Consumer complaint received 2021-06-17 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off
Company: Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
I am amazed at the lengths companies such as Santander Consumer USA will go to fabricate and maintain a lie. I have read myriad reviews pertaining to Santander and I am appalled and sickened by your wicked actions. Your actions toward customers are disgraceful. Santander could teach the XXXX a thing or two about strong arm tactics. But do know that karma is right around the corner. Notably, Santander repossessed my car, but wants me to prove that it was unlawful. Last Friday XX/XX/XXXX, I was asked by XXXX if I had anything other than the police report showing that I have a XXXX balance with Gateway One? I retorted, Yes, my credit reports, all three reporting agencies. Now I need Santander who is not the lien holder of record to prove by way of evidence that the repossession was lawful? The Complainant strenuously asserts that Santander never sent any information regarding Santander servicing Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX accounts. Also, the Complainant requested notices and statements, as of date, the Complainant has received nothing. Before the unlawful repossession of my car, I knew absolutely nothing about this company. Also, Santander claimed the Complainant was 420 days past due, but notably, Santander never reported these delinquencies to the credit reporting agencies. Notably, in the Order to Repossess Santander stated that the Complainant had been delinquent since XX/XX/XXXX. Almost four years, but ironically, Santander failed to report these delinquencies to the CRAS. And on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Santander admitted that it did not report any delinquencies to the CRAS. And when I asked this agent why Santander did not report any delinquencies if Santander believed that I owed money? The Agent checked and confirmed that Santander had not reported the account delinquent, saying, You right, we were trying to do you a favor ; we want to work with our customers. Also, I asked why no repossession was reported on my credit report? The Agent retorted, We dont want to hurt our customers. But said, We can report it if you want us too! I noted in a Santanders Consumer USA XXXX  response dated XX/XX/XXXX, Santander said, The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires that we accurately report account information to the credit reporting agencies. We provide account information to the four major credit reporting agencies. A review of the information provided to the credit reporting agencies shows that on XX/XX/XXXX, an update was submitted to report the account Open/Current with a balance of The delinquency was cured after the account has already reported to the credit reporting agencies in XX/XX/XXXX. So as evidenced by its response, Santander does report to the CRAS but wants me to believe that it didnt report the account delinquent for 420 days because it wanted to do me a favor. Credit reporting is not arbitrary or discretionary ; credit reporting is mandated by the FCRA. I assert that Santander did not report any delinquencies to the Credit Reporting Agencies because it could not report to the CRAS since it is not listed or recognized as lien holder on the credit report. Santander did not apply for or transfer ownership of the lien through the appropriate state agency, i.e., The State of California DMV, or South Carolina DMV. Regarding Gateway One not securing the Title prior to purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant asserts that Gateway One did not secure the Title before purchase, after purchase, or at anytime. Noticeably, Santander Consumer USA dodged and ducked this issue in its CFPB response. Saying, We are unable to substantiate your claims of the previous owner not having secured Title prior to you purchasing the vehicle. The Consumer asserts that it is impossible to substantiate claims that are willfully ignored. I purchased the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX. In the CFPB complaint the consumer attached a copy of the Title before she registered the vehicle with the South Carolina DMV on XX/XX/XXXX. Notably, Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX is listed as the lien holder. However, Gateway One never Perfected the lien with the appropriate filing agency, in this case, the California DMV. I spoke with California DMV on XX/XX/XXXX, who again confirmed that Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX had not filed any paperwork with California DMV. CA DMV also advised that I reach out to California States Attorney Investigator. The record shows that Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX purchased the vehicle at auction on XX/XX/XXXX, and on XX/XX/XXXX made application for transfer of Title but did not complete the paperwork. Gateway One did not complete the paperwork because it did not have physical possession of Title at that time and did not get possession of Title until XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Gateway One concerning the dealerships delay to get the Title. I was told by the Agent/XXXX  for Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX that it was also awaiting receipt of Title from the dealership. I will submit this recorded conversation. So, Gateway One Lending was also complicit in the sale of the vehicle before the dealer had possession of Title. The dealership was required under California DMV laws to update CADMV of new owner before the later sale of the vehicle. However, the dealership failed to register Title or new ownership as required by California law. Neither dealership nor Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX had physical possession of Title before they sold me the car on XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, both dealership and Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX failed to act in accordance with the State of California laws. Thus both dealer and Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX  acted fraudulently. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with CALIFORNIA DMV, according to CADMV record, the last time Title issued or updated, new owner reported or loan or lien reported was XX/XX/XXXX. CA DMV stated, when a vehicle is sold to a new owner, the Title must be transferred to the new owner ( s ) at a Department of Motor Vehicles. So, when the Complainant bought the car on XX/XX/XXXX, the dealership did not have perfected lien on record with California DMV. A perfected lien is a lien that has been filed with the appropriate filing agent in order to make the securing interest in an asset binding. A perfected Lien provides legal documentation to prove that a creditor has a legal right to seize property. After the 45 day tag expired, the Complaint could not register the vehicle with the SC DMV since the dealer had failed to update the Title with the California DMV. Two months after purchase, the dealer sent the paper Title directly to the Complainant on XX/XX/XXXX, so she could register the vehicle with SCDMV. So from the time of purchase of the vehicle from auction on XX/XX/XXXX and actual receipt on XX/XX/XXXX, the dealer did not have possession of Title for almost eight months. The dealer insisted that Gateway One be listed as the lien holder. The Complainant delayed to register the vehicle because I did not want to involve myself in any fraudulent actions. The dealer assured that everything was legitimate. I noted on the back of the Title in the lien holder section the following : Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX, and beside it XXXX XXXX. The dealer sent this text on XX/XX/XXXX to explain this company : XXXX XXXX is my flooring company and they always lien every title as such I bought it from the auction and I have prove of that.... I didnt do anything wrong I was always the bona fide owner. What damages do you think you incurred?? The title was to never go to you because you have a lien on it with the bank ( Gateway One ). If you want to talk please call me because I am very fair and would love nothing more than handling your concerns. Besides the Title the dealer sent other documents that were to be submitted with the SC DMV registration. I later noted in the STATEMENT TO RECORD OWNERSHIP, the dealer listed Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX as the lien holder, but notably, on this document, the dealer made a statement of error or erasure, stating the following : The name appearing on or erased from line 11-13 of the CERTIFICATE OF TITLE/OWNERSHIP issued for the above described vehicle was in error and has no bearing on the ownership of the vehicle. The name signed or erased SHOULD NOT BE A PART of the ownership record. REASONS FOR ERASURE : XXXX XXXX XXXX STAMPED THEMSELVES AS LIENHOLDER IN ERROR, NO FRAUS INTENEDED. XXXX XXXX XXXX HAS PROVIDED A LIEN RELEASE. Apparently, this dealer and cohorts were in such a hurry, they misspelled FRAUD and INTENDED. Notably, this dealer said in his text dated XX/XX/XXXX, that XXXX is his flooring company. But the dealer lied in his California DMV application form to SC DMV dated XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX is a XXXX XXXX, aka lender. This dealer also falsely reported to SC DMV that XXXX XXXX was the lien holder before it released that lien to Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX. But California DMV record showed no application or assignment of Title to XXXX XXXX. More importantly, there is no transfer of Title to Gateway One. The dealership never reported ownership to CADMV. Also, Gateway One never reported ownership of the car in the California DMV record. So, if there is no lawful transfer of Title to the dealership and Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX, there can not be a lawful transfer of Title to Santander. Santander asserts, albeit falsely, that Santander automatically became lien holder of all Gateway One accounts when it acquired Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX, and therefore Santander has standing to enforce those liens. However, the law states otherwise. A lien gives the creditor legal right to easily obtain permission from the courts to move forward with a levy, which involves notifying a borrower that assets are being prepared to be seized because of unpaid payments on a loan against the collateral. Liens help to provide a standardized process for lenders to obtain property that is occupied or physically held by the borrower. However the law requires that a lender document their lien against collateral and perfect that lien by legally filing it with the appropriate agencies or authorities. If a lien is not perfected, the lenders claim on the assets may not be granted. The Complainant noted the following in the purchase agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX : Security Interest, You give us ( Gateway One ) a security interest in : The vehicle and all parts or goods installed on it ; All money or goods received ( proceeds ) for the vehicle ; All insurance, maintenance, service, or other contracts we finance for you ; and All proceeds from insurance, maintenance, service, or other contracts we finance for you. This secures payment of all you owe on this contract. It also secured your other agreements in this contract as the law allows. YOU will make sure the Title shows our security interest ( lien ) in the vehicle. YOU will not allow any other security interest to be placed on the Title without our written permission. IF YOU PAY LATE OR BREAK YOUR OTHER PROMISES You May owe late charges. You will pay a late charge on each late payment as shown on the front. Notably, the Complainants account was never assessed any late charges. You may have to pay all you owe at once If you break