Consumer complaint received 2025-10-19 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Company communicating payment assistance or payment extension options
Company: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Please review old case # XXXX Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Mazda Financial Services ( Toyota Motor Credit Corpora<on ) Subject : Unlawful enforcement, default, and repossession ac<ons Jurisdic<on : XXXX of Pennsylvania ( Title 12, 6254 & 6309 ) This correspondence serves as my formal rebuttal to the response submitted by Mazda Financial Services ( MFS ) regarding my consumer complaint. After a full review of MFSs statements, the Retail Installment Sale Contract ( Contract ), and applicable Pennsylvania law, I assert that MFS violated multiple statutory and contractual duties in connection with its handling of my account, its issuance of the Notice of Right to Cure, and its subsequent enforcement actions. 
1. Viola<ons of Pennsylvanias Right to Cure Statute 12 Pa.C.S. 6254 Under 6254 ( a ), a creditor must issue a valid Notice of Right to Cure Default giving at least 20 days written notice before accelerating, repossessing, or enforcing the contract.

The notice must clearly itemize the arrears, specify the exact cure amount, and provide a definite date by which the consumer may reinstate the contract.

MFSs actions conflict with this statute in several ways : Premature Enforcement : MFS sent a Notice of Right to Cure on or about XX/XX/year>, yet pursued repossession and/or continued enforcement efforts before the statutory cure period expired. 
Defective Notice Content : The cure notice failed to clearly disclose the total reinstatement amount as required by 6254 ( b ) ( 2 ). 
Failure to Honor Extension/ Modification : MFS acknowledged that an extension was granted on XX/XX/year>, but ignored it when proceeding with enforcement, breaching its duty of good faith and 6254 ( e ).

2. Unlawful Repossession & Failure to Comply with Redemp<on Rights 12 Pa.C.S. 6309 Even assuming arguendo that MFS was entitled to repossess, it was still obligated under 6309 ( b ) to provide a post-repossession notice within five ( 5 ) days, advising of my right to redeem the vehicle, the precise redemption amount, and the location of the collateral.

MFSs records do not indicate that such a compliant redemption notice was ever sent or received. Any repossession conducted while an active extension or right-to-cure period was still running is considered wrongful repossession under Pennsylvania law.

3. Breach of Contract & Bad-Faith Enforcement The Contract itself requires MFS to act in good faith and in accordance with applicable law. By granting an extension and simultaneously proceeding with repossession and negative credit reporting, MFS breached the express terms of the contract and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. These actions also raise concerns under the FCRA and Pennsylvanias Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( 73 P.S. 201-3 ).

4. Requested Relief I respectfully request that the CFPB require Mazda Financial Services to : 1. Cease all collection and credit reporting activities related to this account pending full statutory review ; 2. Provide documentary proof of compliance with 12 Pa.C.S. 6254 and 6309 ; 3. Correct or remove any adverse credit reporting issued during an active extension or right-to-cure period ; and 4. Reinstate or compensate for wrongful repossession in accordance with state law.

5. Conclusion Mazda Financial Services failure to properly administer my account demonstrates a disregard for Pennsylvanias consumer credit protections. The premature enforcement of the Contract, defective notice procedures, and failure to honor a granted extension collectively constitute statutory violations and contractual breaches that warrant CFPB oversight and corrective action. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX PA XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation