Consumer complaint received 2025-02-10 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Repossession — Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle
Company: BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO
State: PR

Complaint narrative:
Re : XXXX to CFPB Complaint No. : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. : XXXX Dear CFPB Representative, Peace and blessing be upon all of you. I hope this letter finds you well. 
I am writing to clarify and reaffirm my position regarding my complaint against the attorneys from Banco Popular, Popular Auto LLC, and XXXX XXXX. This is particularly important in light of my recent submissions, which include the private contract, and the odometer disclosure statement related to the sale of the vehicle in question. 
This correspondence serves as a follow-up to the reports submitted by Popular Auto LLC regarding my complaint ( CFPB Complaint No. : XXXX ) related to the referenced auto loan ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). I wish to elaborate on several critical issues that have arisen during my attempts to resolve the situation concerning this auto loan. Please see Exhibits 1-a, 1-b, and 1-c for further details. 
Background As previously stated, my attempts to address the problems related to the auto loan under the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( my mother ) have been met with inadequate responses from the attorneys at Popular Auto. Their emphasis on procedural requirements, such as the need for a Power of Attorney ( POA ), has overshadowed the core issues, including their failure to comply with several relevant legal provisions. 
As outlined and documented in my previous complaints, I have made numerous efforts to resolve the issues concerning the auto loan under XXXX XXXX XXXX name. I possess a valid contract and a Power of Attorney pertaining to the purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite these efforts, the attorneys from Popular Auto LLC have consistently sidestepped the critical issue of the promissory note associated with this loan, demonstrating a lack of accountability in addressing my concerns. 
Their actions suggest a systematic avoidance of accountability, which necessitates serious scrutiny by your office. 
Context of the Matter As noted in my previous complaints, despite my compliance with all obligations under our legal agreement, the attorneys at Popular Auto have engaged in conduct that undermines our agreement. This includes attempts, and ultimately the successful repossession, of the vehicle. 
Clarification on the Power of Attorney Clarification on the Power of Attorney It is essential to clarify that the Power of Attorney I provided is valid ; however, the attorneys representing Popular Auto appear to impose internal procedures that distract from addressing the primary issue : the indemnification bond and accountability regarding the loan. In their response, they state : " In order for Popular Auto to provide information about XXXX XXXX XXXX account and to proceed with the investigation of the complaint, you must either present a Power of Attorney or have XXXX XXXX XXXX authorize you under the account in writing. '' See Exhibits 2-A and 2-B This statement is misleading, as Popular Auto can not impose such requirements ; it is the attorneys acting on behalf of Popular Auto who are enforcing these procedures. No institution, being a mere entity, can communicate or take action on its own. It is crucial to recognize that the actions and requirements come from the individuals behind the institution, the attorneys, rather than the entity itself. 
While I have submitted the appropriate Private Power of Attorney, the attorneys representing Popular Auto insist on additional documents, including : A Power of Attorney authorizing me to process banking transactions in the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX 
A certification of proof from the Powers Registry Office.

These additional requirements seem unnecessary and serve only to complicate the resolution process, further highlighting the disregard for the validity of the original Power of Attorney I provided. Its essential to note that these demands are made by the attorneys and not by Popular Auto as an institution which can not act independently.

Financial Burden and Predatory Practices The costs associated with obtaining these documents are prohibitive and appear to be designed to discourage consumers from seeking a fair resolution. For instance, the certification can exceed {$50.00}, and notarization in XXXX XXXX XXXX add an additional {$80.00}. 
These expenses reflect a manipulation by the attorneys representing Popular Auto, imposing an undue burden on consumers, particularly on individuals like my XXXX mother, who relies on a minimal income from Social Security. This situation is not only unfair but also abusive, constituting a breach of trust. 
Right to Contract Firstly, it is essential to emphasize that the private transaction between my mother, XXXX XXXX XXXX and myself regarding the vehicle is governed by the law of contracts. Upon her sale of the vehicle to me, it became a private automobile under my trust. Despite compensating Popular Auto and all associated executives in full for the vehicle, the attorneys representing Popular Auto have taken actions that disregard our contract and impede my rights as a consumer. 
I have provided them with a negotiable instrument to cover any potential loss incurred in good faith and fair dealing. This instrument, recognized within our legal framework, serves as a valid method to discharge a debt under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), 3-603 ( b ) and 3-311 for accord and satisfaction by the use of an instrument.

Indemnification and Integrity of the Transaction To maintain integrity and ensure accountability, I have indemnified Popular Auto and its executives as a whole. The attempt by their attorneys to repossess the vehicle, despite my fulfillment of obligations, demonstrates a lack of respect for our agreement and highlights corrupt and deceitful practices that violate consumer rights and principles of fair contracting. Specifically, this conduct breaches the principles outlined in UCC 1-103, which emphasizes the importance of good faith, fair dealing, and uniformity in commercial transactions. The UCC must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies. The conduct of Popular Auto, under the guidance of their attorneys, is in direct violation of several federal statutes and local laws, including but not limited to all relevant laws applicable. 
It is essential to recognize that the actions taken are not merely institutional but are directed by the attorneys and individuals behind these entities, who are responsible for implementing these procedures and imposing these burdens. 
Indemnification Bond and Accountability In their responses dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, the attorneys from Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Popular Auto LLC, and XXXX XXXX focused primarily on the Power of Attorney ( POA ) while neglecting the substantive issue of the promissory note. It is imperative to highlight that the promissory note is central to understanding the obligations and responsibilities of both parties involved in this auto loan agreement. 
Additionally, it is crucial to emphasize the provisions of UCC 3-603 ( b ) regarding the Tender of Payment, which states : ( b ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation