Consumer complaint received 2025-02-13 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Loan sold or transferred to another company
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract for an auto loan with Capital One Auto Finance through XXXX of XXXX XXXX. After carefully reviewing the loan agreement, I identified several discrepancies and potential violations of federal and state consumer protection laws, including illegal interest charges, fraudulent misrepresentation, and improper lien enforcement. 

Key Issues Identified : 1. Incorrect Finance Charges & Interest Calculations The documented monthly payment amount ( {$510.00} ) does not match my recalculated figure ( {$770.00} ) based on the disclosed terms.

The finance charge calculations lack transparencyCapital One has not provided details on the APR application, interest accrual method, or payment allocation.

Failure to disclose proper finance calculations may violate the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ).

2. Unlawful Inclusion of Optional Add-Ons The loan includes optional products totaling {$5700.00} without clear disclosure of how these affect the amount financed and monthly payments : Spartan Theft Deterrent Device : {$1900.00} Ultimate Platinum Protection : {$3000.00} XXXX GAP Insurance : {$760.00} These add-ons may have been improperly financed in a way that increases interest charges without proper disclosure, potentially violating TILA and unfair lending practices laws.

3. Failure to Prove Loan Ownership & Possible Securitization Violations Capital One has not provided documentation proving that it owns and has the legal right to enforce this loan.

If the loan has been sold or securitized, Capital One may have already been compensated and may no longer have the legal authority to collect payments. 
This raises concerns under Regulation AB ( G16 ), which requires disclosure of securitized assets.

4. Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Unjust Enrichment The contract falsely states that the security interest has been satisfied, yet Capital One continues to enforce it.

If the loan was securitized and sold to investors, Capital One has already been paid in full and should not be collecting further payments.

These actions may constitute fraud, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices under Californias Unfair Competition Law ( Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. ).

5. Unfair Arbitration Clause Restricting Consumer Rights The contract contains an arbitration clause that severely limits my ability to take legal action, including class-action claims.

This may be unconscionable under California law, based on legal precedent ( Gentry v. Superior Court ( 2007 ) 42 Cal.4th 443 ).

Actions Taken So Far : On [ 01/28/2025 ], I requested a detailed breakdown of the loan terms and finance calculations from Capital One. They failed to provide adequate clarification. 
I sent a formal demand letter requesting proof of loan ownership, securitization details, and corrective action for these violations. Capital One has not responded. 
As a result, I am escalating this complaint to the CFPB and requesting an investigation into Capital Ones lending practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation