Consumer complaint received 2026-01-29 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: SD

Complaint narrative:
TD Auto Finance LLC is the current assignee of a retail installment contract originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I am not alleging that TD originated the dealer misconduct ; however, TD now holds the note and, after notice, has failed to reconcile material execution and disclosure discrepancies affecting the validity and structure of the account. 

The contract and multiple addenda reflect an execution date of XX/XX/year>. I was physically present in North Dakota for the entirety of XX/XX/year>, which is objectively verifiable. All documents were executed via wet ink, not electronically. I did not physically arrive at the XXXX dealership until XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, at which time I signed a limited number of documents. 

Upon review, several documents either contain no handwritten execution date by me or reflect a pre-printed or system-applied date of XX/XX/year>, rather than a date written contemporaneously at signing. I do not recall personally dating documents as XX/XX/year>. Clarification is required as to how, when, and by whom those execution dates were applied. 

The contract also reflects buyer/co-buyer role assignments that do not align with my understanding of the transaction. The other party executed the majority of the paperwork and was intended to be co-buyer, yet the contract reflects the roles differently. This discrepancy materially affects consent, disclosures, and responsibility. 

Additionally, the account includes optional add-on products, including a service contract and GAP coverage. Given the unresolved execution and role discrepancies, it is unclear whether these add-ons were properly disclosed, authorized, and consented to in compliance with applicable requirements.

I previously notified TD Auto Finance of these issues through a CFPB complaint and requested documentation and clarification regarding execution dates and locations, buyer/co-buyer roles, and authorization for all add-on products. TDs response relied on a general dealer denial and did not provide the requested documentation or reconciliation. After notice, TD did not obtain or review dealer origination or funding documentation sufficient to resolve these discrepancies. 

I am requesting that TD Auto Finance, as assignee, formally obtain and review the dealers origination and funding documentation sufficient to ( 1 ) confirm when and where each document was executed, ( 2 ) determine whether execution dates were system-applied or dealer-applied, ( 3 ) reconcile buyer/co-buyer role assignments, and ( 4 ) confirm authorization and disclosure for all optional add-on products. If discrepancies are confirmed, I request appropriate account correction consistent with assignee obligations, without informal modification that would obscure dealer accountability or shift financial responsibility away from the originating dealer. 

I am not an attorney and was not fully aware of my rights at the time of origination ; however, I retain consumer rights, and documented reconciliation is required before continued enforcement of a contract containing unresolved discrepancies.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation