collateral contained. The dealer also processed the loan without my approval after I discovered their fraudulent act and confronted them about the charges that they added, at the point of signatures, that were not discussed with me. 

XXXX : XXXXruists Client advocacy investigation repeated the Identity Fraud investigation conclusion without examining the details of the case. Client advocacy did not interact at all with me throughout the said investigation. Furthermore, Truist Client Advocacy modified an official letter that was sent to me, when they resent it, by changing the date of the letter and thus materially altering official communication to deceive me. The first letter was dated XX/XX/year>, while the same letter was sent again and the date was changed to XX/XX/year>. It suggests that Truist Bank acts with impunity by altering official documents, and treats their decisions lightly even if it harms the client like they have done with me. 

XXXX : The first payment on the loan would not have been late until after XX/XX/year>, yet Truist sent three separate letters on the next day from three different addresses, including a " loan payment past due '' letter from the Truist Client Center , and a " Notice of our plan to sell property at Private Sale '' from Truist Bank Asset Disposition , for a loan I did not approve and a car I never owned. The third was a separate demand for loan payment. The first two letters are contradictory suggesting that there was no coordination, and the separate parts of the bank selectively used information they thought would maximize profit for the bank even though there were multiple red flags in this situation. 

XXXX : It is unclear at what point, and based on what information, Truist concluded that I had broken the loan agreement, without reaching out to or contacting me, and before any payment was overdue. The car was always with the dealer ( since XX/XX/XXXX ), and the dealer never transferred ownership ( Title or Tag ) to me. Truist worked solely with the dealer to repossess the car from the dealer without requesting documentation that the dealer actually transferred ownership, and without questioning why the dealer still owned the car they were paid for by Truist. All efforts to work with Truist was met with a response that the bank could not do anything about the situation, yet it worked closely with the fraudulent dealer, thus enabling and emboldening fraud. Truist sent requests for payment on the loan they issued while also working with the dealer, who owned the car and never transferred ownership, to repossess and move the car to a private sale. 

XXXX : A Truist representative with their Fraud department said that they only investigate Identity Theft, and so could not consider my case for investigation because it was not Identity Theft. Truist created an Identity theft investigation for a different kind of fraud and did not confirm if the dealer inflated a loan and packed the same loan. Truist also did not verify that I had declined the loan because I caught the dealer in the act of falsifying the loan documents, or if they did, it made no difference that I was being penalized for preventing fraud. Truists claim that they could do nothing meant they cared more about protecting fraudulent actors within their system than upholding integrity and truth. 

XXXX : Truist Bank claims that they have sold the car in a private sale for {$9600.00}, and that I owe them {$8400.00}. The level of loan inflation here is staggering, and the ratio of equity in the collateral relative to the loan screams fraud, or a bank that is deficient in its risk controls to prevent loan packing or negative equity fraud. 

XXXX : Truist continued to send multiple letters demanding loan payment for the fraudulent auto loan, even after repossessing the car prior to the due date of the first payment, and selling it contrary to legal and ethical standards. This obvious contradiction shows an unregulated process without controls, coordination, or having the best interests of clients.

Truist Bank has created financial chaos for me, destroyed my credit, and provided support for fraudulent actors within the financial system. My only act was preventing fraud.

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