Consumer complaint received 2025-07-19 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Strategic Alliances, Inc.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I rented a vehicle from XXXX XXXX. I picked up the vehicle in XXXX, WA on XX/XX/XXXX, and returned it to XXXX at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The odometer at pickup was XXXX miles, and at return it was XXXX miles -- a total of XXXX miles driven. I did not damage the vehicle and I got in no accidents. 

Several months later, I was contacted by XXXX about alleged damage to the vehicle and ultimately billed a total of {$3300.00}. 

The initial appraisal dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not result in any repairs, which I confirmed directly with the appraiser on XX/XX/XXXX. The report did not list an odometer reading and noted unknown point of impact. Nevertheless, XXXX used that estimate to demand {$1900.00} from me, which included taxes, admin fees, loss of use, and diminishment of value. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, I complained to XXXX by phone, stating I saw no visible damage in the photographs provided. Instead of resolving the dispute, they escalated the claim. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  sent a new demand totaling {$3300.00}, based on a second repair estimate from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, WA, dated XX/XX/XXXX nearly five months after I returned the vehicle. That estimate showed the odometer had reached XXXX miles -- an increase of XXXX miles since my rental period. This raises serious concerns about chain of custody and whether the alleged damage occurred during my rental period. 

The total amount billed of {$3300.00} includes charges from both estimates, despite the fact that one set of repairs were not performed and the other occurred long after my rental ended. The total amount billed includes overlapping and duplicative charges, which is improper and inflates the debt. 

In XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX referred the debt to First Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I received my first contact from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and sent a formal debt validation request via certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX responded with documentation that included both damage assessments, but did not provide proof that the original damages were repaired, or explain why both were being charged. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a second certified debt validation letter to XXXX explaining that the documentation failed to validate the debt. I also sent a letter to XXXX XXXX requesting closure of the disputed claim and withdrawal of all collection activity, written confirmation that no negative credit reporting has occurred or will occur, and immediate lifting of the rental ban associated with this unresolved and unsupported claim. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, neither XXXX nor XXXX XXXX have responded to those letters. 

After I sent the second debt validation letter to XXXX XXXXnd contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX unit to request repair documentation, I received an email from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, stating that they would now correct the claim and revert to the original demand of {$1900.00} dropping the inflated supplemental assessment. This reduction shows that their initial {$3300.00} demand was unjustified. However, the revised amount remains based entirely on an estimate for which no repairs were ever done. 

XXXX  and XXXX actions including inflating the debt, failing to validate it, attempting to double-bill, and continuing collection activity without adequate documentation are misleading, unfair, and in violation of my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation