Consumer complaint received 2026-02-19 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with fees charged
Company: AMERICA FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint due to continued non-responsiveness, failure to provide requested account documentation, and ongoing harm resulting from a disputed {$490.00} charge on my auto loan account with America First Credit Union ( XXXX ). XXXX. Formal Ledger Request and Non-Response On XX/XX/scrub> 2026, I formally requested that XXXX produce a complete physical account ledger, including a detailed breakdown of payment application ( principal, interest, fees ) and full documentation supporting the disputed {$490.00} charge. The request specified that the ledger be mailed within XXXX days and received within XXXX days, barring unforeseen delays with the postal service. As of XX/XX/year>2026, no ledger has been received. Additionally, XXXX has provided no acknowledgment of this request ; no confirmation of receipt, no request for clarification, and no notice of delay. On XX/XX/scrub> 2026, I sent a written follow-up requesting confirmation of whether the ledger had been mailed and requesting the mailing and postmark date. No response was provided. XXXX. Ongoing Payment Misapplication and Rolling Delinquency The disputed {$490.00} charge is currently causing my account to be cXXXXeXXXX as underpaid each month. Although I am making my regular monthly payment of {$500.00}, the system reflects a continuing delinquency condition due to the disputed balance. This can/has caused ongoing harms, including : Artificial delinquency status Continued adverse credit reporting Inability to refinance the loan elsewhere Ongoing accrual of account damage while the dispute remains unresolved Without the requested ledger, I can not verify how payments are being applied or how the disputed amount is being treated. XXXX. Prior CFPB Complaints and Inadequate Responses This matter has been the subject of prior CFPB complaints. XXXX submitted a single response addressing both complaints collectively. That response did not substantively address the core issues raised in either complaint. The response : Recharacterized material facts concerning proof of insurance coverage. XXXX stated that a verification letter from my insurance provider was only in my possession ; however, XXXX Vice President of Legal previously acknowledged receipt of that same letter, quoted its statement that my vehicle had been insured since the date of purchase, and indicated that XXXX was interpreting the language differently. In a subsequent written response, XXXX characterized that interpretation as inartful. The letter itself was not ambiguous regarding the existence of continuous coverage, as it expressly states that coverage was in effect as of the date of purchase ( letter attached ). Placed responsibility on my insurance provider despite prior written representations regarding insurance requirements; Did not reconcile the timeline of my existing insurance coverage with the later addition of force-placed insurance. XXXX previously stated that post-hoc additions of insurance are not permissible. However, force-placed insurance was added several months after the date they claim my coverage was insufficient. This discrepancy remains unexplained. I am seeking transparency, correction of ongoing harm, and resolution of the disputed charge.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation