Complaint Review: Key Bank USA - NA-ASF

Key Bank USA, NA-ASF
601 Oakmont Lane Ste. 110
Westmont, IL 60559

Attn: Tim Magrovicz: Recovery Department,

California Statutes of Limitations:
Written agreements: 4 years, calculated from the date of breach.
Oral agreements: 2 years.

Tim, I am sure you have the records of the outside collector/agency hired by Key Bank in 1996. This is the collector that your company utilized from Corona, California in an attempt collect this debt.

He repeatedly engaged in "Third Party Disclosure." I know this because your collector harrassed until he received payments. My family member had no knowledge of this debt or authority to engage in discussion. This is clearly a violation of the FDCPA.

Your collector called repeatedly and harrassed;(records can be subpoenaed from the phone company), disclosed Third Party information and engaged in deceptive collection tactics by implying that I would be arrested if picked-up by the police while in possession of the vehicle. Again, clearly a violation of the FDCPA.

"Section 807(4)of the FDCPA prohibits falsely representing or implying to the consumer that nonpayment "will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any [53 Fed. Reg. 50106] person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person . . ."

Section 807(5) prohibits the "threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken."

Debt collector's statement of his own definite action. A debt collector may not state that he will take any action unless he intends to take the action when the statement is made, or ordinarily takes the action in similar circumstances.

Debt collector's statement of definite action by third party. A debt collector may not state that a third party will take any action unless he has reason to believe, at the time the statement is made, that such action will be taken.

Statement of possible action. A debt collector may not state or imply that he or any third party may take any action unless such action is legal and there is a reasonable likelihood, at the time the statement is made, that such action will be taken.

A debt collector may state that certain action is possible, if it is true that such action is legal and is frequently taken by the collector or creditor with respect to similar debts; however, if the debt collector has reason to know there are facts that make the action unlikely in the particular case, a statement that the action was possible would be misleading.

Threat of CRIMINAL ACTION. A debt collector may not threaten to report a dishonored check or other fact to the police, unless he actually intends to take this action.

Threat of attachment. A debt collector may not threaten to attach a consumer's tax refund, when he has no authority to do so.

Threat of legal or other action. Section 807(5) refers not only to a false threat of legal action, but also a false threat by a debt collector that he will report a debt to a credit bureau, assess a collection fee, or undertake any other action if the debt is not paid. A debt collector may also not misrepresent the imminence of such action.

A debt collector's implication, as well as a direct statement, of planned legal action may be an unlawful deception. For example, reference to an attorney or to legal proceedings may mislead the debtor as to the likelihood or imminence of legal action.

A debt collector's statement that legal action has been recommended is a representation that legal action may be taken, since such a recommendation implies that the creditor will act on it at least some of the time.
Lack of intent may be inferred when the amount of the debt is so small as to make the action totally unfeasible or when the debt collector is unable to take the action because the creditor has not authorized him to do so.

Illegality of threatened act. A debt collector may not threaten that he will illegally contact an employer, or other third party, or take some other "action that cannot legally be taken" (such as advising the creditor to sue where such advice would violate state rules governing the unauthorized practice of law). If state law forbids a debt collector from suing in his own name (or from doing so without first obtaining a formal assignment and that has not been done), the debt collector may not represent that he will sue in that state."


As I stated on the phone Tim, had your company exercised some better judgment in your collection practices, the default may never have occurred. Two weeks late on a payment is not worth the time spent on the recovery effort thus far. Clearly this was not the way to handle this problem. Hopefully, this collector from Corona is no longer doing business with your company. I will seek him out within a reasonable time and place his name on this Rip-Off Report website.

As for the reason for contacting me, I am not sure that I agree with your explanation for making a hard inquiry on my credit report. I am compelled to believe this was another form of harassment from your company. I suggest that you check-out the Rip-off Report.com. It appears that this is not the first time your company has engaged in deceptive collection practices in this country.

I sent complaints to my AG, FTC, Experian. These guys repo'd my truck back in 1996, after two weeks late on a payment. They called and Third Partied my family to make payments while I was up north. Once I got home, I told them to FO and come get their friggin truck.

But, they forgot to check the law, they didn't sue me, so after four years, they lost out. Now that seven years is up, they can no longer report on my CRs. So, they thought they would get "cute" and do a "hard inquiry" on my CR, that is fraud big time. I sent them cease & desist letter, and advised them if they do not stop with their crap, I will sue them.

Their VP from Chicago sent me a letter overnight del to tell me that they will terminate communicating with me and they will remove the entry from my CR. He also told me that I can't sue them because they are not a collection agency, but their own company.

Perhaps they are not aware (they are) that Calif has their own CA Rosenthal FDCPA, WHICH DOES INCLUDE SUING ORIGINAL CREDITORS FOR FRAUD or TP disclosures.