Consumer complaint received 2021-08-25
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA (UT)

This dispute is regarding the breach of KIA Motors Finance ( KMF ) agreement with me to settle the alleged excess wear and use charges from a leased SUV and improper credit reporting of my account. 

For some background, I have disputed the charges KMF alleged for excess wear and use on my leased vehicle from the time I received KMFs invoice dated XX/XX/2021seeking {$420.00}. I attempted to reach a compromise with several representatives over the phone, and ultimately decided to pay {$200.00} on XX/XX/XXXX while I decided to mull over my options. 

After considering options, I decided to send a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX, the President and CEO of Hyundai, who I understand is also over KMF, in which I again disputed the amount allegedly owed and included an offer to settle the matter. In the last paragraph of the letter, I stated : As an accommodation, I am willing to pay an additional {$30.00}, which is the amount charged for Sales Tax on the XX/XX/XXXX statement. Combined with the {$200.00} I paid previously, that puts my total payment for the excess wear and use at {$230.00}, which is more than half of the amount requested. I would like KMF to waive any remainder for the reasons articulated above. If that is agreeable, feel free to cash the enclosed check and we can consider this matter resolved. 

The check ( # XXXX ) had my KMF account number and PAYMENT IN FULL written on the memo line. Though I did not receive a written response to my letter and offer, the check was cashed on XX/XX/XXXX. Cashing the check constituted acceptance of my offer to settle this matter and my account should have been closed as paid in full. Given that the check was cashed, and that KMF has continued to attempt to collect the rest of the debt, KMF is now in breach of our agreement, in addition to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 

After seeing KMFs letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( which I did not receive until the beginning of XXXX ), I phoned KMFs call center on XX/XX/XXXX and was referred to the PO Box listed above for disputes. The representative said she did not have copy of my XX/XX/XXXX letter, which I found quite suspicious ( and a convenient claim for KMF ) given that the letter was clearly received because the check that accompanied the letter was cashed. I advised the representative yet again that I disputed the debt and asked her to note on my file that KMF is in breach of our agreement. She responded that there would be adverse credit reporting if the account was not paid within 90 days. I told her I did not want that to happen and asked if there was someone I could speak to in order to see if a compromise could be reached. She stated she did not have the authority to do so but that some from the Complaints Department would call me. 

I never received a call back. The following week I began receiving notifications from credit monitoring services that my account had been marked delinquent. To prevent further damage, I then called KMF and paid the remaining amount due under protest, given that KMF was in breach of our agreement after having cashed the prior check, and to prevent further damage to my credit. I told the representative I had been told I would receive a call back from the Complaints Department before adverse credit reporting took place but still had not received one. I am still waiting on that call back. 

I am dismayed and annoyed at KMFs conduct through this process, and also annoyed for the reasons set forth in my letter of XX/XX/XXXX, which I repeat here for convenience : Regarding the XXXX XXXX, in looking at the photos of the inspection, it appears the tires were all around XX/XX/XXXX tread, which was not excess wear, but the inspector put three of them at XX/XX/XXXX tread, which was excess wear. 

Second, it was KIAs delay in the delivery of the XXXX XXXX that caused the need to extend the lease on the XXXX XXXX ( and corresponding extra wear on the tires ). 

Third, KMF waited months and months to notify me of the excess wear. Due to this delay, there is no way to verify the condition of the tires. 

Fourth, as mentioned, I have been a loyal XXXX customer for nearly 6 years. I have timely made all my lease payments ( and continue to do so on the XXXX XXXX ). 

Fifth, and critically, I believe the actions taken here constitute a deceptive practice under the law. In sum, KMF and KIA created the issue by delaying our order for the XXXX XXXX until after the lease extended, then extending the leasewithout notice of the excess wear limitations. At the same time, KMF waited months and months to notify me of their contentions regarding excess damage. This is the very type of deceptive practice that consumer protection laws target.