Consumer complaint received 2025-03-24 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Problem with signing the paperwork
Company: The Savings Group, Inc.
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
Original Complaint # : XXXX Regarding AUTOPAY Misleading Terms, Coercive Practices, and Improper Credit Inquiry Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Thank you for the opportunity to respond to AUTOPAYs statement. I remain dissatisfied with their response, which does not address the full scope of my concerns and instead attempts to justify problematic practices using generic process language. Below is a clearer outline of the issues that remain unresolved, including information sourced directly from AUTOPAYs own Terms of Use.

1. Hard Credit Inquiry Was Not Clearly Disclosed I was directed to AUTOPAY through a XXXX XXXX prequalification link, which typically implies a soft inquiry. At no point during the early stages of the application was it clearly stated in plain language that submitting my information would result in a hard credit inquiry.

While the company claims this was included above the " Submit '' button and in the Terms of Use, these disclosures were neither prominent nor unambiguous. The buried consent contradicts the consumer expectation of transparency, especially when coming from a soft-pull platform like XXXX XXXX XXXX 

Relevant Terms of Use reference : You authorize us to pull your credit report for the purpose of evaluating your credit options Nowhere does it state that a hard inquiry will be pulled immediately upon application submission.

2. Fees and Costs Were Not Disclosed Until Final Stage The company stated that all fees were disclosed via phone and circled in the document. This is misleading.

I was never provided a written breakdown of the {$540.00} processing fee, {$130.00} finance fee, or {$15.00} titling fee before the agreement was drafted.

The fees were mentioned only after the loan documents had been created, at which point I was pressured to proceed.

I asked for email clarification but was denied and told phone calls were the only way to communicate.

Their Terms of Use also state : Any information provided to you by us is for reference only and can not be construed as a guarantee.

This proves that relying on verbal explanations alone is not sufficient for a legal agreement.

3. Misrepresentation of Notary & Document Handling The company claimed I could have received the documents via mail and found free notary services. That was never offered. 

XXXX XXXX, the AUTOPAY specialist, told me directly that I was responsible for : Printing the full 18-page document, Locating a notary on my own, And only the XXXX shipping label would be provided.

These requirements were only disclosed after the loan agreement was prepared not before. 
This contradicts their claim that I was fully informed. Had I not questioned the process, I likely wouldve moved forward under false assumptions.

4. Refusal to Provide Email Communication and Use of Coercive Language I made several requests for written clarification. Instead, I was met with pressure and verbal-only communication. I was told : It won't be done via email, that's why I stay on the phone to clarify anything while signing. You're not my only client and I will not alter the process just for one person. If you don't want to proceed, I can close your file.

This tone is unacceptable, dismissive, and borders on forced sales tactics. Consumers deserve written documentation especially when making legally binding financial decisions.

5. Loan Agreement Included Variable Rate Language The loan document I received included language referencing variable interest and a potential rate increase to 18 % as early as the second month. The company now claims that box wasnt checked, but this does not change the fact that the document I was expected to sign included materially false and misleading terms.

6. Loan Amount Discrepancy The final loan agreement reflected a different amount than what I was initially quoted or led to believe during the prequalification process. This contradicts the company 's claim that it is our process to go over terms with customers before having them sign my experience did not reflect this. This created a last-minute surprise that impacted my trust in the process, especially since the total loan amount was higher than expected and when I mentioned this to the specialist, he avoided to provide an answer.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation