Consumer complaint received 2025-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: CarMax, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
Plaintiff XXXX XXXX brings this action against Defendant CarMax Auto Finance for violations of the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( XXXX XXXXXXXX et seq. ), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 USC 1681 et seq. ), the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), and common law negligence. These claims arise from Defendants failure to validate a disputed debt, improper rejection of payment, false credit reporting, harassing communications, and negligent handling of consumer information, which exacerbated Plaintiffs vulnerability as a repeated victim of financial scams and data breaches. 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, prompted by his scam history and fear of fraud, XXXX sent a certified letter to Defendant disputing an alleged debt ( Account XXXX XXXXXXXX ) and requesting validation pursuant to XXXX. XXXX. Plaintiff sought detailed documentation to ensure the debt was legitimate and not a scam. 

Defendant responded on XX/XX/XXXX, with only a retail installment contract and an unauthenticated payment history, failing to provide a full account number, authenticated accounting, or proof of their right to collect in Colorado. This inadequate response heightened Plaintiffs fear that the debt was fraudulent, given Defendants apparent carelessness in handling his dispute. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff sent a payment of {$980.00} under duress, explicitly stating it was not an admission of liability, to avoid further harassment while awaiting proper validation. Defendant rejected this payment, assessed late fees, and placed Plaintiff in default, actions Plaintiff believes were reckless and intended to coerce payment on an unvalidated debt. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff sent another certified letter reiterating the dispute and requesting additional documentation, including proof of Defendants compliance with consumer protection laws. Defendant failed to respond adequately or conduct a reasonable investigation. 

Plaintiff sent subsequent notices on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, attempting to resolve the dispute, which Defendant ignored, continuing their pattern of ignoring legitimate consumer disputes. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Plaintiff sent a pre-court demand letter to Defendant via certified mail, reiterating his scam victimization, exposure to data breaches, and demand for debt validation. Plaintiff warned that Defendants failure to validate the debt, cease harassing communications, and remove false credit reporting would lead to legal action. Defendant failed to respond, further demonstrating their reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights and vulnerability as a consumer. 

Despite Plaintiffs explicit request in the pre-court demand letter to communicate only via USPS, Defendant placed at least 26 phone calls and ongoing to Plaintiff from XX/XX/XXXX, to the present, causing severe emotional distress and exacerbating Plaintiffs anxiety as a scam victim. 

In a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, Defendant stated it would not report delinquencies to credit bureaus. However, Defendant reported negative information, resulting in credit denials from XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and rental denials from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. These denials caused Plaintiff economic loss, including higher interest rates and inability to secure housing or credit.

As mentioned above Plaintiff has tried in good faith to resolve the dispute with Defendant numerous times with no good faith response from Defendant. Plaintiff has sent over five dispute letters, complaints with the XXXX, CFPB, and now the Colorado Attorney General. Defendant was most recently sent a settlement demand letter showcasing the many laws broken by Carmax Auto-Finance and offering settlement of the debt.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation