The complainant signed a separate document entitled „Confirmations.“ [ECF 21-2 to 8]. The document was made available „as a summary of some key points“ in its „motorcycle leasing package.“ Id. He repeated that the applicant had agreed to maintain coverage for the duration of the lease; may have to pay significant fees if he terminated the lease before the term expired; Authorization to pay for an authorization to grant assistance under the agreed to maintain the bike as recommended in the user manual; Authorization to authorize ACH projects from its bank account for the payment of personal property taxes on the motorcycle; agreed to pay certain fees at the end of the rental period. Id. plaintiff introduced a form of debit ach authorization that allowed the defendant to automatically deposit his bank account amounting to USD 394.26 once a month from October 1, 2014, for a period of 35 months. [ECF 35 to 23]. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Willis sent a second letter to the applicant in response to his question about the amount required to reintroduce the lease. [ECF 25-2 to 3]. Mr. Willis indicated that the applicant had to pay $2,953.97, which represents the amount of $2,515 due to the signing of the lease, the payment on December 1 of $394.26, a five per cent late tax s. $19.71 and a stop payment fee of $25.00. Id.
He stated that the $2,515.00 was to be paid directly to CCC under the terms of the lease. Id. He noted that CCC was storing the motorcycle and that the defendant would send a notice of release to CCC as soon as he received the payment, notification that the insurance had been reinstated, and notification that payments would be resumed on the first day of each month from the ach account. Id. applicant does not take the necessary steps to cure the standard. Fleming Aff. In addition, the record indicates that CCC`s actions to recover its own debts were taken and were not taken by the defendant. Although the complainant asserts otherwise, the protocol reflects the fact that he entered into a contract with CCC. See ECF 21-2 at 1-7.
As part of the lease agreement, the applicant agreed to pay CCC a down payment of $2,515.00. Id. to 2. The down payment was deducted from the total gross cost of the booking8 to determine the sum of the base payments. As a result, the applicants were granted the instalment benefit because the costs of the motorcycle were reduced by $2,515.00 over the rental period. According to Ms. Fleming, the applicant verbally authorized CCC to debit the deposit from its MasterCard, but CCC never withdrew the deposit because the transaction was refused by MasterCard on 15 different occasions.9 Fleming Aff. See also ECF 35 at 24-25. Applicant alleges that he received a receipt from CCC showing that he paid the down payment on August 27, 2014, but he refuses to specify the total amount he paid or to attach proof of payment.10 ID to 1. He explains in the complaint that „the lender initially stated that the plaintiff did not process the deposit to the merchant, which the lender did not know.“ [ECF 12-4]. He goes on to say that „Capital City Cycle, after providing the lender with a Barbeleg, as stated in the contract, provided the amount of money made available, and if such a collection was not carried out, it is a problem for the trader, but has no influence on the contract.“ [ECF 25-4].
Although the applicant denies the validity, the record reveals that CCC claimed a pledge of $2,515.00 $US on the motorcycle on the basis of the applicant`s alleged non-payment of the deposit. See Fleming Aff. The complainant did not allege a violation of the CTC FDCPA by the CCC, which may be tempted on CCC to recover the defendant`s debts, contrary to his own debts.