Consumer complaint received 2026-06-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Summit A*R, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Company : Summit A * R , Inc . Summit A * R, Inc. is attempting to collect, and has reported to XXXX, a debt of {$470.00} that I do not owe. After I provided Summit A * R with documentary evidence that contradicts the underlying claim, Summit A * R refused to investigate, declared my dispute " frivolous, '' and continues to report the collection account to consumer reporting agencies. Timeline of events : XX/XX/XXXX : I rented a XXXX XXXX ( license XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX under rental agreement XXXX. The Rental Agreement documents approximately twenty pre-existing damage items on the vehicle, including a cracked windscreen, a missing rear wiper blade, a loose interior handgrip, and numerous scratches down to the primer on multiple body panels. XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX : I returned the vehicle. A XXXX employee, identified on the return paperwork as " XXXX XXXX, '' inspected the vehicle in my presence at the return location. The Return Checksheet which both of us signed expressly records the remarks as " No Issues '' and the vehicle state as " Normal. '' No new damage was identified or disclosed to me at return. XX/XX/XXXX : Five days after the vehicle was returned and back in XXXX 's exclusive custody, XXXX generated a Damage Report ( Damage Number XXXX ) alleging a hole in the rear passenger-side tire and demanding {$470.00}. The charge consists of {$230.00} for the tire, {$31.00} for " Loss of Use, '' and a {$200.00} " Admin Fee '' an administrative fee equal to approximately 84 % of the alleged tire cost. In response to XXXX, I submitted a written customer response stating that I was not aware of the alleged damage, that the vehicle was inspected at return by a XXXX employee, and that the employee cleared the vehicle. XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX referred the disputed amount to Summit A * R, Inc. for collection. Summit A * R then reported the account to XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : I disputed the tradeline with XXXX. XXXX XXXX reinvestigation came back " Verified and Updated. '' XX/XX/XXXX : Summit A * R responded to my request for documentation by sending me the underlying XXXX records. Those records the Return Checksheet, the Damage Report, and the Rental Agreement affirmatively contradict the basis for the debt. On or about XX/XX/XXXX : I sent Summit A * R a formal written dispute by certified mail, attaching XXXX 's own documents and identifying with specificity the reasons the debt is not owed. XX/XX/XXXX : Summit A * R responded by email declaring my dispute " frivolous '' under 12 CFR 1022.43 ( f ), claiming it was " substantially the same '' as my prior dispute, and refusing to investigate further unless I provided additional information. The Summit A * R letter contains a blank in the field for the date of the alleged prior dispute ( " you previously sent us a written dispute dated ___ '' ), suggesting an automated form response rather than an actual review of my file. Why Summit A * R 's " frivolous '' determination is improper 1. My XX/XX/XXXX dispute was not substantially the same as my prior dispute. My initial dispute ( sent through XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ) was a generic challenge to the tradeline. My XX/XX/XXXX dispute was based on specific documentary evidence XXXX 's own Return Checksheet, Damage Report, and Rental Agreement that Summit A * R itself provided to me on XX/XX/XXXX and that did not exist in the record of the prior dispute. 2. 12 CFR 1022.43 governs FCRA direct disputes about the accuracy of furnished information. My XXXX XXXX XXXX letter was primarily an FDCPA dispute of the underlying debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692g, in addition to a credit-reporting dispute. The FDCPA contains no " frivolous dispute '' exception that excuses a debt collector from responding to a substantive dispute of the underlying debt. 3. Summit A * R 's response letter contains a blank date field where the alleged prior dispute date should appear, indicating the response was a form template not actually tailored to my file. 4. Summit A * R 's letter does not address and does not deny any of the specific factual contradictions identified in my dispute, including XXXX 's own Return Checksheet recording " No Issues '' at return and the five-day gap before the damage report was generated. Why the underlying debt is not owed 5. XXXXXXXX XXXX own Return Checksheet, signed by XXXX 's employee on the date of return, states the vehicle had " No Issues '' and was in " Normal '' condition. 6. XXXX XXXX damage report was not generated until five days after the vehicle was back in XXXX XXXX exclusive custody, with no chain-of-custody evidence that the alleged damage occurred during my rental period. 7. The vehicle had extensive pre-existing damage at pickup, documented on XXXX 's own Rental Agreement. 8. The {$470.00} charge includes a {$200.00} " administrative fee '' that is approximately 84 % of the alleged tire cost ( {$230.00} ), and does not represent a good-faith measure of actual loss. 9. Summit A * R accepted and continues to report this account despite the underlying dispute and despite documentation in its own possession that contradicts the claim. Documents available on request XXXX Dispute Results dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Report # XXXX ) Summit A * R response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, with XXXX documentation enclosed My formal dispute letter to Summit A * R dated XX/XX/XXXX ( sent certified mail ) Summit A * R " frivolous dispute '' email dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Rental Agreement XXXX ( pickup damage list ) XXXX Return Checksheet dated XX/XX/XXXX ( " No Issues/ Normal '' ) XXXX Damage Report XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX My customer response to the XXXX damage report

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