Consumer complaint received 2026-05-21 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Santander XXXX USA regarding the wrongful handling of my vehicle lease account, including refusal of timely tender, lack of required notices, and refusal to accurately report the resolution of the account to credit bureaus. FACTUAL BACKGROUND : I am a Santander XXXX USA lease customer for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. My account was in good standing prior to this matter. I attempted to set up automatic payments ( autopay ) on a recorded call with Santander XXXX USA and believed autopay was active based on confirmation from the representative on that call. Approximately 68 months passed during which Santander did not debit my account for monthly lease payments. I did not receive any voicemails, letters, or other communications from Santander during this period that reached me. I still have not to this day, I have only called them. I had no knowledge that the autopay enrollment had not been processed or that my account was in default. XXXXISCOVERY OF REPOSSESSION : I discovered my vehicle was missing and contacted local law enforcement to file a stolen vehicle report. I had no knowledge that the vehicle had been repossessed by Santander. I only learned the vehicle had been repossessed by contacting Santander XXXX USA due to XXXX location tracking. We first thought it was stolen and contacted police. ATTEMPTS TO CURE AND PAY OFF : Upon learning of the repossession, I immediately offered to pay Santander {$10000.00} to resolve a {$4900.00} arrearage. This offer exceeded the amount owed by more than 2x. Santander refused this tender. I then offered to pay the entire remaining lease balance plus the residual buyout amount to satisfy the loan in full and retain the vehicle. Santander refused this offer as well. Santander subsequently demanded {$37000.00} as a settlement amount, which included a full release of all claims against Santander. I am happy to buy the car, but {$37000.00} is well above value. EXECUTIVE OFFICE DENIAL WITHOUT REVIEW : I escalated to Santanders Executive Office requesting that the account be reported accurately upon settlement as Paid in Full with the repossession notation removed, consistent with the actual final resolution of the account. The Executive Office denied this request. The denial was issued without : - Reviewing the recorded call on which I attempted to establish autopay - Examining whether any required Notice of Right to Cure was provided prior to repossession - Examining the account communication history to verify whether legally required notices were sent - Substantive review of the account file LEGAL CONCERNS I AM ASKING CFPB TO INVESTIGATE : 1. Whether Santander provided the legally required Notice of Right to Cure under applicable state law prior to repossession, as documented in the account file. 2. Whether Santanders refusal of timely tender of full payment violated UCC Article 9 9-623, which provides borrowers the right to redeem secured collateral upon tender of the obligation. 3. Whether Santanders credit reporting practices accurately reflect the resolution of settled accounts under FCRA 1681s-2 and XXXX XXXX reporting standards. Specifically, whether reporting an account as a repossession when the borrower ultimately satisfies the obligation in full and acquires the vehicle constitutes accurate reporting of the final resolution. 4. Whether Santanders autopay enrollment practices on recorded calls created a reasonable consumer expectation that the lender failed to honor, and whether Santander has a pattern of similar enrollment failures. 5. Whether Santanders Executive Office practice of denying credit reporting accommodation requests without substantive review of call recordings or account files constitutes good-faith handling of consumer complaints. 6. Whether the disparity between the {$10000.00} tender ( refused ), the offer to pay the full lease balance plus residual ( refused ), and the eventual {$37000.00} settlement demand with release of claims reflects bad faith conduct designed to extract a release of legitimate consumer claims. I have hired an attorney to represent me if this does not yield a result.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief