Consumer complaint received 2025-03-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly — Contacted your employer
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
Follow up complaint from XXXX Company 's Response Judgment was obtained in this matter on XX/XX/XXXX. Under Arkansas Code 16-56-114 actions on all judgments shall be commenced within 10 years. The garnishment in this matter was filed on XX/XX/XXXX within the 10 years. The debt collection statute of limitations mentioned in the complaint refers to the time in which one is able to file suit against an individual. Due to the fact that the garnishment was produced within the 10 years XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX did not violate any rules in producing the garnishment and sending it to XXXX XXXX XXXX which is the current employer of the complainant. The requirement of a written validation notice within 5 days of first contact was met prior to suit filing when XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX sent a demand letter to the complainant which occurred on or about XX/XX/XXXX. 

My Feedback : This is a final legal demand regarding your unlawful wage garnishment and continued collection efforts based on a XXXX judgment I was never served. Your actions violate multiple federal and state laws, and I demand the immediate return of all garnished wages and a full cessation of all further collection activities. 

XXXX. The XXXX Judgment is Void Due to Lack of Proper Service Arkansas law ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and U.S. Supreme Court precedent ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) require proper service of process before a judgment can be enforced. 
Since I never received service, the judgment is XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Any collection efforts based on a void judgment are illegal under FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ) misrepresenting the legal status of a debt. 
Legal Demand : Produce court-certified proof that I was personally served in XXXX. 
Since you can not provide this, the judgment is void, and all funds garnished must be refunded immediately via mailed cheque. 
2. FDCPA Violations Illegal Wage Garnishment Based on a Void Judgment By enforcing an invalid judgment, your firm has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of a debts legal status.

15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) Unfair or unconscionable means to collect.

15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) Failure to provide proper validation of debt.

Legal Demand : Cease all wage garnishments immediately and refund all wages taken under this unlawful action. 
3. Unfair Debt Collection and Consumer Rights Violations CFPBs current lawsuit against Credit Acceptance Corp. shows predatory lending practices, making the underlying loan unenforceable. 
Since my loan was impacted by fraudulent practices, your enforcement actions are illegal under federal consumer protection laws. 
Violations by Credit Acceptance Corporation ( CAC ) : Deceptive Loan Practices : Credit Acceptance Corporation ( CAC ) has been accused of obscuring the true costs of auto loans by hiding finance charges within loan agreements. The finance charges were not clearly disclosed, misleading borrowers regarding the total amount they were required to pay for their vehicles. CAC 's practice of embedding hidden charges violated the principles of transparency under the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., which mandates clear and accurate disclosures of loan terms. 

Providing Unaffordable Loans : CAC has extended auto loans without adequately assessing borrowers ' ability to repay, which has caused significant financial distress, including vehicle repossessions. The loan agreements failed to meet the standard of a reasonable expectation of repayment, as required by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. This practice falls under predatory lending, and CAC is responsible for these unethical lending practices. 

Violation of Usury Laws : CAC has charged usurious interest rates that exceed the legal limit set by state laws. These usurious rates violate the Arkansas Usury Laws and the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Charging interest rates higher than the legal limit is illegal, and CAC should be held accountable for its violation of both federal and state laws. 

Aggressive Debt Collection Tactics : CAC, through XXXX XXXX XXXX has used aggressive collection tactics, including garnishment of wages, for loans that were already unaffordable for borrowers. This constitutes a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., particularly in regards to the use of misleading and oppressive tactics during debt collection. 

Misrepresentation of Loan Terms : The loan terms presented to me were inaccurate and failed to disclose key financial obligations, including inflated principal amounts and undisclosed charges. CAC misrepresented the true costs of the loan, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and other applicable consumer protection laws. Additionally, the loan terms were not explained in a way that ensured I understood the full scope of my obligations, which is a violation of TILA.

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