Consumer complaint received 2024-12-13 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with the interest rate
Company: First Help Financial, LLC

Complaint narrative:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Florida, XXXX of XXXX, XXXX Subject : Unfair Contract and Illegal Interest Rate I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX regarding an unfair loan agreement and a deceptive contract. Below, I detail the issues I have encountered, including specific violations of consumer protection laws : Vehicle Purchased : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Number : XXXX Contract model number : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Dealership Information : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX Phone Number XXXX XXXX XXXX Financial agent information XXXX XXXX XXXX Financial Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. 
Phone number : XXXX XXXX. 

Description of the Complaint : Unfair Loan Agreement and Deceptive Contract On XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a vehicle from XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX that was advertised for {$26000.00}. The dealership arranged financing through XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Although the initial advertised price was {$26000.00}, the cost increased to {$30000.00} due to the following charges : {$890.00} : Predelivery service fee {$590.00} : E-Tag fee {$1600.00} : Tax {$380.00} : XXXX  title and registration fees {$20.00} : Third-party Private Tag Agency fee This brought the total to {$31000.00}, plus {$790.00} for Value Shield ( presented as mandatory insurance for total loss ) and {$47.00} in additional tax. 
I made a {$4000.00} down payment, leaving an expected balance of {$27000.00}. However, the amount financed by XXXX XXXX  XXXX was {$28000.00}, as itemized in the contract : {$28000.00} : Cash price ( including {$1600.00} tax ) Minus {$4000.00} : Down payment {$610.00} : Electronic registration fee {$890.00} : Predelivery service fee {$1200.00} : XXXX XXXX insurance {$99.00} : Government Documentary Stamp Tax {$47.00} : Additional government tax {$380.00} : License and registration fees {$790.00} : Value Shield This discrepancy in amounts is unclear and raises concerns about transparency and accuracy. To my understanding, this violates the Truth in Lending Act ( XXXX ) under Section XXXX ( d ). Under Section XXXX of Regulation Z, creditors must disclose all terms related to financing in a way that the average consumer can comprehend, ensuring no critical details are omitted or hidden within complicated language. This requirement aims to enable consumers to make informed decisions without being misled by unclear or deceptive practices. 

XXXXnterest Rate Issue The car was advertised at {$26000.00} but was financed for {$28000.00} at an annual interest rate of 21.49 %. Additionally, there is a 1.49 % interest rate reportedly paid to the dealership on top of the 21.49 % going to XXXX XXXX XXXX. This totals an effective interest rate of 22.98 %. 

Under XXXX XXXX, specifically the Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments, and Solicitations ( Chapter XXXX ), the maximum allowable interest rate for loans above {$3000.00} is 18 %. The rate being charged not only exceeds this legal limit but approaches a criminal usury threshold. While it may not fully meet the definition of criminal usury, this contract still violates XXXX usury laws and federal consumer protection regulations by imposing an excessive and illegal interest rate. 

Issues Encountered While Resolving problems with XXXX XXXX XXXX  In addition to the previous issues I encountered with XXXX XXXX XXXX there were further complications due to my current residence outside the United States. Given my inability to use the car, I attempted to resolve the situation by returning it, as continuing payments without usage seems unreasonable. However, when I raised this issue, I was met with threats. The representative warned that I would be charged an unknown amount for repossession and that this would negatively impact my credit score up to XXXX  years. They further insisted that I could not voluntarily return the car and claimed they would handle the repossession as a typical process, which was not accurate for my situation. 

In response, I requested a copy of the contract to be sent to me via email, considering I am not currently in the United States. However, they refused to provide it, which raises further concerns about transparency and fairness in handling this case. This refusal to provide the contract upon request, upon my consideration, also violates the TILA XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ), which mandates that consumers have access to important loan documents. 

Attempts at Refinancing and Further Discrepancies In addition to the issues raised with the financing contract, I also attempted to explore refinancing options, as I was on XXXX on XXXX to XXXX of XXXX, as XXXX XXXX XXXX had assured me that after XXXX months, with an improved credit score, they would be able to offer a better financing rate. However, when I approached them to refinance, I was informed that the only way to proceed with refinancing was if I purchased a vehicle priced at {$32000.00} or more. This condition was unexpected and contradicts the initial representation made by the dealership regarding refinancing opportunities. It appears that the dealerships promises were contingent on an entirely new and more expensive vehicle, which was not disclosed at the time of the original sale, adding another layer of confusion and potential misrepresentation to the entire transaction. 

Conclusion Given these circumstances, I respectfully request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to investigate this matter thoroughly. I urge enforcement of applicable state and federal laws and guidance on rectifying the excessive and illegal charges applied to my loan. 

Thank you for your attention to this serious issue. 

Sincerely, XXXX. I'd like to know if while my case is on revision I should keep paying my debt.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation