Consumer complaint received 2025-10-27 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold
Company: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX and its financing affiliate Bridgecrest Credit Company , LLC violated multiple federal and Michigan consumer-protection statutes through defective title processing, misrepresentation, and unlawful repossession conduct connected to the purchase of my XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX 

Background & Title-Processing Failures XXXX delivered the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX while retaining exclusive control of all title and registration filings. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX attempted an electronic title submission to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ). That filing was rejected on XX/XX/XXXX for a name-mismatch. Under MCL XXXX ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ), the dealernot the buyerbears a non-delegable duty to cure a rejected submission by re-filing within 2130 days or filing Form XXXX. No such cure was made. 
XXXX did not resubmit corrected paperwork until XX/XX/XXXX approximately 214 days late and the permanent title was not issued by XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX, well after the vehicle had been declared a total loss. During that period I could not complete insurance or claims processing, resulting in storage, towing, and rental-transport costs exceeding {$10000.00}. 

Dealer and Servicer Misrepresentation XXXX later told the Michigan Attorney General that I electronically signed documents on XX/XX/XXXX and that any delay was due to buyer inaction. Those statements are false. Independent verification from XXXX e-signature vendor confirms no signature event occurred for my account. These false assertions were made to shift blame for statutory violations, constituting deceptive practices under MCL XXXX ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) and MCL XXXX ( XXXX ). 

Bridgecrest XXXX and Auction Misconduct After the XX/XX/XXXX accident, the vehicle remained in storage pending title resolution. On XX/XX/XXXX I issued a written demand to XXXX and Bridgecrest for an auction hold pursuant to MCL XXXX ( XXXX ) and active AAA arbitration ( Case No. XXXX ). XXXX XXXX Customer Service verbally confirmed the account would remain on hold pending legal review. Despite that assurance, Bridgecrest auctioned the vehicle around XX/XX/XXXX without authenticated pre-sale notice or revocation of the hold. This violated XXXX XXXX and XXXX ( MCL XXXX et seq. ), which require a commercially reasonable disposition and reasonable authenticated notice to the debtor. 

Post-Sale Credit Reporting Following the unlawful auction, Bridgecrest furnished repossession and deficiency information to the credit bureaus while arbitration was pending. After I disputed the tradeline, Bridgecrest verified the same inaccurate data, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). These actions caused measurable credit-score decline, denials of replacement-vehicle financing, and significant transportation hardship.

Harm Storage, towing, and rental transportation plus continuing charges Out-of-pocket document fees Credit-score reduction and lost credit opportunities Emotional distress and reputational damage associated with unlawful repossession reporting Company Response Carvanas July 3 2XX/XX/XXXX letter to the Michigan Attorney General falsely attributed title XXXX to buyer inaction, ignored its non-delegable statutory duty, and denied compensation. Bridgecrest denied wrongdoing, claiming compliance despite clear violations of Michigan XXXX XXXX, XXXX Article XXXX, the XXXX, and the FCRA.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation