Consumer complaint received 2026-01-03 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle
Company: Exeter Finance, LLC.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
This is a supplement to my prior CFPB complaint ID XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the initial repossession of a XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, by XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of Exeter Finance LLC XXXX This update provides additional evidence of systemic violations, including date falsification, undisclosed finance charges, vehicle damage during custody, inaccurate credit reporting, and ongoing collection harassment, all of which have caused significant financial and emotional harm, including denied mortgage opportunities and estimated losses exceeding {$100000.00}. 
The loan was originated on XX/XX/XXXX, through XXXX XXXX XXXX and assigned to Exeter Finance LLC, with an Amount Financed of {$18000.00} at a disclosed XXXX of XXXX % over XXXX months, resulting in total payments of {$39000.00}. However, the contract bundled {$4900.00} in add-ons into the Amount Financed without separate signatures, explicit voluntariness acknowledgments, opt-out language, or a cooling-off period. These add-ons included tire/wheel protection for {$1400.00}, maintenance plan for {$1400.00}, documentation fee for {$990.00}, and paintless dent repair for {$490.00}. This bundling potentially reclassifies them as undisclosed finance charges under TILA ( 15 U.S.C. 1638 and Regulation Z 12 C.F.R. 1026.18 ), understating the true APR, which is dangerously close to New Jersey 's 30 % usury cap ( N.J.S.A. 2C:21-19 ). A recalculation shows the finance charge as {$21000.00} ( total payments minus principal ), with the bundled items inflating the cost by {$4900.00}, violating disclosure requirements and constituting deceptive practices under NJCFA ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 ). 
The vehicle was repossessed on XX/XX/XXXX. Redemption was attempted and completed on XX/XX/XXXX, as confirmed by an XXXX receipt timestamped at XXXX XXXX for transportation from XXXX, NJ to XXXX, NJ ( fare {$37.00} ) and an XXXX XXXX XXXX email confirmation timestamped at XXXX XXXX for a XXXX XXXX appointment. Despite this, the lender 's invoice # XXXX is timestamped XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX, with a handwritten notation " XX/XX/XXXX, '' indicating possible forgery or backdating. A forensic metadata analysis of the invoice could reveal if the system timestamp was altered post-creation, as the 21-hour, XXXX-minute gap between the invoice print and the scheduled appointment suggests manipulation. Credit reports from XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX uniformly report the last payment as XX/XX/XXXX, perpetuating the inaccuracy. 
During the XX/XX/XXXX, redemption process, the wrong vehicle was initially presented ; documents were signed away from the vehicle without a full inspection or opportunity to document condition ; no intake photos were taken or provided, admitting a lack of proper custody protocols. The vehicle was returned with damage not present pre-repossession : complete rear bumper separation exposing internal mounting brackets and creating a significant gap ( requiring professional body shop repair including removal, bracket fix, and reinstallation, estimated $ XXXX {$1200.00} ) ; flat tire ; scuff marks and scratches on door frame interior paint and door panel surfaces ( indicating improper handling during repossession or storage, estimated touch-up and detailing $ XXXX {$400.00} ). This negligence breaches the duty of reasonable care during possession under UCC 9-207 ( N.J.S.A. 12A:9-207 ), and no breach of peace occurred in the repossession under XXXX, but the post-possession harm is actionable. 
Credit reports reflect persistent inaccuracies stemming from this tradeline : falsified last payment date XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX % utilization on a {$200.00} limit ; XXXX late accounts ; {$21000.00} in loan debt ; inconsistent collections amounts ( {$0.00} to {$2100.00} ) ; conflicting utilization factors ( XXXX  % vs. XXXX % ) ; varying open/closed accounts ( XXXX vs. XXXX ) ; unverifiable late payments and charge-offs ; a " XXXX month ago '' recent missed payment claim. These errors have caused low FICO scores ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ), denial of a mortgage for a family home, and estimated losses of over {$100000.00} ( $ XXXX {$50000.00} lost equity, $ XXXX {$30000.00} higher interest on future loans, $ XXXX in rental costs, plus emotional distress ). Disputes submitted over the past XXXX years have been returned as " verified as accurate, '' violating FCRA reinvestigation duties ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) and Regulation V 12 C.F.R. 1022.43, requiring XXXXday resolution ). 
Pre-suit demand packets were faxed on XX/XX/XXXX, to Exeter Finance LLC and XXXX XXXX XXXX, including a supplemental legal notice warning of suit, transportation evidence ( XXXX receipt ), IRS repo appointment confirmation email, vehicle damage photographic evidence, schedule of damages demanding {$52000.00} cash plus debt forgiveness, affidavit of facts, and certificate of service. The demands invoked FRE 408 protection and required a response by XX/XX/XXXX, with the TILA statute expiring XX/XX/XXXX. No response has been received as of XX/XX/XXXX, and collection calls continue, threatening repossession despite the disputes, violating FDCPA prohibitions on false representations and post-dispute communications ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692c ). 
This conduct aligns with Exeter Finance LLC 's documented pattern of misconduct : a XXXX Massachusetts Attorney General settlement for {$5.00} XXXX over unfair subprime auto loans involving undisclosed add-on fees, aggressive collections, and discriminatory pricing ; a XXXX Delaware settlement for {$550000.00} on similar issues ; an ongoing XXXX XXXX XXXX Exeter Finance , LLC class action in the Northern District of Ohio ( XXXX. XXXX ) for conspiring with dealers to hide finance charges and conduct unlawful repossessions ; a XXXX data breach exposing consumer information ; and hundreds of CFPB, XXXX, and XXXX complaints in XXXX mirroring falsified reporting, vehicle damage, and unresolved disputes. These patterns support claims of willful violations under FCRA and unconscionable practices under NJCFA.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation