I lease a car through Toyota Financial Services, and have made payments consistently for the past 36 months. When I extended my lease, I failed to receive a statement for one month and subsequently was overdue on a payment by almost 30 days on my lease. However, that issue is resolved. I paid my entire balance before the 30 day marker. This complaint is in regards to my interactions with Toyota Financial Services employees, specifically upper-level management personnel : XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Collections Department XXXX XXXX. XXXX, Customer Loyalty Department During our conversation, both persons stated " Under Federal Law, we are legally obligated to report your delinquent account to a collection agency 30 days after your past due date, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( " FCRA '' ). '' I asked both individuals to reference where in the statute they are obligated to report my account after 30 days. XXXX XXXX 's stated he did not have that information. XXXX XXXX. XXXX, however, insisted FCRA required this and put me hold several times trying to provide the codified section to me. Ultimately, she did not provide me with any citation to show how their financial company was legally obligated under FCRA to report my account after 30 days. However, she still insisted they were obligated under FCRA to report 30 days after the due date, and FCRA prevented their company from reporting my company after the 30 day period. 

So this issue is n't whether they can report at 30 days, but whether, FCRA requires a strict 30 day reporting period ... so that reporting 33 days, or 35 days, or 40 days, is prohibited by FCRA. 

This, is an issue in itself. If personnel at large financial companies are given permission to tell customers the legal obligations they are held to, then they should have enough information and expertise to accurately inform the consumer on these legal issues. It was clear neither XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX had any knowledge of FCRA or Federal consumer law in general. While XXXX XXXX said he did not have that information, XXXX actually made an attempt to look at FCRA and point to what law she and XXXX XXXX were referring to. 

Consumers with hardly any legal knowledge are susceptible to managers such a XXXX and XXXX XXXX, who impose federal legal standards to support their position and intimidate the consumer. This is a practice is ripe for abuse, as here, managers may provide false legal information.

Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 623a ( 5 ) ( A ) ... ( codified as 15 U.S.C.S. 1681s-2a ( 5 ) ( A ) ) ... '' A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent  account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action. '' A plain reading of this statute shows that FCRA requires creditors to report a delinquent account within 90 days of the date of delinquency, not 30. So Toyota Financial services would not be violating any federal law if they waited 3-5 days after my date of delinquency to report my account to a credit agency. Thus, when XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX state they were obligated under FCRA to report my delinquent account approximately 30 days after the date of delinquency ... this is a false statement of law. 

Toyota Financial Services has upper-level management furnishing false statements of law to consumers in order to support their position and intimidate the consumer. 

I know that Toyota may have its own policies that enforce such a timeline, and such policies may be in compliance with other FCRA provisions, yet a definitive statement that uses a federal statute to  support its conclusion should be as accurate as possible, and should be delivered by someone with the proper knowledge to make confident statements of law. 

It 's also possible my interpretation of the law is inaccurate, and I told XXXX and XXXX that, yet I asked them to direct me to the relevant provision to support their conclusions, which they were unable to do. Yet my experience is indicative of a larger theme : large financial companies, and upper-level management, are making false statements of law to consumers, which intimidates the consumer and gives the impression to the consumer they they have no legal ground to oppose a practice they see as unfair or wrong. 

So when a large financial company states they are obligated under law to do something, it 's prudent that they actually are obligated by law ... and not making such statements simply to intimidate the consumer or dissuade them from some course of action. 

Thank you for your time. I hope this issue is addressed.