Consumer complaint received 2026-06-24 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Lease
Issue: Repossession — Deficiency balance after repossession
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint because U.S. Bank continues to report a charge-off and deficiency balance related to my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX despite evidence showing that the vehicle was in the lease-return process before it was later classified as a repossession. U.S. Banks responses contain several inconsistencies that have never been adequately explained. My lease matured on XX/XX/XXXX. U.S. Bank now claims that the account ultimately entered repossession status on XX/XX/XXXX. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, U.S. Bank arranged and completed a lease-end pre-return inspection at my residence. U.S. Bank later acknowledged the existence of this inspection in its XX/XX/XXXX response. If U.S. Bank considered the vehicle to be subject to repossession immediately upon lease maturity, I question why a lease-end return inspection was performed one month later. In addition, on XX/XX/XXXX, U.S. Bank sent me a letter stating that it had not yet received possession of the vehicle and requesting that I arrange for return of the vehicle within 30 days. The letter warned that failure to return the vehicle could result in collection activity and repossession. This raises additional questions. If U.S. Bank intended to repossess the vehicle, why did it first send a letter requesting voluntary return? Why was the account not placed into repossession status until XX/XX/XXXX? What actions did U.S. Bank take between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX regarding the vehicles return or recovery? After receiving the XX/XX/XXXX letter, I acted to return the vehicle. I followed instructions that were provided regarding where the vehicle should be delivered. I signed return-related documents, including odometer and power-of-attorney paperwork. U.S. Bank now argues that the documentation does not establish a return in accordance with the lease agreement, but it has never explained what specific requirement was not satisfied or why the vehicle was later treated as a repossession. My credit report reflects a 100 % on-time payment history on this account through the end of the lease term. U.S. Bank accepted payments after lease maturity while simultaneously claiming the account was progressing toward repossession. I request an explanation of why payments were accepted if U.S. Bank considered the account to be in default and subject to recovery. U.S. Bank also claims that {$4700.00} in recovery expenses were incurred. Despite repeated disputes, I have never been provided with invoices, receipts, repossession records, towing invoices, storage invoices, transportation invoices, auction invoices, or any other documentation supporting these charges. I request that U.S. Bank conduct a new investigation and answer the following questions : 1. Why was a lease-end inspection performed on XX/XX/XXXX if the vehicle was already being treated as a repossession matter? 2. Why was the XX/XX/XXXX return demand letter sent if U.S. Bank intended to repossess the vehicle? 3. Why was the account not placed into repossession status until XX/XX/XXXX? 4. Why were payments accepted after lease maturity while the account was allegedly in default? 5. What actions did U.S. Bank take between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX regarding the return or recovery of the vehicle? 6. What specific lease-return requirement does U.S. Bank claim was not satisfied? 7. Please provide all documentation supporting the claimed {$4700.00} recovery expenses. I further request correction of any inaccurate credit reporting and reevaluation of the deficiency balance in light of the evidence showing that the vehicle was actively in the lease-return process before U.S. Bank later classified the account as a repossession.

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