Consumer complaint received 2025-05-08 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Problem with additional products or services purchased with the loan
Company: MOUNTAIN AMERICA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint regarding quotes on a vehicle protection plan ( XXXX XXXX " extended warranty, '' through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I received these quotes from Mountain America Credit Union ( MACU ) as part of a pre-approval and quote for an auto loan through one of their XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe I was given inaccurate and misleading information, which could be considered a bait-and-switch, and MACU has refused to honor a confirmed quote that was central to my decision-making on the loan itself and the related loan product. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I called MACU to apply for an auto loan pre-approval. The rep completed the loan application with me, and I received pre-approval on an amount and an interest rate. The rep told me about gap coverage and a vehicle protection plan, which they said I could add on as part of my loan ( including paying for the vehicle protection plan together with the loan monthly payment ). I also applied for pre-approval and received it and similar marketing for loan products at another credit union, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I thought MACU 's pre-approval amount, rate, and additional loan options and products were favorable, so I chose MACU as my preferred lender on the auto loan. The same rep sent me MACU 's detailed marketing information about the additional loan products, the gap coverage and vehicle protection plan, to my email. I also asked for a quote in writing on a vehicle protection plan for a vehicle, with year, make, model, and odometer mileage ( on a different vehicle than the one I ended up getting ), and the rep gave me a quote that I thought was favorable, about {$1900.00} for 96 months, up to XXXX miles. 

Later that day on XX/XX/XXXX, I decided to purchase a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, an indirect franchise dealer partnered with XXXX, and told them that I had been pre-approved at MACU for the loan, at a specific interest rate. During the closing on the loan with the financial officer of the dealership I was offered an extended warranty and given a quote from the dealership ( for ~ $ XXXX ), but I declined it, telling them the quote that MACU had given me which was significantly less expensive ( albeit on a different vehicle, but similar year and mileage ). The dealership 's financial officer noted that they could not compete with that quote. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested a quote in writing for the XXXX  XXXX Vehicle Protection Plan, with " XXXX XXXX '' coverage, for the specific vehicle I had purchased, with details about the vehicle, year, make, and model. I also provided the XXXX in my request. That same day, I was quoted in writing {$2100.00} for 96 months of coverage, and up to XXXX miles on the odometer. It was slightly more than I had been quoted the previous day, which I thought reflected the different make/model of the vehicle. There was no mention that this quote was provisional or pending additional vehicle information. Since the loan was financed through MACU, I thought they already had all the needed information on the vehicle to generate an accurate quote. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after having reviewed other extended warranty options, I contacted the same rep at MACU to confirm the quote, in writing. They replied in writing that they had " reached out to the department and confirmed the exact same price, term, and mileage that had been quoted to me on XX/XX/XXXX, {$2100.00} for XXXX  months coverage, up to XXXX miles on the odometer, and asked if they could call me so I could purchase the plan. There was no mention that this quote was still provisional or pending any additional vehicle information, and the loan had already been funded by MACU at this point. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after having researched my options, I told the representative I wanted to purchase the warranty, including the total loss refund option for an additional {$50.00}. I asked for a copy of the full contract to review before finalizing payment. I didn't receive a response, so the next day I followed up with the rep. They then replied and requested the odometer reading, which I provided ( later they stated that they had obtained the odometer mileage direct from my loan contract documents ). Shortly afterward, they informed me the actual price would be {$2900.00}, about {$770.00} more than the quote I had been given on XX/XX/XXXX on my specific vehicle, in writing, and that they had confirmed just XXXX days earlier, in writing, on XX/XX/XXXX. They said the price was higher because it was recalculated when the odometer mileage was entered. 

This is the core issue : MACU, both the representative and the internal department they contacted to confirm the quote, clearly had access to the auto loan contract, which contained the odometer reading, before the original quote on my specific vehicle and certainly before confirming that quote. If mileage impacts the pricing that much, it should have been included in the initial quote or at least flagged during confirmation, and requested at that point. I relied on those quotes in good faith and based my financial decisions on it, not only to choose MACU for my auto loan, but to move forward with the additional loan product that was quoted with it, including a confirmed quote. No effort was made to communicate that the price was still conditional or that any relevant information was missing when I was given these quotes. 

After this discrepancy was noted with the rep, I requested to escalate the issue to a MACU manager, who could review it with MACU 's senior management. The manager called me and acknowledged the internal error in their rep 's quotes but said they would not honor the confirmed quote on the vehicle protection plan. They said if I wanted the selected product, I would have to pay the full {$2900.00}. 

I believe this represents a serious breakdown in internal communications and a failure in customer service protocols on auto loans and their associated loan products. It created a bait-and-switch situation where a quote was provided by MACU and even made a firm confirmation, then increased that quote dramatically right at the moment of purchase by {$770.00}, about a 36 % increase in price. This undermines consumer trust and fair dealing. MACU misled me and provided materially incorrect information during a financial transaction, purchasing an auto loan. If I had had been given the correct quote up front, I may have made a different decision on my lender, including considering the vehicle protection plan offered and quoted by the dealership that sold me the vehicle. After receiving the confirmed quote, which was favorable, I spent a day researching whether I was ready to proceed with purchase, and only then when I was finally ready to pay for the plan did I receive an accurate quote at a much higher price. 

MACU should be held accountable for their quoted and confirmed price of {$2100.00} for their loan product, sold to me together with the loan itself, which was based on information that was either already known or should have been verified before confirmation of the quote, not after I had already signed on the auto loan, the quote was confirmed, and I was ready to proceed to purchase the vehicle protection plan.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation