Consumer complaint received 2024-04-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
This arises from a multitude of violations which occurred during the XX/XX/XXXX, consumer credit transaction in which I ( the debtor ) purchased a XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, IL Account number XXXX I sent a notice informing the respondent of the main violation to seek relief on XX/XX/XXXX. The notice was delivered to the respondents registered agent on XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by exhibit A. The respondent investigated the claim, but we were not able to come to any kind of amicable resolution. This contract is governed by the Truth in Lending Act as evidenced by the XXXX tabular disclosures which can be seen in exhibit B. This is also evidenced by the FTC holder notice 16 C.F.R. 433.2 which states that this is a consumer credit contract and can be seen in exhibit C. As can be seen in exhibit D, the respondent is a holder in due course in accordance with UCC 3-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( i ) and is subject to all claims which the debtor could assert against the seller in accordance with the FTC holder notice 16 C.F.R. 433.2. During the consumer credit transaction XXXX XXXX XXXX committed many TILA violations including miscalculations and mislabeling the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and yet the respondent purchased the contract via Credit Sale despite the clear signs of miscalculations. Im sure the respondent will assert that I agreed to pay according to the contract, but I did not agree to pay under a voidable contract with the lack of full disclosure. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX required a {$500.00} down payment whereby law none was required as can be seen in exhibit XXXX It is not legal for a dealership to advertise a down payment requirement other than XXXX money down in accordance with 12 C.F.R. 1026.24 ( d ) ( 1 ). That would be a violation of 15 U.S.C 1662. This would deem the respondent civilly liable under 15 U.S.C 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. If the down payment was an incident to the extension of credit, then it should have been included in the finance charge. The Finance Charge as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1605 is the sum of all charges and does not include charges of a type payable in a comparable cash transaction. There should be no cash transactions involved during a consumer credit transaction. Charging a down payment where no cash should have been included is a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and has been mislabeled in the model form. This is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ). As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. Again, 15 U.S.C. 1605 defines the finance charge as, except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of the finance charge in connection with any consumer credit transaction shall be determined as the sum of all charges, payable directly or indirectly by the person to whom the credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit. As An Incident to The Extension Of Credit. Anything that was required to finance the vehicle shouldve been included in the finance charge. Property insurance was required to finance the vehicle as can be seen in exhibit F. Property insurance that is required under the finance charge under 12 C.F.R. 1026.4 ( b ) ( 8 ) and 16 U.S.C. 1605 ( c ) is a requirement by the creditor. Further evidence that property insurance was a requirement can be seen in exhibit F. Property insurance was an incident to the extension of credit and has been mislabled in the model form. Gap insurance and the service contract are both items that were incidents to the extension of credit of as well. Had this been a cash transaction the two items would not have been included. As such all three should have been included in the finance charge but were erroneously included in the amount financed and have been mislabeled in the model form. This is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. The finance charge is the sum of all charges according to 15 U.S.C. 1605 and the cost of consumer credit as a dollar amount according to 12 C.F.R. 1026.4. Sum means total. If the finance charge is the sum ( total ) of all charges, then the finance charge and the total of payments should be calculated the same in the H-1 Credit Sale model form. They are not calculated the same and so have been miscalculated in the model form which is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. 12 C.F.R. 1026.4 defines the finance charge as the cost of consumer credit as a dollar amount. The finance charge on the model form says the dollar amount the credit will cost you. It says nothing about consumer credit as can be seen in exhibit G. This has been mislabeled on the model form and is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 161XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to give the proper insurance disclosures. The option for credit life insurance was disclosed, but debt suspension insurance and debt cancellation insurance are two additional insurances which follow the same requirements. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX doesnt offer these insurances theres still a requirement to disclose them in accordance with 12 C.F.R. 1026.4 ( d ) upon which the debtor is to sign off on either to waive the insurances or accept them. If its required, the insurance is to be included in the finance charge. As can be seen in exhibits H these insurances are supposed to have very specific disclosure requirements in a model form. Debt suspension insurance and debt cancellation insurance were not properly disclosed to me which left me severely underinsured. As can be seen in 12 C.F.R. 1026.4 ( d ) these insurances are for credit life, accident, health, or loss of income. Failure to provide these crucial insurance disclosures has resulted in financial injury as I came into financial hardship as a result of covid soon after the transaction was completed as evidenced in exhibit XXXX. As can be seen in exhibit XXXX I missed the XX/XX/XXXX vehicle payment altogether and had been late on virtually every payment since. XXXX XXXX XXXX failure to provide the proper insurance disclosures left me with severe financial injury as I havent been able to fulfill numerous other debt obligations in the amount of {$8600.00}. This is evidenced by exhibit K. This is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. XXXX XXXX XXXX also committed an egregious error by miscalculating the amount of sales tax for the transaction. It was calculated as {$3200.00} when it should have been calculated as XXXX. This exceeds the 6.25 % sales tax threshold instituted by Illinois law. This has been mislabeled in the model form and is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. As a holder in due course in accordance with UCC 3-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( i ) the respondent is subject to all claims which the debtor could assert against the seller in accordance with the FTC holder rule 16 C.F.R. 433.2. If the respondent is to assert that they are not the holder and are not subject to the FTC holder rule, then they had no rights to collect any amounts. They are not exempt as the contract was afteXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in accordance with 16 C.F.R. 433.3. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX labeling this transaction an auto loan was false and misleading. As can be seen in exhibit XXXX the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau states that a retail installment sale contract is slightly different from an auto loan. A retail installment sale is a transaction between a consumer and a dealer to purchase a vehicle where the consumer agrees to pay the dealer over time, paying both the value of the vehicle plus interest. Exhibit M clearly shows that the contract in question is titled retail installment sale contract. As can be seen in exhibit XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a seller and creditor. XXXX XXXX XXXX and the respondent engaged in whats commonly known as a Credit Sale with no disclosure to the consumer in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1602 ( h ), any sale in which the seller is a creditor is in fact a credit sale. This contract titled retail installment sale contract has been false and misleading in nature. This contract shows no evidence that a loan was issued, and Exhibit O shows that this misleading contract has been inaccurately reported as an auto loan on my consumer report. As such the respondent is in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( ii ) for false and inaccurate information. As such the respondent is civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611. I further assert that the contract itself paid for the vehicle. In accordance with 16 C.F.R. 433.1 ( i ), a consumer credit contract is defined as any instrument which evidences or embodies a debt. This is a financial asset according to 12 C.F.R. 360.6 ( 2 ) which is defined as, cash or a contract or an instrument that conveys to one entity a contractual right to receive cash or another financial instrument from another entity. According to the IRS, 26 C.F.R. 15a.453-1 ( b ) ( 3 ) states, receipt of an evidence of indebtedness which is secured directly or indirectly by cash or a cash equivalent, such as a bank certificate of deposit or a treasury note will be treated as the receipt of payment. It goes on to state, payment may be received in cash or other property, including foreign currency, marketable securities, and evidences of indebtedness which are payable on demand or readily tradeable. The XXXX. is saying that this consumer credit contract is an instrument which evidences or embodies a debt. The Federal Reserve is saying that this instrument that gives one entity the contractual right to receive cash is a financial asset. The IRS then says that this instrument which evidences or embodies a debt is payment because it is payable on demand or readily tradeable. As such the instrument has already paid for the vehicle. To go even further, 26 C.F.R.

