Consumer complaint received 2026-03-27 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Personal line of credit
Issue: Problem with additional add-on products or services — 
Company: TomoCredit Inc.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
REJECTION OF COMPANY RESPONSE & NOTICE OF MULTI-AGENCY ESCALATION I formally reject the response provided by TomoCredit Inc. as fundamentally non-responsive, legally deficient, and submitted in bad faith. For the second time, the company has issued an automated, copy-pasted template from representative " XXXX '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX demonstrating a willful refusal to engage in the regulatory dispute process or address the specific material facts of this complaint. TomoCredit continues to falsely shield itself behind a " non-refundable '' policy clause. As a matter of established consumer protection law, a non-refundable clause is predicated on the merchant actually delivering the agreed-upon service. In this instance, I did not request a cancellation of service ; I requested a clerical correction to an application package. In response, TomoCredit unilaterally terminated the application process and closed the account of their own volition. By executing a unilateral termination of the agreement while concurrently seizing the {$120.00} application fee, TomoCredit is actively engaging in Unjust Enrichment and a textbook Failure of Consideration ( Services Not Rendered ). A financial institution can not legally charge a consumer for a service, refuse to perform that service, terminate the relationship at their own discretion, and subsequently claim the unearned funds are " non-refundable. '' This constitutes a predatory forfeiture penalty, not a legitimate fee. Furthermore, I am submitting for the record that TomoCredits retention of these funds under these circumstances constitutes : A Deceptive Business Practice under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( UTPCPL ). An Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Act or Practice ( UDAAP ) under federal statutes enforced by the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ). A direct mirror of the predatory practices currently under federal litigation in the active class-action lawsuit, XXXX v. TomoCredit, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), which challenges this exact deceptive fee structure and obstructive cancellation process. Because TomoCredit is utilizing automated customer service loops to circumvent regulatory accountability, I am concurrently escalating this matter to the Pennsylvania Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and filing a formal report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) for investigation into deceptive " fee-harvesting '' practices. I am also filing a formal complaint with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to ensure this pattern of behavior is documented for the public record. I respectfully request that the CFPB escalate this complaint to the Enforcement Division for manual review, as the company is clearly demonstrating a pattern of bad-faith regulatory engagement. DEMAND : I demand the immediate restitution of {$120.00} to my original payment method, accompanied by a digital receipt or transaction ID confirming the reversal of these unearned funds.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation