Data Line Cabling Inc

We have reviewed the specific request submitted by *** ***, regarding the outstanding balance due under the terms of the loanIf *** *** is willing to pay the unpaid balance, we will then remove the information regarding this debt, from his account recordThank you

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
Due to SFCU’s negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, *** *** will only accept a full discharge of the loan. The vehicle loan was more than an arms-length transaction SFCU, and its authorized agents held a fiduciary duty to *** *** in which they breached They failed to protect their security interest in the loan and the vehicle, and, subsequently, *** *** has been harmedUntil this loan is fully discharged, *** *** is fully prepared to pursue all avenues available to avoid further harm from SFCU and to prevent SFCU from harming other hard working members. Pursuant to the loan and security agreements, *** *** hereby relinquishes any claims of possession to the vehicle by delivering both sets of keys to SFCUAs previously mentioned, the vehicle is located at: All About Automotive II *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
***Along with a full discharge of the loan, we also respectfully request SFCU mitigate any alleged damages by seeking claim to the vehicle pursuant to its security interest
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Suffolk Federal Credit Union has reviewed the complaint submitted by *** *** to the Revdex.com, and provides the following response: In summary, it appears that both *** *** (as purchaser) and Suffolk Federal Credit Union (as lender) were defrauded by the individual who sold a
vehicle to *** *** in November of 2015. As such, SFCU understands *** ***’s dismay upon Honda’s repossession of the vehicle. However, SFCU has done no wrong, and at all times dealt with *** *** fairly, honestly, and responsibly. In October of 2015, *** *** applied to SFCU for a loan to finance his purchase of a Honda. He indicated to SFCU that he was buying the vehicle from someone named “*** ***”, whom we have since come to learn was actually *** ***. It is important to note that SFCU itself had no affiliation with *** ***, and that *** *** became involved with *** *** on his own prior to approaching SFCU to ask for a loanIn considering *** ***’s loan application, SFCU required *** *** to provide various documents, including a copy of the title to the vehicle that he was planning to purchase. *** provided a copy of the title bearing the owner’s name *** ***, which document reflected “no liens recorded” on the vehicleSFCU did not rely solely on this document, however. In an abundance of caution and in an effort to verify that title to the vehicle was indeed free and clear from liens as stated, SFCU independently searched the records of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). In doing so, SFCU itself discovered that there were two liens in Honda’s name listed in connection with the vehicle that *** *** intended to purchase. SFCU then notified *** *** of this fact and indicated that *** *** needed to obtain lien releases to show that the liens had been paid in order for SFCU to approve the loan. Based upon SFCU’s experience in vehicle loan underwriting, it understands that a prior loan obligation might be legitimately paid off and satisfied while the associated lien could still be reflected in the DMV’s records. This occurs if a lien release was not filed with the DMV by the owner. Such scenario is not uncommonWhen SFCU’s branch representative made this notification to *** ***, *** *** said that he would talk to the seller. Subsequently, *** *** told SFCU’s branch representative that he spoke with the seller and that the seller had assured him that the liens had been cleared and that he would forward lien releases. After a certain amount of time passed without SFCU receiving any lien release from either *** *** or the seller, and because *** *** had been calling SFCU to find out the status of his loan application and was expressing concern that he would lose the opportunity to buy the vehicle, SFCU’s branch representative obtained the seller’s contact information from *** *** and called the seller directly and asked if lien releases were forthcoming. The seller told SFCU’s branch representative that the liens were indeed paid and that he would forward the lien releases directly to SFCU. Thereafter, SFCU received two separate documents by facsimile transmission purporting to be lien releases from Honda that matched the lien information on file with the DMV. These documents bore fax headers at the top of each page purporting to indicate that they had been transmitted directly from Honda. They each designated the vehicle that *** *** intended to purchase; they each bore a signature purporting to be that of a Honda representative; and they each claimed that the accounts had been paid in full. Only after seeing such releases did SFCU approve the loan and disburse $19,to *** *** to finance his vehicle purchase. SFCU had no reason to believe at that time that these documents were fraudulent, or that the seller was anyone other than he had represented himself to be, i.ea person named *** ***. Likewise, SFCU had no knowledge or reason to believe that the seller with whom *** *** was dealing was a convicted felon. SFCU, throughout its dealings with *** ***, sought to ensure that his loan application was processed efficiently. In reaching out to the seller, SFCU’s branch representative was attempting to facilitate the process that *** *** had begun of gathering all documents that were needed in order for his loan application to be approvedFar from committing negligence, SFCU itself pinpointed the existence of the liens in DMV’s records and notified *** *** of these notations, and only approved the loan after receiving the very documentation that is routinely relied upon within the lending industry as evidence of satisfaction of a prior lienAt some point after *** *** purchased the vehicle, *** *** contacted SFCU and informed SFCU that Honda had repossessed the vehicle from him due to nonpayment. This was the first indication to SFCU that the documents purporting to be lien releases were fraudulentIn *** ***’s complaint, he claims that “due to Suffolk Federal’s negligence, the car was repossessed by Honda…” This is inaccurate. The vehicle was repossessed by Honda due to nonpayment of liens, which nonpayment was concealed by *** ***’s fraud*** *** also asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to speak with Honda.” *** makes this assertion because he has misconstrued SFCU’s position and overestimated its ability to “clear up this matter” for him. Specifically, after informing SFCU of Honda’s repossession of the vehicle, *** *** asked SFCU to intervene in Honda’s sale of the vehicle. However, SFCU’s representative informed *** that, under these circumstances, it was not in a position to do so because Honda is a lienholder with priority. Apparently, *** *** misconstrued SFCU’s statement about its inability to prevent Honda from selling the vehicle as unwillingness to help him*** *** further asserts in his complaint that SFCU “refuse[s] to put [him] in contact with the Director of Collections so [he] may see about deferring the loan…” By way of explanation, after SFCU was notified of the seller’s fraud, and once *** *** and his wife (an attorney) asked SFCU to discharge his loan obligation and intervene in Honda’s sale, SFCU referred the matter to its attorneys. When *** *** asked to be put in contact with the Director of Collections in order to ask that SFCU take certain action, SFCU told *** *** that its attorneys has been consulted and were looking into the matter. Rather than ignoring *** ***, SFCU provided *** *** with its attorneys’ contact information. Since then, *** *** has been in contact with themWith respect to *** ***’s “desired settlement” as stated in his complaint, SFCU believes that his loan obligation to SFCU is not dischargeable. Again, SFCU did not engage in any wrongdoing. The wrongdoing was perpetrated solely by *** ***, and *** ***’s remedy is as against Cohen, not against SFCU. Indeed, SFCU itself is a victim of fraud by Cohen as it disbursed to *** *** $19,based upon Cohen’s fraudulent representation that the liens on the vehicle were satisfied, and SFCU has now lost its ability to proceed against the collateral securing *** ***’s loan as a result of such fraudPurely as a courtesy to *** ***, SFCU has agreed to offer him a three month deferment of the loan under terms and conditions that are in the process of being communicated to him. This gesture should not be construed as anything more than an act of courtesy made in SFCU’s discretion to its member based upon his circumstances

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved
Sincerely,
*** ***
?