15a.453-1 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) states, a bond or other evidence of indebtedness issued by any person and payable on demand shall be treated as payment in the year received, not as installment obligations payable in future years. This further evidences that the instrument itself was payment for the vehicle. The respondent knew that the contract itself was a financial instrument which paid for the vehicle and failed to disclose this to the consumer. This is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1638. As such the respondent would be civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640, as well as criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611.

In summation, the respondent is civilly liable under 15 U.S.C. 1640 for failing to meet numerous requirements under TILA. The respondent is also criminally liable under 15 U.S.C. 1611 for whoever willfully and knowingly gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose. Both the finance charge and the amount financed are inaccurate beyond the tolerances allowed. Proof of any one of the violations alleged is sufficient to trigger statutory damages of twice the properly calculated finance charge. As such, Im asking for actual damages in the amount of {$16000.00} for all payments and late fees rendered to the respondent as well as {$2900.00} for unfulfilled debt obligations due to financial injury. Im asking for statutory damages of twice the properly calculated finance charge as well. {$13000.00} for the original finance charge, but also {$1600.00} for the service contract, {$1000.00} for the insurance premium, and {$450.00} for the XXXX insurance which would total the properly calculated finance charge at {$16000.00}. Multiplied by XXXX is a total of {$32000.00}. Im also asking for equitable relief in the form of the free and clear vehicle title as well as for the respondent to cease and desist all inaccurate reporting on my consumer reports.

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 non-monetary relief