Consumer complaint received 2025-11-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Reference CFPB Compliant XXXX Response and Continuing Dispute Account No. XXXX I. FAILURE TO MEET STATUTORY BURDEN OF PROOF Your response fails to satisfy the burden imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after receiving a formal consumer dispute.

Restating internal records does not equal verification.

To comply with law, you must produce independently verifiable evidence of : Proper default and repossession notices under O.C.G.A. 11-9-611 and MCL 440.9611 ; Proof of commercial reasonableness of sale under O.C.G.A. 11-9-610 ( b ) and MCL 440.9610 ( 2 ) ; Accurate credit reporting verification under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( E ).

You have failed to meet this evidentiary standard.

II. NO VALID EVIDENCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE PRIOR TO REPOSSESSION While you reference post-repossession letters, you provided no proof of pre-repossession default or cure notice as required by the Georgia Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-36 ).

Even if you claim Virginia jurisdiction, XXXX consumer protection and venue law applies due to debtor residency and credit reporting occurring in this state. 
The absence of verifiable cure or intent-to-repossess notice renders your repossession procedurally defective under XXXX XXXX  XXXX Corp. v. Daniels , 303 S.E.2d 641 ( Ga. Ct. App. 1983 ).

III. DEFICIENCY BALANCE CLAIM BARRED BY NONCOMPLIANCE You admit a deficiency balance remains. Yet both Georgia and Michigan law prohibit recovery where the secured party fails to strictly comply with repossession and sale provisions : Colonial Dodge , Inc. v. Miller, 362 N.W.2d 704 ( Mich. 1984 ).

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Jackson, 347 S.E.2d 255 ( Ga. Ct. App. 1986 ).

O.C.G.A. 11-9-626 ( a ) ( 3 ) ; MCL 440.9626 ( 3 ) Creditor bears the burden of proving compliance before claiming a deficiency.

Until that proof is provided, the deficiency is void and further reporting or collection violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ).

IV. INADEQUATE REINVESTIGATION BY CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES Each CRA receiving this letter is notified that Credit Acceptances response does not constitute verification as required by Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ).

A valid reinvestigation must include review of original, authenticated evidencenot summary data.

Failure to reinvestigate within 30 days constitutes willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n.

V. MISREPRESENTATION OF ACCURATE REPORTING STATUS Your claim that the tradeline accurately reflects Merchandise was repossessed ; there may be a balance due is false and misleading, because : The alleged deficiency is legally unenforceable ; The repossession was procedurally defective ; and Reporting a balance due under those circumstances constitutes furnishing false data under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and O.C.G.A. 10-1-393 ( b ) ( 2 ). 

Continued publication of this derogatory item constitutes willful defamation and exposes your company to civil liability for actual and punitive damages. 

VI. FAILURE TO PRODUCE CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENT No authenticated assignment of the Retail Installment Contract from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX has been produced.

Without an assignment executed in compliance with O.C.G.A. 11-9-203 ( g ) and MCL 440.9203 ( 7 ), you lack standing to enforce or report this debt.

VII. DEMAND FOR ACTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) and 1681s-2 ( b ), you and all CRAs must, within 14 days : Cease reporting derogatory data ; Delete the tradeline until independently verified ; Provide authenticated documentation of all assignments and notices ; and Issue written confirmation of corrective action.

Failure to act will result in regulatory complaints to the CFPB, FTC, Georgia Department of Law, and Michigan Attorney General, and the pursuit of civil damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n1681o.

VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS All rights are reserved without prejudice under U.C.C. 1-308.

Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of claims or remedies at law or in equity.

X. CONTRACTUAL AMBIGUITY, CONSUMER DECEPTION, AND REGULATORY RISKYour latest correspondence fails to address the fundamental and central issuethe deliberate use of ambiguous, undefined, and misleading language within the Retail Installment Contract and related disclosures. This failure violates not only established state and federal law but also basic standards of fair and ethical conduct in consumer finance.A. Material Ambiguity as Unfair and Deceptive PracticeYour contract omits, obscures, or inconsistently defines : Assignment and true ownership of the debt, Objective standards for default, acceleration, and repossession, Transparent, reproducible formulas for late fees, finance charges, and deficiency claims, Consumer rights for reinstatement, redemption, and post-default remedies.Such omissions violate the meaningful disclosure requirements of TILA ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 ( a ) ), and render the contract ambiguous, unconscionable, and unenforceable under Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. , R.L. Kimsey Cotton Co. v. Ferguson, and Klapp v. United Ins.

As controlling law ( O.C.G.A. 13-2-2 ( 5 ) and the Restatement ( Second ) of Contracts 206 ) provides, all ambiguities must be resolved against you, the drafter and enforcing party.B. Willful Consumer Harm and Constructive FraudYour knowing use and enforcement of materially ambiguous languageinstead of clear, consumer-understandable disclosuresconstitutes constructive fraud and a breach of the duty of good faith ( U.C.C. 1-304, O.C.G.A. 11-1-203, MCL 440.1304 ; see Brack v. Brownlee, Hubbard Chevrolet Co. v. GM ). By continuing to collect, report, or threaten adverse action on this contract, you expose yourself to allegations of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices ( UDAAP ) under the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) and equivalent state laws ( O.C.G.A. 10-1-393 ).

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