Consumer complaint received 2024-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Repossession — Damage caused or loss of personal items in vehicle during the actual repossession
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
Summary Judgment Complainant Information : Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date of Original Complaint : XX/XX/XXXX Follow-up Complaint Date : XX/XX/XXXX Respondents : Bridgecrest XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Date XX/XX/XXXX Complaint Overview : This case addresses XXXX alleged unauthorized involvement in the servicing, debt collection, and repossession of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX originally purchased through XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The complainant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, asserts that Bridgecrest is not legally assigned as a party to this contract and therefore lacks the authority to repossess the vehicle, enforce collections, or proceed with any legal claims on the vehicle. Key Issues Raised XXXX. Unauthorized Assignment of Contract Claim : The complainants contract with XXXX does not mention Bridgecrest as a creditor, assignee, or third-party service provider. XXXX  involvement in collections and the subsequent repossession is alleged to be unauthorized and without legal basis. Evidence : Despite multiple debt validation requests from the complainant, Bridgecrest has failed to provide valid documentation proving its legal right to service the contract or its assignment by XXXX. Response from Bridgecrest : Bridgecrest claims to be the account servicer on behalf of XXXX, citing the contracts clause that allows for assignment. However, no specific assignment of this contract to Bridgecrest was presented in the documentation they provided. In fact the documents are marked with N/A indicating that its not assigned to anyone or not applicable. XXXX. Account and Payment History Discrepancies Claim : The complainant highlights several discrepancies in the payment history, suggesting account manipulation. XXXX initially indicated a XXXX balance, which was later altered to reflect a debt exceeding {$16000.00}. Specific Discrepancies : Payments recorded include an ACH payment on XX/XX/XXXX, which was returned for insufficient funds, yet a credit appeared on XX/XX/XXXX, for overpayment. Repeated account adjustments and varying balance totals indicate possible account tampering. Response from Bridgecrest : Bridgecrest denies any manipulation and claims that the account reflects accurate allocations and application of payments. They provided an account history but failed to address the specific discrepancies noted by the complainant. XXXX. Debt Validation Issues Claim : The complainant requested validation of debt on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. The responses from Bridgecrest, including a new contract copy and payment history, did not address the lack of a legal assignment, making the validation incomplete and unsubstantiated. Response from Bridgecrest : Bridgecrest asserts that they validated the debt on multiple occasions. However, they failed to provide any documents proving their assignment to the contract or legal standing to collect. XXXX. Violation of Legal Rights and Unlawful Repossession Claim : XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, is alleged to be illegal, as Bridgecrest lacks authorization under the contract. The repossession violated the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and involved alleged fraud and conversion. Evidence of XXXX : After the repossession, Bridgecrest allegedly sold the complainants personal and XXXX property that was in the vehicle, exacerbating the alleged violations. Response from Bridgecrest : In correspondence with the complainant, Bridgecrest referred to an arbitration agreement and suggested legal proceedings if the complainant pursued court action. They did not directly address the TILA, XXXX, FDCPA, or conversion claims. XXXX. Response Delays and Failure to Address Core Issues Claim : XXXX responses to the CFPB and complainant were delayed, and none adequately addressed the core complaint of unauthorized assignment or the specific discrepancies in account history. Further Allegations : Despite these delays, Bridgecrest proceeded with additional unauthorized actions, including the sale of the vehicle and its contents. Response from Bridgecrest : Correspondence from Bridgecrest representatives XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX confirmed the repossession and reiterated XXXX  servicing role, without substantiating their legal right or addressing the request to return the vehicle or compensate for losses incurred. Complainants Follow-up Demand In the follow-up complaint submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX, the complainant reiterated their demands for : Immediate Return of Vehicle : Due to the unauthorized repossession.

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