Consumer complaint received 2024-03-10 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Loan sold or transferred to another company
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2019, I entered into a Retail Installment Contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, operating as XXXX, wherein I provided collateral in the form of a security interest to XXXX. It is imperative to note that at no juncture did I expressly authorize XXXX to vend this security interest on either the primary or secondary market. The entirety of this transaction was financed through my credit, with the vehicle serving as a gift and thereby granting XXXX a security interest. Notably, no contractual agreement was executed with BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, nor was there any consent given for the transfer of purported debt to an entity under the misnomer XXXX, thereby restricting my legal capacity by precluding me from contracting under my full legal name, XXXX. 

A meticulous examination of Texas debt records reveals no outstanding debt associated with XXXX, XXXX  or XXXX. Furthermore, correspondence has been directed to BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION highlighting discrepancies in the Amount Financed, Total of Payments, and Total Sales Price. The incongruity between these figures raises pertinent questions regarding the accuracy and transparency of the financial terms outlined in the agreement.

The disparity between the Amount Financed and Total Sales Price is particularly concerning. The Amount Financed should inherently encompass both the principal amount and finance charge, constituting the " total of payments. '' It is perplexing that these figures diverge significantly in this instance : Finance charge {$7700.00}, Amount Financed {$25000.00}, Total of Payments {$33000.00}, Total Sales Price {$35000.00}.

Moreover, I contest the imposition of a {$2000.00} down payment that seemingly deviates from compliance standards outlined in 15 USC Section 662 unless such down payments are uniformly applied across all consumers by the creditor.

The transactional nature of credit transactions underscores an obligation for lenders to extend credit to borrowers within a contractual framework necessitating repayment rather than an immediate transfer of physical funds. Consequently, it is imperative to validate the existence and nature of any purported debt before proceeding with any further actions.

Additionally, several violations have been identified including but not limited to obscuring financing terms to obfuscate consumer obligations and misrepresenting consumer rights within finance agreements. False threats and deceptive statements have been employed towards struggling borrowers exacerbating financial distress and impairing creditworthiness.

Subsequent attempts to seek resolution through Specific Documentary Evidence requests have been met with silence from BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION regarding billing disputes and compliance with regulatory statutes such as Texas Finance Code Chapter 392 and Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ).

In light of these circumstances and in adherence to legal standards and fairness in our dealings, I request your prompt attention and cooperation in resolving this matter satisfactorily

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