Consumer complaint received 2026-01-30 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: VW Credit
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed formal TILA billing error dispute with XXXX alleging {$18000.00} inflated Amount Financed due to documented dealer overcharges. Under TILA/Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ), AFS was required to investigate billing errors and respond with investigation results within XXXX days. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I have received no written investigation results ( XXXX days since dispute filed ; XXXX  days past XXXX-day deadline ). 

Instead, XXXX engaged in clear TILA violations : ( XXXX ) Locked portal access early XXXX following my evidence upload ; ( XXXX ) Sent 'log in " email XX/XX/XXXX while portal remained inaccessible ( false appearance of access ) ; ( XXXX ) Charged off account and referred for repossession XX/XX/XXXX during billing error investigation period ( violating TILA prohibition on collection activity on disputed amounts ) -- while the financed vehicle remained in third-party repair custody with documented incomplete ADAS calibrations and safety system deficiencies ; ( XXXX ) Mailed document ( XXXX ) with unauthorized signature and altered figures instead of investigation results ; ( XXXX ) Forced phone-only communication ( collections XXXX number ) to avoid creating written record. 

This constitutes an abusive practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ). XXXX took adverse collection action while simultaneously representing that a consumer dispute investigation was underway. 

HOLDER RULE LIABILITY ( 16 CFR 433.2 ) As the holder of the retail installment contract, XXXX is subject to all claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the selling dealer. The contract contains the required FTC Holder Rule notice. 

XXXX can not enforce a balance derived from tainted dealer documentation without first verifying its accuracy. The documented dealer discrepancies {$13000.00} XXXX surcharge, duplicate fees, erased rebates, bait-and-switch service contract are defenses available against XXXX as assignee. 

I have documentary evidence to dispute the collateral value, based on a written admission by the dealership XXXX that the vehicle 's maintenance was deliberately delayed and incomplete. Therefore, not in XXXX compliance. 

XXXX, the XXXX at XXXX  XXXX stated : XXXX XXXX XXXX assist calibration {$220.00} and peripheral camera {$220.00} declined. This is inaccurate as they are related operations to the initial request. It was added by the technician on the XXXX inspection report as a DUPLICATE REQUEST TO BREAK APART THE XXXX SEPARATE CALIBRATIONS. Marked declined by advisor as insurance was paying for these items not customer. '' DIAGNOSTIC SCANS DO NOT PROVE XXXX CALIBRATION COMPLIANCE XXXX. A diagnostic scan is not a calibration log. 
XXXX. Absence of DTCs does not equal XXXX compliance. 
XXXX. The shop 's own admission controls. 
XXXX. The insurer 's denial is documented. 
XXXX. No XXXX calibration records exist. 

Criminal complaints filed : XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and XXXX Postal Inspection incident report ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with documentary evidence. ''

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation