Consumer complaint received 2026-04-08 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem with paying off the loan
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, my leased vehicle ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) was declared a total loss by my insurance company, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Kia Finance America issued a Letter of Guarantee to XXXX specifying a payoff amount of {$36000.00}. The letter explicitly stated that upon receipt of this amount, Kia Finance America agreed to " release and transfer all of its right, title and interest in and to the vehicle. '' Kia Finance included the original vehicle title with this letter, surrendering its possessory interest. Notably, nowhere in the Letter of Guarantee did Kia Finance reference " actual cash value, '' nor did it state that the payoff amount was subject to adjustment, revision, or reconciliation against any other figure. The amount was presented as final and unconditional. XXXX remitted payment in accordance with the amount Kia Finance requested. The title was transferred. I also made an additional payment of {$510.00} after the date of total loss, which Kia Finance applied to the account. Despite having authored the Letter of Guarantee, set the payoff amount, accepted payment of that amount, and surrendered the title, Kia Finance is now demanding an additional {$480.00}, claiming the " actual cash value '' of the lease obligation was higher than what they stated in their own Letter of Guarantee. This is the first time the concept of " actual cash value '' has been introduced into this transaction. If Kia Finance intended the payoff to be based on the actual cash value, it was their responsibility to state that amount or at minimum reference that methodology in the Letter of Guarantee. They did neither. They stated a specific dollar figure with no qualifications, caveats, or conditions, and all parties acted on that figure in good faith. Kia Finance not the insured and not the insurance carrier bore sole responsibility for calculating and stating the correct payoff figure. They are a sophisticated institutional lender with full access to account records, residual values, and every contractual term governing the disposition of the vehicle upon total loss. If the payoff amount should have been higher, it was their obligation to state that figure in the Letter of Guarantee. They did not. All parties relied on the figure Kia Finance provided. I have contacted Kia Finance multiple times to dispute this balance and have escalated repeatedly. They continue to demand payment of {$480.00} despite being unable to explain why their own Letter of Guarantee stated a different amount, and despite being unable to justify why the concept of " actual cash value '' was never mentioned in the Letter of Guarantee if that was the intended basis for the payoff. This conduct is consistent with the pattern the CFPB identified in its XX/XX/XXXX Supervisory Highlights for Auto Finance, where examiners found that servicers " sent deficiency notices to consumers and reported balances to third-party debt buyers that included inaccurate amounts in the deficiency balances owed by consumers. '' I am requesting that the CFPB investigate this matter and that Kia Finance be required to honor the payoff amount stated in its own Letter of Guarantee, confirm a {$0.00} balance, and refrain from reporting any derogatory information to consumer reporting agencies.

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