Intimidate, confuse, belittle, take the moral high ground, and restate original position without regard to facts.

That’s how my phone call with Craig Andrews went. Should you become trapped by Bank of America and end up in Craig’s care, I would expect that you would receive the same treatment.

The first thing he did was to point out a mistake that I made. He claimed that I didn’t have a lease with Bank of America. He stated I had what is known as a balloon purchase agreement. I have to admit, he was exactly right. In my original letter of complaint to Gayle Westmoreland, I mistakenly called our agreement a lease.

Ironically, that was the last truthful, and therefore, logical statement that Craig was able to provide during our 25 minute conversation. Craig stated that I didn’t understand the contract and that I had no right to bring the vehicle back to the dealership whatsoever. This is untrue. Read the Last Payment Options section of the agreement and judge for yourself.

Over two weeks later and after a dozen or so phone calls, Van Le, of Bank of America, stated that Craig now agrees that I did have the right to bring the vehicle back. Click here to hear the audio conversation or click here for transcript. That’s great news right? Not so fast….she also stated that the contract says that I am still financially obliged to pay for whatever loss is associated with the sale of the vehicle after I return it to them. Strangely, I didn’t recall that part of the contract. If you read the last sentence of the original agreement you will see that it says quite the opposite.

But, I digress. Craig wasn’t quite finished. I asked him to explain why the dates were all off in the contract. He replied that even though there are some “strange things” related to the dates on the contracts that it did not relieve me of my obligations under the agreement. He stated that as far as Bank of America is concerned that I bought the vehicle on January 7, 1996 and that was the “gold standard” that they would be using.

I asked him why he didn’t care about a customer who is having a serious problem. He replied that he did care or he wouldn’t be taking his valuable time to talk to me. I, of course, reminded him that the only reason he was talking to me was because of their errors and, oh yeah, because I had to threaten to sue multiple times to get them on the phone. I asked Craig to simply think about the bank's position. Did it make logical sense? Would someone actually purchase a car or truck a year in advance of picking it up? I asked him why, if I bought the vehicle in 1996 as he says I did, that Bank of America didn’t send me any monthly payment statements? I asked him why, in the original agreement the term and the dates of the agreement are implausibly incongruent. You can read the agreement as a 36 month agreement (if you really stretch your mind) or a 48 month agreement, but a 59 month agreement that wasn’t paid on for a year and doesn’t match the contract termination date??????

In short, I asked Craig to care enough about me, my family, and what has happened here to answer those questions. He would not answer the questions. He reverted back to the “gold standard” contract and then in a moment of monumental stupidity told me that I needed to call the collection agency and arrange for payment.

My final words to Craig, as I recall, were the same as they have been for the last 5+ years, “I don’t owe the money, I will not pay.” And, I guess this is why the court system is utilized.