Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem with paying off the loan
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
RETALIATION - XXXX  IGNORED VALID DISPUTES, ONLY RETALIATED PROOF MY DISPUTES HAVE MERIT : On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed accounts that went delinquent during incarceration ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ). I was physically unable to receive notices or respond. 

XXXX  PROPERLY INVESTIGATED AND DELETED THREE ACCOUNTS : XXXX. XXXX XXXX  - DELETED ( unverifiable ) 2. XXXX  XXXX XXXX DELETED ( unverifiable ) 3. XXXX  XXXX ( large account ) - DELETED ( unverifiable ) This PROVES my disputes are valid and the information is unverifiable. 

XXXX  RECEIVED IDENTICAL DISPUTES BUT ONLY RETALIATED : XXXX  received the same dispute letters but their ONLY response was retaliation on Exeter Finance. They ignored all other valid disputes. 

RETALIATION TIMELINE : XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX  received disputes XX/XX/XXXX : Exeter added NEW " CHARGED OFF ACCOUNT '' comment ( didn't exist before ) Result : Score dropped XXXX XXXX ( XXXX points ) SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT PROVES RETALIATION : - XXXX  : Investigated properly, deleted XXXX accounts - Equifax : ONLY response was adding NEW negative comment to Exeter - XXXX  ignored XXXX XXXX, XXXX  ( which XXXX  deleted as unverifiable )- This selective enforcement proves intentional retaliation, not investigation EXETER 'S CONTRADICTORY " VERIFICATION '' : Exeter claimed to " verify '' XXXX  account but marked multiple months " UNKNOWN '' - " UNKNOWN '' = " can not verify '' - Can not both " verify '' AND mark " unknown '' - Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), unverifiable info must be deleted XXXX  DATA MANIPULATION : - Changed 2019 data from " Unknown '' to " Current '' ( improved old data ) - Changed XXXX  data to " Unknown '' ( new gaps ) - Deleted 8 months of reporting - Labeled harmful changes " POSITIVE '' despite XXXX drop LEGAL VIOLATIONS : 1. FCRA 621 ( b ) - Willful retaliation ( added NEW negative after dispute ) 2. FCRA 623 ( b ) ( 1 ) - Failed to investigate valid disputes XXXX  properly handled 3. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) - Prohibited retaliation 4. FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) - Must delete unverifiable info 5. Constitutional due process ( incarceration ) COMPARATIVE BUREAU COMPLIANCE : - XXXX  : Deleted 3 accounts ( proper investigation ) - XXXX : Score improved to XXXX - XXXX  : ONLY retaliation, no legitimate investigation REQUESTED RELIEF : 1. Delete retaliatory " CHARGED OFF ACCOUNT '' comment ( XX/XX/XXXX ) 2. Delete Exeter account ( Exeter admitted " UNKNOWN '' = unverifiable ) 3. Delete XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  deleted as unverifiable ) 4. Restore score to XXXX XXXX. Investigate selective retaliation 6. Actual damages ( XXXX drop ) XXXX. Statutory + punitive damages XXXX  's deletions prove my disputes are valid. XXXX  received identical disputes but chose selective retaliation. I was incarcerated and unable to respond. They retaliated for exercising my FCRA rights. 

Documents : Score drop, comments, " UNKNOWN '' statuses, Experian deletions, disputes.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation