Consumer complaint received 2018-04-11
Company: FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.
State: TX
Product: Vehicle loan or lease
Sub-product: Lease
Issue: Managing the loan or lease
Sub-issue: Billing problem

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 

Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am in receipt of your response to my complaint of XX/XX/XXXX, in which you challenged my complaint in the claim that XXXX XXXX XXXX does not report within 30days on my credit report or respond to mails in timely manner. I also challenged your claim that my first letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX was received and responded to after 40 days and credit report was not updated which is violation. Attached are the certified mail received in your office as proof Again, attached are evidence that points to your contradictory statement on the alleged unverified debt. 

Attached are the remarks of the unethical collection agency hired by XXXX XXXX XXXX to violate FEDERAL LAWS and psychologically coerce payments. 

Finally, statements on my position on the alleged non-existing unverified debt created by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 


About XXXX XXXX XXXX HIRING Collection Agency Practices. 

When contacted them by FORD COLLECTION AGENTS I clearly stated, XXXX XXXX claims lack of privity as XXXX has never entered into any contractual or debtor/creditor arrangements with XXXX XXXX. 
Whereas no relationship exists between XXXX and XXXX XXXX, and whereas XXXX XXXX never signed a contract or agreement with XXXX, XXXX XXXX cites lack of Privity. 
Privity is the legal term for a close, mutual, or successive relationship to the same right of property, or the power to enforce a promise or warranty. No relationship exists between the collection agency named XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 
" The Fair Debt Collection Practices Actstates that the debt collector can not collect any amount of money that is not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Because there is no agreement between the collector XXXX and the alleged debtor, no collection can be sustained. 

There is not sufficient demonstration of the competency of the affiants to testify, there is not sufficient foundation for the documentary evidence, and there is no evidence of the necessary linkage between the statement of the account, the amount and individual tradeline of XXXX XXXX. The entirety of the documents submitted for summary decision by XXXX XXXX XXXX consist of two affidavits, tradeline, Notification File, and a copy of the holder agreement, not any documents that shows a debt of {$1900.00}. And on further examination their representative XXXX XXXX wrote These figures added together equal {$1900.00}. Our records indicate when XXXX XXXX asked XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for details regarding the unrelated prior damage in XX/XX/XXXX, she advised it appeared the vehicle had been keyed. For further details regarding the unrelated prior damage, out of necessity, we redirected XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as they issued the settlement check for his total loss accident that included the deductible and prior damage deductions XXXX XXXX clearly denies such conversation and request for evidence. Specifically, who claimed to advised XXXX XXXX on such issue should be clearly identified. 
Though XXXX XXXX is an Analyst in FORD and respond to this letter, there is no evidence of the algorithms or criteria used for the selection of how he listened to the record, what time and minute in the conversation he listened to and or whether it was error free process. If this record in which he listened to were to be used in evidence, substantially more foundational information would have to be provided, probably by an expert witness who has substantially more background knowledge than demonstrated by XXXX XXXX statement as a company analyst, because from his letter he never personally verified with XXXX if he called me irresponsible and if the record was kept by XXXX or FORD, he claimed he listened to it and dismissed it by speaking of himself. The affidavit does not provide the foundation to testify that this recording he listened to was accurate, or complete, or reliable for later use. 



XXXX XXXX may be qualified to explain what XXXX XXXX XXXX did or XXXX in relations to letters, with respect to its own records or data created during its time, but he can not establish a foundation for XXXX phone record data he has no personal knowledge, he was not a custodian of the XXXX phone records while they were with XXXX, and the records in XXXX XXXX possession do not qualify as ordinary business records. Because the electronic recording file transferred to XXXX XXXX did not come to XXXX XXXX as ordinary business records of XXXX, it can not be said that the phone record data became routine business records of FORD MOTORS or maintained in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the documents created by FORD MOTORS from XXXX   copy of the phone record file from the transferred accounts could not be said to be routine records maintained in the ordinary course of XXXX daily business. This means that XXXX XXXX Affidavit is inadmissible and XXXX XXXX did not have a foundation to be a witness to identify the phone and recording without violating XXXX phone recording agreement. 

Furthermore, XXXX XXXX letter avers he is an employee of FORD MOTORS. This means he is not an employee of XXXX, and therefore has no cognizable standing as either a custodian or qualified person to establish the nature of phone recording file data as a business entity, without first establishing an adequate foundation of the witness as a person with actual knowledge, and then establishing how he obtained any of the knowledge to which he testifies. 

Interestingly, XXXX XXXX intelligently claimed to pick listening to XX/XX/XXXX conversation that we did not have that conversation in which he called me irresponsible. No letter from me specified that date. XXXX has had several recorded conversation with me to coerce me into payments and arrangement in which I have not contractual obligation or contract with them. 

Without a witness from XXXX with knowledge and expertise to walk CPFB through the steps of culling the necessary voice data pertaining to the phone call which were to be transferred from the regular business records of XXXX, then getting the phone record data into particular computer files for transfer from one system to another, and finally in actually getting the phone record data files transferred and up and running with FORD MOTORS, there is no one to testify on behalf of XXXX XXXX, Therefore XXXX XXXX has no way to prove he has ownership or right to the recording he claimed to have listened to which he is challenging not hearing the word irresponsible from XXXX XXXX, for which he seeks payment and reimbursement of costs. 

I, XXXX XXXX, hereby request for thorough and exhaustive investigation into my claim in which XXXX XXXX XXXX hires debt collectors to abuse customers in violation of FEDERAL LAWS and to coerce former customers into making unimaginable and non-existing payments. 

XXXX XXXX wrote in unspecified terms thus ; Regarding XXXX XXXX concern with XXXX XXXX, we listened to the telephone conversations XXXX XXXX had with XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and did not hear any conversation in which XXXX XXXX called XXXX XXXX. irresponsible ( Evidence of the letter attached ). 

Later in his writing, he changed it to a first person because he perceived I would demand specificity as to who are the who and we? Then he wrote, I, that means ; XXXX XXXX listened to it ( Evidence of the letter attached ). 

Again, based on XXXX XXXX role and job description in FORD MOTORS, everyone reading this dispute is unclear about his specialty, whether he is trained to investigate issues without bias, or to protect the interest of his company in the face of overwhelming implicatory evidence. 

XXXX XXXX stated he listened to the recording, yet we can deduce he is not familiar with the manner and method by which XXXX keeps records and maintain computerized records and documents for account holders because he does not work with XXXX. It is unclear how these two companies share telephone recording computer information. XXXX XXXX fails to state in his letter concerning the record he challenged if XXXX maintain such records in the ordinary and routine course of business and it is their regular business practice to accurately record any business act, condition or event onto the computer record maintained for the accounts that holds my information, with the entries made at or very near the time of any such occurrence. In effect, XXXX XXXX, as an Analyst in FORD is testifying that XXXX has authorized FORD, acting through XXXX XXXX as its analyst, to listened and identified recordings. Therefore, the same person is authorizing the action and carrying out the action. It is a stretch to put all of these evidentiary steps onto a single witness. The real problem is a different one.It simply raises much question about XXXX XXXX attention to details in his current role as evidence from his writing when he wrote When we directed XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX in our XX/XX/XXXX, letter, we were unaware that the account was being returned to Ford Credit for reassignment. ( Evidence of the letter attached ). 

From XXXX XXXX letter we have a much bigger question that follows as to how he could be unaware about a job that was within his role? or before he sends letters in a company file? It does happen, but how was he aware about {$1900.00} unverified alleged debt when in his role he was unware about it being recalled from XXXX and sent letters it is with XXXX. This statement raised a trust question on his accuracy that has thus caused me credit denial and high interest rate in many cases. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX FLAWED ARGUMENT ABOUT TRADELINE AND ALLEGED DEBT. 

XXXX XXXX submitted the account tradeline and states this document serves as validation of the original debt and confirms the legitimacy of this account tradeline. We referred XXXX XXXX to section 30. Loss or Destruction of the Vehicle. In his submission, he hurriedly failed to see that the document and Section 30 was silent about how the debt was established because he knew only a signed agreement constitutes a contract. Proof of debt requires more than just a contract. It requires an accounting that is verifiable, as well as a signed agreement that shows a person has agreed to the alleged amount owed.I have never agreed to any of such alleged debt because the debt is consistently flawed. There was no where in his documents that shows I owe {$1900.00}. The documents only validate a tradeline, not a debt and Section 30 was silent on the amount calculated. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX has never questioned a tradeline he has only questioned and maintained that he owes XXXX XXXX XXXX {$0.00}. 



ABOUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FORD USED TO VIOLATE FEDERAL LAWS. 

About XXXX unethical collection tactics, XXXX XXXX writing clearly substantiated my claim that XXXX called my Ex-wife to discuss a debt thus humiliating me and causing me emotional trauma. XXXX validated my position by stating this below XXXX XXXX with XXXX called a phone number, which he believed to be an alternate number for XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX asked to speak with XXXX XXXX and asked the female who answered the phone if she was XXXX XXXX spouse. She confirmed she was XXXX XXXX spouse and confirmed the address we have on file for XXXX XXXX. The female stated she knew a little about the situation, but not enough to discuss the matter with XXXX XXXX, so she took down the contact information and said she would give XXXX XXXX the message. XXXX explained to us that, because the female identified herself as XXXX XXXX spouse, He was able to speak with her about the debt. 
( Evidence of letter attached ) The last sentence clearly shows he spoke to my ex-wife about a debt because he believed, as XXXX XXXX alleged, that any number is an alternative number, without verifying, but leaving the verification for the recipient. Ignorance has never been an excuse. She was my spouse, ex-spouse and XXXX XXXX knew from the conversation and you validated it knowing they knew she was a spouse, not a current spouse, which is an ex- as evidence from the recorded phone conversation. I want to know the extent of damages that I can file to FORD motors for employing debt collectors without basic moral standard in creating unethical  business conversations that psychological humiliate customers into coercively making payments. 


FORD DID NOT REPORT DISPUTED ON MY CREDIT REPORT WITHIN 30DAYS BUT AFTER 40DAYS NEITHER DOES IT RESPOND TO LETTERS IN TIMELY MANNERS.

Finally, I would want documentary evidence as to how FORD MOTOR complies with my claim when I stated they have continuously violated FEDERAL laws, yet XXXX XXXX wrote this. 

Regarding XXXX XXXX claim that any time he requested proof ( of the debt ), XXXX XXXX sends him a bill after 40 days, our records reflect Ford Credit has received only one previous letter from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, which we responded to on XX/XX/XXXX. With that response, we provided XXXX XXXX a copy of the lease agreement he signed and a Statement of Account as validation of the debt. 
( Evidence of letter attached ) Again, XXXX XXXX XXXX and pointer to his record should be question as to who wrote those records because his claim above is not only misleading, but false, because based on the certified mail, my mail was received XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX, as claimed by XXXX XXXX ( Evidence attached ). It is very important to put things in honest, ethical, factual, and right perspective as I have challenged XXXX XXXX XXXX of inaccuracy. If in a simple letter as mine written to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), FORD representative can not be accurate, then it cast so much doubt on their reporting accuracy to their record, as evident from my claims. If XXXX XXXX, an analyst for XXXX XXXX XXXX could make such untrue claims as evidence from the attached proof, it would be reasonable to cast doubt on his ability to record accurately the amount alleged. Attached are proof of certified letter I have sent to FORD motors that never got any response. Yet, XXXX XXXX claimed FORD have received only one previous letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The evidence from USPS speaks otherwise. How then can the reader believe XXXX XXXX claims without questioning his job stretched. Please verify this certified mails. Receipts of signed for are attached ( Evidence of signed for mail by FORD Motors attached ). 

In XXXX XXXX XXXX submitted documents and brief, there are two contradictory claims which XXXX XXXX XXXX alleges XXXX XXXX owes, in Exhibit 1 ( for only one previous letter submitted on XX/XX/XXXX ) and in Exhibit 2 ( I have provided more than one but several evidence of letters received and signed for by FORD motors which can be verified by the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) ), demonstrating thereby a lack of sufficient indicia of trustworthiness for accounting in this instance to be considered reliable ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XX/XX/XXXX ) ). 
With the submitted evidence, I clearly declare that XXXX XXXX XXXX should delete my account because no such debt of {$1900.00} exist and as such I decline to accept any offer that violates the already paid in full amount with XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

As evidence from the letter XXXX XXXX XXXX has sent with many contradictory, misleading, incorrect and false allegations which has been shown above, XXXX XXXX is without information or knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth or accuracy of XXXX XXXX XXXX claim, and based on that denies generally and specifically XXXX claim and hereby request XXXX XXXX to correct the information his credit by sending it as paid in full or delete his account. 


XXXX, XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief