Consumer complaint received 2020-01-14
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Volvo Car Financial Services U.S., LLC (IL)

Consumer and VCFS LIEN COMPANY, LLC, VCFS AUTO LEASING COMPANY AND THEIR OFFICERS ( hereinafter collectively referred to as Volvo ) entered into a vehicle lease agreement on XX/XX/XXXX. This lease agreement provided for a monthly lease amount of {$650.00} and upfront state sales/use taxes to the State of New Jersey in  the amount of XXXX. The Consumer made timely payments every month since the lease date, except for the month in-question XX/XX/XXXX due to a discrepancy in monthly charges of which Volvo was immediately made aware. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Consumer relocated to XXXX, XXXX from XXXX, XXXX and in light of this move, a Volvo representative informed the Consumer that she was required to pay an additional {$450.00} in local taxes. The representative was not clear as to whether the additional tax was for the City of XXXX, the County of XXXX, and/or the State of XXXX. Nonetheless, the Consumer paid the additional {$450.00} over the phone on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Later, the Consumer received a letter in the mail dated XX/XX/XXXX from Volvo that her new monthly cost would increase to {$710.00} from {$650.00}. The letter failed to make clear as to whether this additional cost was for taxes, or some other fees and instead ambiguously stated that the increase may be due to a change in your sales/use tax. When the Consumer inquired about this letter on XX/XX/XXXX via a phone call to Volvo customer service, she was informed by a Volvo representative that it was due to an increase in taxes. The Consumer, believing the letter was written in error, then informed the representative that she had already paid the additional taxes back on XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$450.00}. 

The representative responded by saying that the additional monthly charge was due to other taxes, but did not state what these other taxes were such as whether this additional tax was for city , county, and/or state tax, or verify the tax rate and the accurate tax amount per this rate. Volvo is in a much better position to ascertain the tax rate and amount of taxes than is the Consumer since Volvo is the owner of the vehicle, is in direct communication with the appropriate governing body, and receives the tax bills. 

Over the next month and a half, the Consumer inquired about these supposed additional taxes and each time she was given a different answer as to which jurisdiction the taxes are owed or to even how much the total amount of taxes are actually owed. Furthermore, the Consumer was not provided a financial statement of any additional charges with the appropriate breakdowns or itemization as required by law, such as tax rate and to which jurisdiction taxes were owed. Not only is an itemized financial statement required by law, it would have been helpful to the Consumer for ascertaining the appropriate charges owed. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the Consumer received an alert from XXXX   credit bureau agency that Volvo reported a 30-day delinquency notice regarding a late payment in XX/XX/XXXX despite the fact that there had been constant communication between the Consumer and Volvo since  XX/XX/XXXX regarding the discrepancy in the increase in monthly charges. Although on XX/XX/XXXX, the Consumer was promised by a Volvo representative that Volvo would provide an accurate financial statement itemizing all costs, including the appropriate taxes, within 48 hours via facsimile, Volvo never did such thing. 

To no avail, the Consumer attempted to resolve this matter amicably via 19 different phone conversations with a number of customer service representatives over a two-month period, including Customer Care Manager Ms. XXXX XXXX and her staff member XXXX XXXX. Despite these numerous phone calls and proof that Volvo failed to provide Ms. XXXX with an accurate financial statement detailing the appropriate charges above and beyond what was contracted for, Volvo failed to provide such statement and refused to remove the erroneous reporting of a 30-day delinquent notice that was reported to XXXX  in violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Act, Federal Consumer Leasing Act Disclosures, Federal Trade Consumer Act, XXXX XXXX  Consumer Fraud Act, XXXX  Consumer Protection Leasing Act,  and XXXX Breach of Contract laws.