Consumer complaint received 2025-08-05 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with the interest rate
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This submission is a continuation of CFPB XXXX # XXXX, submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, regarding deceptive auto loan terms and unauthorized product add-ons in connection with a Hyundai vehicle purchase. 

Separate reports were filed with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) under report numbers XXXX and XXXX, Additionally, a complaint was filed with the Better Business Bureau ( BBB ) under Complaint ID : XXXX. 

The Illinois Attorney General XXXX XXXX ) confirmed XXXX XXXX. XXXX and identified XXXX optional add-on products eligible for cancellation : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a total value of {$3900.00}. 

Subsequently, Hyundai Motor Finance ( XXXX ) responded that all XXXX items had been canceled. However, upon direct confirmation with XXXX, it was found that only three of the four products had actually been canceled, and the cancellation of the XXXX XXXX warranty could not be confirmed in XXXX records. 

This indicates a discrepancy between the AGs list of cancelable items, HMFs reported cancellations, and Assurants internal records. 

Following those complaints, irregular and unexplained activity appeared in the Hyundai Motor Finance ( XXXX ) loan account. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, a {$3900.00} credit was applied to the account. According to XXXX records, {$3500.00} was applied to principal, and {$340.00} was charged as interest despite no payment being made by the borrower on that date. This amount matched the refund total described by the XXXX, which was reportedly issued as a result of the canceled contracts. 

However, upon contacting XXXX directly, it was confirmed that the XXXX XXXX contract valued at {$930.00} had not been canceled. This contradicts the AGs summary and raises serious questions about the accuracy of the refund that was applied to the XXXX account, as well as the legitimacy of the interest charged on a transaction that was not an actual payment. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, a regular monthly payment of {$440.00} was made. It was applied : {$430.00} toward principal and {$6.00} as interest. 

But on XX/XX/XXXX, the next scheduled payment of {$440.00} was processed with drastically different terms. Only {$240.00} was applied toward principal, and {$200.00} was taken as interest. No payments were missed, no loan terms were changed, and no explanation was provided for this sudden shift. 

In addition, the system due date was altered multiple times. After the original complaint was submitted, the loan account began showing a new due date of XX/XX/XXXX, with no amount due visible in the payment interface. This created the impression that an adjustment or deferment had been applied. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX withdrew a full payment without any system notification, and the due date then changed again now displaying as XX/XX/XXXX. 

This series of actions shows a deeper systemic issue : A refund was misapplied as a payment and used to generate interest. 

The refund amount included a contract ( XXXX XXXX ) that, according to XXXX, had not been canceled. 

Interest on the XXXX payment was inflated without any explanation or change in terms. 

Cosmetic changes to the due date and removal of the amount due field misled the borrower while billing continued in the background. 

No updated amortization schedule, breakdown, or written disclosure has been provided.

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