Consumer complaint received 2026-02-10 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with the interest rate
Company: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN A CIVIL COURT THE CASE NUMBER IS XXXX THE CASE IS IN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is in regard to a complaint already submitted. Number XXXX. I would like to add other documentation to that complaint as there is no way to update the complaint until such time as the company responds XXXX. FACTUAL BACKGROUND XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX signed a retailinstallment contract with Defendant for the purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX. The sales price of the vehicle was {$21000.00} which includes GAP insurance.

7. The contract imposed an annual percentage rate ( APR ) of 12.45 %, resulting in a total 8. amount financed of {$27000.00} ( including an upfront finance charge of {$6500.00} ).

At the time of execution, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with any written notice of a rescission period required by federal or state law.

IV. LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF A. Usurious Interest Violation of Texas Finance Code 9. Texas law caps the interest rate on consumer loans ( including retailinstallment contracts for automobiles ) at 18 % per annum unless the loan is expressly exempted by statute. Tex. Fin. Code 342.001, 342.002.

10. The contracts 12.45 % APR is below the 18 % ceiling ; however, the upfront
finance charge of {$6500.00} effectively raises the effective annual percentage rate ( EAR ) to approximately 43 %, far exceeding the statutory limit.

11. Under Tex. Fin. Code 342.004, a contract that results in an effective APR above the legal ceiling is voidable and unenforceable.

B. Lack of Required Disclosures Violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 12. The Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 16011611, requires that any consumer credit transaction disclose, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the APR, finance charges, and the total amount payable. 13. Defendant failed to furnish the required TILA disclosuresincluding a clear statement of the total finance charge and the effective APRin a form compliant with the Act. 14. Because of this nondisclosure, the contract is unenforceable under 15 U.S.C. 1
635.

C. Right of Rescission Inapplicability of a Statutory Rescission Window 15. The threeday right of rescission under TILA applies only to home equity loans, refinancings, and certain secured transactions ( 15 U.S.C. 1635 ( a ) ). It does not extend to auto retailinstallment contracts.

16. Defendants failure to provide a rescission notice therefore underscores the lack of required disclosures but does not itself create a separate statutory rescission right.

D. Exemption Analysis Why the 18 % Cap Still Governs This Contract Tex. Fin. Code 342.001 ( 1 ) ( IJ ) This is a consumer transaction.

Because none of the statutory exemptions fit the facts, the 18 % APR ceiling remains controlling, and the effective APR created by the {$6500.00} upfront finance charge renders the contract voidable due to the fact that it brings the total interest charge to approximately 43 %.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation