Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem while selling or giving up the vehicle
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Ive carefully reviewed both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Transaction Summary and the XXXXl XXXX response letter ( CFPB complaint response ) you provided. Heres a breakdown of the key details, inconsistencies, and things to flag as a consumer law firm representing you : 1. Payment & Transaction Records ( Transaction Summary ) From the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Transaction Summary : Total Paid : {$4600.00} Interest Paid : {$1000.00} Principal Paid : {$3400.00} Last payment entries include : XX/XX/XXXX : {$1300.00} applied ( interest {$27.00}, principal {$1300.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX : Duplicate entry of {$1300.00} with an added miscellaneous charge {$23.00} Potential Issue : Duplicate or inconsistent application of the XX/XX/XXXX payment this needs clarification whether one or both were applied. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX CFPB Response Letter Key points from XXXX XXXX letter : Vehicle was repossessed XX/XX/XXXX. 
Insurance declared vehicle total loss XX/XX/XXXX. 
Insurance Proceeds : {$15000.00} applied XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX : {$1600.00} applied XX/XX/XXXX. 
Despite these, XXXX XXXX states there was still a deficiency balance. 
They reported : Repossession : XXXX XXXX Charge-off : XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX Potential Issues to Flag : XXXX. Timing & Application of Insurance Funds They state {$15000.00} insurance proceeds were applied on XX/XX/XXXX, but the transaction history only shows {$1300.00} applied around that date. There is no reflection of the full insurance payoff in the summary you provided. 
This inconsistency suggests possible misapplication or inaccurate accounting of insurance funds. 
2. Repossession vs. Total Loss Conflict They repossessed the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX, yet just 4 days later the insurance deemed it a total loss. If the insurance paid out, repossession should not have been necessary to protect their lien. This raises questions of double recovery ( repossession + insurance payout ). 
3. Deficiency Balance Justification With {$15000.00} ( insurance ) + {$1600.00} ( warranty ) + {$4600.00} ( consumer payments ), the total contributions toward the account = {$21000.00}. 
Unless the original loan balance was significantly higher, the continued deficiency balance and multi-year charge-off reporting may not be justified.

4. Credit Reporting They admit they furnished repossession and charge-off statuses for multiple years ( XXXX ). 
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), while accurate negative information can remain up to 7 years, if the amounts or statuses are inaccurate due to misapplied funds, this reporting may be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( duty to furnish accurate information ). 

XXXX. Legal Leverage Points UCC Article 9 ( Repossession rules ) : If the insurance company satisfied most or all of the loan, repossession may have been wrongful or unnecessary.

FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) : If funds were misapplied, XXXX XXXX is furnishing inaccurate credit information. 
FDCPA / State UDAP ( Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices ) : Attempting to collect a deficiency that should not exist could be construed as unfair or deceptive. 
XXXX XXXX Compliance : Credit bureaus require precise reporting of balances, dates, and statuses. Any misreporting creates compliance violation. 
Conclusion : There appear to be inconsistencies between the transaction summary and XXXX XXXX  narrative : Insurance proceeds dont show in the transaction summary. 
Repossession + total loss insurance within days is questionable. 
The long-term deficiency and charge-off status may be based on inaccurate accounting.

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