your promises ( default ) we ( GatewayOne ) May demand that you pay all you owe on this contract at once, subject to any right the law gives you to reinstate this contract. Default means : You do not pay any payment on time ; You start a proceeding in bankruptcy or one is started against you or your property. Notably, on XX/XX/XXXX, the Complainant filed Chapter XXXX to protect her home from a racist HOA. But the Complainant continued to fulfill her financial agreement with Gateway One and all other creditors. I was current before and after filing Chapter XXXX. Notably, Gateway One, as stipulated in the contract, did not demand that I pay all that I owed on the contract at once. Also, the Complainant noted that Gateway One did not submit a request for payment to the bankruptcy court. And Gateway One continued to charge interest to the account. Notably, all other creditors terminated interest after I filed Chapter XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. WE MAY TAKE THE VEHICLE FROM YOU. If you default, we may take ( repossess ) the vehicle from you IF WE DO SO PEACEFULLY AND THE LAW ALLOWS IT. Notably, the tow agent breached the peace on XX/XX/XXXX, failed to notify police, and falsely reported to Santander Consumer USA andXXXX XXXX XXXX that he recovered the vehicle from XXXX XXXX at XXXX. But tacitly asserted in his Repossession Notification that he recovered the vehicle from XXXX, notably, no address given and wrong zip code. Also said that he recovered the vehicle at XXXX XXXX. More importantly, the tow agent failed to notify police, or notify his employer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Santander ; and XXXX  XXXX XXXX that he breached the peace on XX/XX/XXXX. I spoke with XXXX XXXX Police on XX/XX/XXXX to inquire if the tow agent reported the recovery as purported by his employer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I was informed by dispatch that the tow agent reported the tow/recovery on XX/XX/XXXX, notably five ( 5 ) days later. The car was towed on XX/XX/XXXX. And I filed a XXXX XXXX Police Report for a stolen vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX. Also note on XX/XX/XXXX my family and I went to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX SC where the car was held to inquire about the vehicle. The Manager said that the driver reported the tow to police. I said he didnt and showed her the stolen car police incident report dated XX/XX/XXXX. I also noted the inconsistencies in his reports. The tow agent told both XXXX XXXX XXXX and Santander that he retrieved the car at XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX. I confirmed this information with both XXXX XXXX XXXX and Santander on XX/XX/XXXX. But the tow agent reported in his Repossession Notification to his employer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX that he retrieved the car from XXXX, but notably, failed to provide any additional details as to the type of business, i.e., restaurant. Also, the tow agent failed to provide the street address and gave the wrong zip code. Also, the tow agent said that he repossessed the vehicle from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX., contradicting what he reported to XXXX XXXX and Santander that he recovered the vehicle from XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX  Significantly, in the repossession notification the tow agent failed to report that he notified the police of the tow/recovery. More importantly, the tow agent failed to report that he BREACHED THE PEACE during the XX/XX/XXXX tow/recovery incident. The Manager noted the tow agents discrepancies and advised that I call the corporate office in XXXX SC, and speak with compliance. I spoke with XXXX who reiterated the details asserted by the office manager. I said there was a breach of the police on XX/XX/XXXX, and the tow agent did not report to XXXX XXXX Police as required by both city and state law. XXXX said there was no report of a breach of the peace, and asked how the tow agent breached the peace? XXXX argued that he did report the tow. I said if he reported the tow to police, why did I make a stolen car report with XXXX XXXX Police on XX/XX/XXXX? Apparently, the tow agent failed to report to his employer ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and Santander that there was a breach of the peace during the recovery on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX said that she needed to investigate and that she would call back shortly. About two hours later after I did not receive a call back, I called Compliance and spoke with XXXX again. I was rudely told that she needed more time to do her investigation and should would have a response in 48 hours. I never received a response from XXXX. However, I was informed by the XXXX XXXX Police that the tow agent reported the tow/recovery on XX/XX/XXXX, notably, the day after I visited the tow location ( XX/XX/XXXX ) reported the breach of the peace to the tow company ; and spoke with Compliance ( XXXX ). So, it is evident that XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ; and Santander are attempting to cover up the tow agents unlawful actions and do damage control. Notably, in the Repossession Notification, Santander is the listed lien holder. But the SC DMV ; SC Secretary of State ; and XXXX shows Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX as the lien holder of record. Also, on the Order to Repossess, the Complainant noted, Failure to report repo in XXXX XXXX within 48 hours may be subject to nonpayment, which explains why the tow agent lied to both Santander and XXXX XXXX XXXX about where he recovered the vehicle ; notifying the police of the recovery, and failing to report the breach of the police. South Carolina Consumer Affairs, The law allows the lender to use self-help in repossessing your car, but the law does require that self-help be peaceful. If you see someone from the lender hooking up your car to tow away, you can tell the agent to stop. When you tell them to stop, any further attempt to tow the car is not peaceful. Unlawful Repossession, in XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB announced a consent order against an auto financing company for wrongful repossession of hundreds of consumers vehicles. A financing company or their repo agent may also engage in harmful conduct such as breaching of the peace with unlawful actions to take car, including failing to follow state rules for repossession. Santander is not the lien holder of record, and never took the necessary steps to perfect the lien as required by law. The lender, i.e., Santander will need to perfect the lien in order to take action on a levy repossession. Santander Consumer USA, I never made an agreement or promise with you. Produce the Title showing that you are the lien holder. If your internal legal department inspected the records from Gateway One, you so-called legal minds already knew that Gateway One never transferred Clear Title to Santander since Gateway One never reported Title to California DMV. As the adage goes, You cant convey or transfer what you dont have. I made a promise and fulfilled that promise with Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX. And by the way since you are claiming to be the lien holder or stepping into the shoes of Gateway One Lending Finance, refund every XXXX of the interest that I paid after filing Chapter XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Gateways liability is now your liability, right? Notably, Santander said in its CFPB response dated XX/XX/XXXX, that it would temporarily hold the sale of the vehicle until XX/XX/XXXX. But sent the vehicle for auction on XX/XX/XXXX. Notably, I received the notice of intent to sell vehicle. Santander stated, We have your Vehicle because you broke promises on OUR AGREEMENT. Also incorrectly stated it it took possession of the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, said it would sale the vehicle sometime after XX/XX/XXXX. You can get the vehicle back at any time before we sell it by paying us the full amount you owe ( NOT JUST THE PAST DUE PAYMENTS ), including our expenses. Notably, Santander USA did not report any past due payments to the credit reporting agencies. Notably, Santander Consumer USA did not state in the letter what is allegedly owed to them. But said if I wanted to know the exact amount I must pay, I must call Santander. Please note that this is the same company that hangs up on me whenever I call and makes it almost impossible to reach them. So, I owe you money, but when I call you hang up on me? Also, note that Santander is not making any collections calls to me? But Santander claims I owe them? Also, note that Santander USA/Reinstatement said on XX/XX/XXXX that the total payoff is {$11000.00}, but said in the CFPB response the total payoff is XXXX? Also, I have requested Statements regarding this matter, but noticeably, Santander has blatantly failed to provide them. The Complainant asserts if there is no issue with the sale of the vehicle at auction, why would Santander delay to auction the vehicle? The Complainant asserts that Santander is using this recent action to send my vehicle to the auction as a ploy to force me to pay them money that I dont owe them. Santander knows that Vehicle can not sale at auction due to issues regarding Title. I went to the tow yard on XX/XX/XXXX, and was informed that Vehicle was sent to auction earlier that day. The tow company noted the discrepancies with the Title, i.e., Lienholder, and said the car would be rejected and sent back. Also, spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX who said on XX/XX/XXXX, the car has been sent to auction, and they had no control over it at that point. They noted the discrepancies with the Title and said that I would have to call Santander to get the vehicle sent back and released to me. I called Santander a few times and was not able to get through. I noted that when I pressed the number for Customer Service, the call would go dead. Typically for the past two weeks whenever I called Santander Consumer USA and pressed the number for Customer Service, the call will automatically go straight to the Executive Office. I called around looking for another number for Santander. I was provided a number for Santander and was told to block my number just in case Santander Consumer USA is deliberately blocking my calls. I reached the Title department but was told that it could not help since there was a Title issue. I was sent to an escalations department, who told me that the account was red flagged and that I would have to speak with the Executive Office. I told her that I had tried to reach the Executive Office several times but was unable. Eventually, she transferred me to the Executive Office. I spoke with XXXX who at first was pleasant. She put me on hold, apparently to read the notes on the account. And when the call resumed, XXXX was hostile, and said I see that you have an open complaint, and Santander was reviewing the matter. I said that Santander responded to the CFPB complaint on XX/XX/XXXX. She said that she was advised that I should submit documents showing that I paid off Gateway One, and that it would not release my vehicle. Santanders actions show and support that Santander Consumer USA knows that it does not have clear Title. Again, I reiterated that Santander is not the lienholder and it did not automatically get lienholder status by purchasing Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX. I said that Santanders issue is with Gateway One Lending XXXX XXXX since it did not get or transfer ownership from the dealer. Those liens must be Perfected. Santander, you knew that you did not have clear or perfected Title before you pursued this unlawful repossession.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation