Consumer complaint received 2026-01-29 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem when making payments — 
Company: Red River Credit Corporation
State: OK

Complaint narrative:
I respectfully submit this rebuttal to Red River Credit Corporations ( RRC ) response. 

I am not disputing the existence of the debt or my payment history. I am actively attempting to resolve and pay off the loan. My complaint concerns the manner in which RRC conducted collection activity, not the validity of the obligation itself. 

RRCs response focuses primarily on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and asserts that it is not subject to that statute because it is the original creditor. Even if FDCPA provisions were deemed inapplicable, my complaint also alleges unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ), which fall squarely within the CFPBs enforcement authority under 12 U.S.C. 5536 and apply to original creditors. 

During the collection call at issue, I attempted in good faith to discuss resolution options, including paying off or resolving the account. RRCs representative refused to offer any resolution or payoff discussion and instead repeatedly insisted that I make payments to get the account back on track. This insistence was accompanied by pressure-based statements rather than a neutral discussion of available options. The refusal to engage in resolution while continuing to apply pressure is central to my complaint. 

Importantly, RRC does not deny that during this call its representative stated she had reviewed my credit report and commented that I had purchased a new vehicle after late payments were reported. This information was not necessary to verify the debt and served no legitimate servicing purpose. It was used to shame and coerce payment, constituting an abusive and deceptive collection tactic under UDAAP standards. 

Additionally, on XX/XX/XXXX, after I disclosed my intent to file bankruptcy, the representative continued the call and made statements regarding negative credit consequences, including that certain actions would hurt my credit. While I understand that the automatic stay applies only after a bankruptcy petition is filed, continuing to emphasize credit harm after a consumer discloses intent to file bankruptcy is coercive and was used to pressure payment rather than provide neutral, factual information. 

RRCs response further references my prior XXXX XXXX XXXX and states that I am ineligible for another XXXX XXXX  discharge until XXXX. This information is irrelevant and misleading, as I did not state an intent to file XXXX  XXXX. I intend to file XXXX XXXX, for which I am legally eligible. Including this information does not address the substance of my complaint and appears designed to undermine my credibility. 

To reiterate, I am attempting to resolve and pay this obligation. My concern is that RRC engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive collection practices, including the improper use of consumer credit information and coercive statements during collection calls, rather than engaging in a good-faith discussion of resolution. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB further review this matter and require RRC to comply with applicable federal consumer protection standards.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation