I am a collection services consultant to several small auto finance companies, and dealers in the Greater NY area. Recently, my client contracted the services of a firm known only as US-Repo through the internet.
An agreement was reached with US-Repo to take possession of a vehicle located in the state of Virginia. Amonng their many required documents was a HOLD HARLESS & REPOSSESSION AUTHORIZATION form which included the phrase "I understand that I will be charged a percentage of the collateral value for skip tracing."
My client signed the form, which they do NOT deny or dispute.
In addition to a number of documents and information my client furnished this firm was the vehicle's tracking data, which was used to determine the drivers whereabouts in the first place.
Unbeknownst to my client, the assignment was referred to a firm known only as ICU Inc. based in Surry, British Columbia.
The vehicle was repossessed within 5 hours, using the information from my client's tracking firm.
Once the vehicle was located, the Repo agents followed the driver, and engaged their own tracking device. When the vehicle reached its destination, the agents made their move and repossessed the car.
Instead of a bill for what should have been about $400.00, my client received a bill for over $5,000.00 with the explanation for the additional charges identified as skip tracing/contigency.
After speaking with representatives of this firm, it is clear that my client's only recourse is through litigation, and although the nature of how these two firms are structured makes this endeavor difficult, we are determined that this firm, not be allowed to continue this type of behavior.