Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Summit A*R, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I rented a XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Rental Agreement No. XXXX ). I returned the vehicle on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a damage claim ( No. XXXX ) for {$590.00}, alleging scratches to the front and rear aluminum wheels on the passenger side. This was the third consecutive damage claim XXXX had filed against me, one for each rental I have had with this location. I paid the previous two claims without dispute. I disputed the third claim directly with XXXX in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, requesting five categories of documentation : ( 1 ) pre- and post-rental inspection photos with metadata and visible VIN or plate, ( 2 ) chain-of-custody documentation linking damage photos to my rental vehicle, ( 3 ) an itemized repair invoice from a licensed facility, ( 4 ) proof of payment for repairs, and ( 5 ) loss-of-use calculations. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded with a preliminary estimate from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXXwo photographs : one close-up of a single damaged wheel with no identifying vehicle information visible, and one of my rental vehicle 's license plate. Both were low-resolution ( approximately XXXX XXXX ) and contained no EXIF metadata ( date, time, or GPS data ) capable of establishing when or where the photos were taken, or that the damage depicted occurred on my rental vehicle during my rental period. The preliminary estimate listed a phone number ( XXXX ) that routes to an automated telemarketing line unrelated to the estimator. When contacted directly, The XXXX XXXX declined to confirm the estimate. I sent XXXX a second dispute letter on XX/XX/XXXX, detailing these deficiencies and offering a {$100.00} good-faith settlement. I set an XX/XX/XXXX deadline for XXXX to either accept the settlement or provide the requested documentation. XXXX did not respond. Rather than providing the requested documentation, XXXX referred the account to Summit A * R, Inc. for collection. Nine months after my last communication with XXXX I received Summit 's initial collection notice on XX/XX/XXXX. The same day I sent Summit A * R a written dispute under 15 U.S.C. 1692g requesting full validation of the debt. I specifically requested : ( 1 ) documentation of Summit 's authority to collect, ( 2 ) a copy of the signed rental agreement, ( 3 ) evidence the damage occurred during my rental period, ( 4 ) original photographic evidence with intact metadata, ( 5 ) an itemized repair invoice with proof of payment, and ( 6 ) documentation supporting any additional charges. Summit responded on XX/XX/XXXX with a letter stating the account information was correct and enclosing the original rental agreement, the same unverifiable XXXX damage claim, and the same preliminary estimate from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX I had already challenged with XXXX. No photographs of any kind, no proof of repairs, and no itemized invoice from a repair facility were provided. This does not constitute adequate validation under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent Summit a second written dispute explaining that their response did not meet the validation requirements and that the debt remained disputed. I cited 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) and requested that Summit either provide the missing documentation or that any credit reporting reflect the account 's disputed status under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, Summit sent a form letter stating that because my second dispute " does not provide new information, '' they were referring me back to their XX/XX/XXXX response. Summit did not address the specific documentation deficiencies I identified and has not provided adequate validation of the alleged debt. To summarize : Summit A * R has failed to validate this debt despite two written disputes. Their responses consist of the same unverifiable documentation that XXXX was unable to substantiate when challenged directly. Collection activity has continued without adequate validation, in apparent violation of the FDCPA.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation