USAA Savings Consumer Loan Complaint

USAA Savings Consumer loan department,

Vehicle loan Taking out the loan or lease Florida

I obtained an automobile loan from USAA. During the telephone conversation to apply for the loan I was offered an extended vehicle protection plan which I purchased with non-loan funds held in a DDA account at USAA. The funds for the EVP were deducted from my DDA account on -/-/2015 the day I picked up the car. I had changed from one dealership to another, and from one car model to another and as such I called USAA to notify them of the new information and seek a new price on the EVP as I selected a different model vehicle than I had described during my first telephone call to obtain the loan. The EVP proved unacceptable for many reasons and I rejected it for a refund during the preview period during which the customer may review the documents. The vehicle loan was established using a check-like form presented to the vehicle dealer. The bank accepted the form from the dealer and funded the loan. The bank added as second ( with a different policy number ) EVP to the loan principal and obtained state doc stamps for the entire proceeds of the loan including this unwanted second EVP. Telephone


my to reach out to the vendor of the - EVP and cancel it on their behalf. This would leave the doc stamp difference unresolved. USAA as an agent for the EVP has made misrepresentations to induce me to purchase the EVP. USAA failed to assist in obtaining a refund for the initial EVP. As it was purchased based on the EVP 's agent 's ( USAA ) incorrect plan description I felt it incumbent on USAA bank to assist in recouping the funds debited from my account at USAA. USAA improperly and without authorization added an unwanted product to a consumer loan in violation of the law. When notified USAA took no timely or definitive steps to remedy their error. Rather they insist the customer untangle the mess they have made. The number of errors, misrepresentations and the stonewalling by USAA customer service lead me to hold the opinion that this is not simple errors but a pattern of incompetence, a breach of fiduciary duty, and perhaps even fraud and I encourage the CPFB to investigate and take enforcement action.