Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Westlake Services, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a follow-up complaint because XXXX  Banks written response to CFPB Case No. XXXX contains several inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions that violate California repossession law, UCC Article 9 requirements, and federal credit reporting standards. 

XXXX Bank admits in their response that : 1. My vehicle was impounded on XX/XX/year>. 
2. XXXX Bank was notified of the impound immediately by XXXX XXXX. 
3. XXXX Bank made a decision to not retrieve the vehicle because the impound fees exceeded the payoff of the loan. 
4. XXXX Bank did not send ANY written notices to me. 
5. XXXX Bank subsequently charged a deficiency balance and transferred the account to Westlake Portfolio Management. 
6. Westlake is now reporting a deficiency balance on my credit report. 

These facts create multiple legal violations. 


XXXX. XXXX Bank Conducted a Constructive / Involuntary Repossession Once XXXX  Bank : received notice of the impound refused to retrieve the vehicle made a financial decision to abandon the vehicle due to cost declared the vehicle unrecoverable claimed a deficiency balance transferred the loan and allowed Westlake to report it as a deficiency This meets the legal definition of a repossession under UCC Article 9 and California Auto Finance Law ( CA Civil Code 2983.2 and 2983.3 ). 

XXXX Bank is attempting to avoid compliance by arguing we didnt physically pick up the vehicle. 
However, courts have repeatedly ruled that when a secured lender : refuses to recover collateral abandons the collateral then assesses a deficiency It is legally treated as repossession activity, even if the bank never physically took possession. 

XXXX Bank can not charge a deficiency AND claim this was not a repossession. 
That is internally contradictory and legally improper. 


2. Failure to Provide Legally Required Repossession Notices XXXX Bank admits in writing that they provided : NO Notice of Intent to Sell NO Notice of Right to Reinstate NO Notice of Default & Seizure NO Post-Sale Accounting NO Notice of Deficiency California law requires these notices for any repossession activity, voluntary or involuntary. 

Even if the bank claims it did not complete the repossession, the moment the lender refused retrieval and later imposed a deficiency, these notices were mandatory. 

Because XXXX Bank sent none, the deficiency balance is not legally collectible under California law and under UCC 9-626.

3. Improper Credit Reporting by Westlake Portfolio Management XXXX Bank transferred an account that : was never properly closed out was never properly repossessed had no required notices issued had no repossession accounting had no sale information had no deficiency calculation compliant with law This violates : FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) Regulation V California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act Westlake can not legally report a deficiency that was never legally established. 

I am requesting CFPB intervention to force deletion. 


4. XXXX  Bank Provided an Inaccurate and Incomplete Response The banks letter claims : Since XXXX did not recover the vehicle, the above written notifications are not applicable. 

This is false, misleading, and directly contradicts California Civil Code, which requires written notice for any surrender, recovery, abandonment, or disposition of collateral used to calculate a deficiency. 

XXXX Bank is attempting to bypass its legal obligations by creating its own definition of repossession that is inconsistent with established law. 


Their own written admissions prove : they knew the vehicle was impounded they refused retrieval they abandoned the collateral they charged a deficiency they sent no notices they allowed Westlake to report as if this was a valid repossession All of this is unlawful.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation