Consumer complaint received 2025-04-29 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
This is a formal complaint and rebuttal to GM Financials response to CFPB Case Number XXXX filed XX/XX/year>. While this email is associated with the filing reflecting the name XXXX XXXX XXXX this is the jointly owned and maintained email account used by both parties for all financial and contractual communications. As such, the submission reflects my, XXXX XXXX XXXX, direct authorship. I am at the hospital and unable to call the toll free number to have the hard coded name changed to reflect my name. Any assumption to the contrary would be factually incorrect and legally indefensible. 

GM Financials response contains material false statements and omissions that improperly influenced the closure of this case without full investigation. The response misrepresented our standing, concealed material facts about asset impairment, and mischaracterized critical servicing misconduct that warrants regulatory scrutiny. 

Given these serious misrepresentations and the resulting premature closure, I respectfully request that CFPB reconsider the status of this case, reopen review if necessary, and evaluate the need for supervisory escalation and enforcement proceedings. 

Rather than addressing the underlying financial servicing violations, GM Financials response represents another deliberate attempt to evade accountability by misrepresenting the facts and those involved. 

GM Financial falsely asserts that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX third party without standing. This is inaccurate. Since XX/XX/XXXX, all lease-related submissions have been jointly coordinated and signed through our shared email. XXXX has submitted materials with full knowledge and authorization from me, and GM Financial has accepted those submissions without objection. At no point have they formally challenged her authority until now, after CFPB involvement. 

XXXX has handled all communications because XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and have limited capacity to manage administrative servicing matters. GM Financial has clearly recognized her as the primary point of contact while simultaneously attempting to disqualify her authority to escape regulatory scrutiny. That inconsistency is not only misleading, it raises serious questions of bad-faith conduct. 

Lease payments have been and continue to be made from a joint bank account held by both of us. We are equally financially responsible for this lease, and both of us have been materially harmed by GM Financials actions. She is the registered owner and insured driver. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after new documentation was submitted including video showing the vehicle being dragged by heavy equipment due to locked wheels and its inability to shift into neutral two new statements were suddenly populated on the GM Financial online account. These were identified by XXXX and triggered further investigation. That is how we discovered that GM Financial had internally changed lease plan start dates and zeroed out certain balances. At no time has GM Financial disclosed any of these changes to either myself or XXXX. We have received no notice of impairment, no explanation of adjusted balances, and no acknowledgment of altered lease terms. These changes were made internally, without consumer notice, and would have remained undiscovered had we not proactively monitored and questioned the account activity. 

Throughout this process, we have observed a consistent pattern : GM Financial does not engage, respond, or take corrective action unless a regulatory body is directly copied or involved. This behavior further supports our concern that GM Financial is intentionally avoiding accountability except when externally compelled. 

Despite recognizing the assets impaired status, GM Financial continued to : Enforce full lease billing without disclosing the impairment status Apply charges and taxes based on fictitious asset value Manipulate lease records by future-dating plan start dates to obscure the timeline of impairment GM Financial has taken lease payments exceeding {$1500.00} per month while knowingly withholding the fact that the asset could not be used or reasonably serviced. We were ultimately forced to purchase another vehicle due to the unresolved status and the inoperable condition of the leased asset. 

In addition to direct financial loss, these actions have affected our ability to complete necessary work on our property, including driveway construction required for a certificate of occupancy. GM Financials refusal to release the impaired vehicle has caused unnecessary cost escalation and legal delays unrelated to any legitimate consumer default. 

These actions violate multiple federal consumer protection statutes, including : 12 U.S.C. 5531 Dodd-Frank Act ( UDAAP ) 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) 15 U.S.C. 16671667e Consumer Leasing Act ( CLA ) 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) GM Financial has not acted in good faith, has deliberately manipulated servicing records, and has financially benefited from a valueless asset at our expense. The misrepresentation of XXXX involvement is part of a broader pattern of deflection and evasion. I urge CFPB to reopen this case and treat it as a matter warranting supervisory escalation and formal enforcement. 

To ensure the record is complete and consistent, I have included a full copy of the original complaint submitted by XXXX XXXX XXXX behalf of both of us. This is being re-uploaded under this complaint number so that if CFPB elects to proceed with this filing independently of the original case, all supporting documentation, timelines, and evidence are included here in full. 

Thank you, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation