Accent Music

Thank you for informing us of the customer’s rebuttal to the above complaint, including documentation showing the payment made on his delinquent account We consider this matter to be resolved and show his account as paid in full Thank you for allowing us to address the issue

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below To begin, the delinquency of my account in is somewhat irrelevant, since my complaint is based on Accent Music's attempt to collect on March 14th, 2014, after I had settled this debt in August My explanation of what caused me to be sent to collections in in my original complaint was from my recollection and given solely for context Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that in Accent Music's response they fail to mention that the original $payment to begin the rental agreement on October 6, 2011, was for a four month trial In other words, no payments were required for four months after that day When that detail is left out, is misrepresents the amount of missed payments on my behalf Regardless, I acknowledge that I was delinquent and was properly sent to collections The reason for my complaint was, and still remains, that Accent Music attempted to collect twice on this account--an "accusation" they now claim is "completely untrue." Accent Music further insists that I am confused because my account was in collections "for a length of time" that caused me to be involved with two collection agencies I am afraid that this seems highly implausible given the facts By Accent Music's own account in this response, the earliest that they could have sent me to collections was May or June of I have bank records showing that my payment to their collection agency at that time, Allen Lewis Associates, was processed on August 27, I can also show that the instrument was returned on August 25, This is important because they would not accept the instrument back until Allen Lewis was paid Therefore, the largest period of time I could have been in collections with Allen Lewis was from May to August 25, If it's true that they involved the second collection agency, Charles, David & Associates, while I was still in collections with Allen Lewis, why did it take Charles, David until March 14, 2014, to contact me (for the first time ever) about this account? Logic dictates that they acquired the services of Charles, David long after I settled my account on August 25, 2012--making their statement, "[d]ue to the length of time this has been in collections, he has had to deal with both companies," seem like a blatant falsehood, written to deflect any and all wrongdoing from Accent Music If it is true, can Accent Music provide evidence that Charles, David was contacted to collect on my account prior to my settling on August 25, 2012? The facts are quite simple: (1) Sometime prior to August 25, 2012, Accent Music submitted my account to Allen Lewis in an attempt to collect my past due payments and their rental trumpet This attempt was successful when they contacted me and I paid and returned the instrument on that date(2) In March of I received a letter from Charles, David which reads, in pertinent part, "Our client: ACCENT MUSIC has requested that we contact you regarding a claim that has been presented to our office...THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT..." (Emphasis in original letter) How Accent Music can claim that these facts don't constitute two separate attempts to collect on the same debt is beyond reason Whether or not they did it knowingly does not change the fact that they attempted to collect twice on the same debt I am not claiming to know whether this was done intentionally, negligently or recklessly Nevertheless, it happened and put me in a position where I had to prove a two-year-old settled account was in fact settled In my opinion, not keeping sufficient records to the extent that customers have to dig through records and prove they are settled is an unethical collection practice Moreover, insinuating that they are blame-free in this, in light of the evidence presented, is not conducting a business with integrity Please find attached: (1) bank statement from 8/28/12; (2) trumpet return receipt; (3) letter from Charles, David Associates Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Revdex.com rules, non-redacted documents where provided to Charles, David and Associates on March 14, A representative from Charles, David informed me that those documents were to be forwarded to Accent Music

Thank you for informing us of the above customer's concern regarding their instrument rental account We are a family business that prides itself in good customer service and we believe this complaint is a misunderstanding of the contract terms.The musical instruments we supply our customers are of high-quality and are extremely expensiveWe rent them to the community on a month-to-month basis for a fraction of their valueAs customers continue to rent, we apply ALL rental payments toward the price of the instrument so that if they continue renting they eventua lly own the instrument outrightTo encourage our customers to keep their children involved in music, we offer a 40% discount to pay-off the balance of their account at any time during the rental.In October 2015, above customer requested what the "payoff" amount would beWe calculated 40% off their balance at that time and came up with the figure of $They chose to DECLINE to take this early pay-off option and decided to continue renting month-to-monthThe customer incorrectly believes that the payoff amount supplied in October is the new "balance due" and they believe the monthly payments they have continued to make have satisfied thisThis is INCORRECTThe payoff discount is ALWAYS calculated based on the balance due at the time of payoff.We tried to explain this (it is also written clearly on the contract)If they wish to pay off the contract, we will still offer them a significant discount, but that discount is calculated off of the CURRENT balance dueThey are also welcome to return the flute to us with no further obligation to continue renting We hope this communication provides you with the background you need and are very grateful for any help you can offer in resolving this conflict

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
To begin, the delinquency of my account in 2012 is somewhat irrelevant, since my complaint is based on Accent Music's attempt to collect on March 14th, 2014, after I had settled this debt in August 2012.  My explanation of what caused me to be sent to collections in 2012 in my original complaint was from my recollection and given solely for context.  Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that in Accent Music's response they fail to mention that the original $29.95 payment to begin the rental agreement on October 6, 2011, was for a four month trial.  In other words, no payments were required for four months after that day.  When that detail is left out, is misrepresents the amount of missed payments on my behalf.  Regardless, I acknowledge that I was delinquent and was properly sent to collections.
The reason for my complaint was, and still remains, that Accent Music attempted to collect twice on this account--an "accusation" they now claim is "completely untrue."  Accent Music further insists that I am confused because my account was in collections "for a length of time" that caused me to be involved with two collection agencies.  I am afraid that this seems highly implausible given the facts.
By Accent Music's own account in this response, the earliest that they could have sent me to collections was May or June of 2012.  I have bank records showing that my payment to their collection agency at that time, Allen Lewis Associates, was processed on August 27, 2012.  I can also show that the instrument was returned on August 25, 2012.  This is important because they would not accept the instrument back until  Allen Lewis was paid.  Therefore, the largest period of time I could have been in collections with Allen Lewis was from May to August 25, 2012.  If it's true that they involved the second collection agency, Charles, David & Associates, while I was still in collections with Allen Lewis, why did it take Charles, David until March 14, 2014, to contact me (for the first time ever) about this account?  Logic dictates that they acquired the services of Charles, David long after I settled my account on August 25, 2012--making their statement, "[d]ue to the length of time this has been in collections, he has had to deal with both companies," seem like a blatant falsehood, written to deflect any and all wrongdoing from Accent Music.  If it is true, can Accent Music provide evidence that Charles, David was contacted to collect on my account prior to my settling on August 25, 2012?
The facts are quite simple: (1) Sometime prior to August 25, 2012, Accent Music submitted my account to Allen Lewis in an attempt to collect my past due payments and their rental trumpet.  This attempt was successful when they contacted me and I paid and returned the instrument on that date. (2) In March of 2014 I received a letter from Charles, David which reads, in pertinent part, "Our client: ACCENT MUSIC has requested that we contact you regarding a claim that has been presented to our office...THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT..." (Emphasis in original letter) 
How Accent Music can claim that these facts don't constitute two separate attempts to collect on the same debt is beyond reason.  Whether or not they did it knowingly does not change the fact that they attempted to collect twice on the same debt.  I am not claiming to know whether this was done intentionally, negligently or recklessly.  Nevertheless, it happened and put me in a position where I had to prove a two-year-old settled account was in fact settled.  In my opinion, not keeping sufficient records to the extent that customers have to dig through records and prove they are settled is an unethical collection practice.  Moreover, insinuating that they are blame-free in this, in light of the evidence presented, is not conducting a business with integrity.
Please find attached: (1) bank statement from 8/28/12; (2) trumpet return receipt; (3) letter from Charles, David Associates.  Personal information has been redacted in accordance with Revdex.com rules, non-redacted documents where provided to Charles, David and Associates on March 14, 2014.  A representative from Charles, David informed me that those documents were to be forwarded to Accent Music.

Thank you for informing us of the customer’s rebuttal to the above complaint, including documentation showing the payment made on his delinquent account.  We consider this matter to be resolved and show his account as paid in full.  Thank you for allowing us to address the issue.

Thank you for informing us of the above customer's concern regarding their instrument rental account.  We are a family business that prides itself in good customer service and we believe this complaint is a misunderstanding of the contract terms.The musical instruments we supply our...

customers are of high-quality and are extremely expensive. We rent them to the community on a month-to-month basis for a fraction of their value. As customers continue to rent, we apply ALL rental payments toward the price of the instrument so that if they continue renting they eventua lly own the instrument outright. To encourage our customers to keep their children involved in music, we offer a 40% discount to pay-off the balance of their account at any time during the rental.In October 2015, above customer requested what the "payoff" amount would be. We calculated 40% off their balance at that time and came up with the figure of $375. They chose to DECLINE to take this early pay-off option and decided to continue renting month-to-month. The customer incorrectly believes that the payoff amount supplied in October 2015 is the new "balance due" and they believe the monthly payments they have continued to make have satisfied this. This is INCORRECT. The payoff discount is ALWAYS calculated based on the balance due at the time of payoff.We tried to explain this (it is also written clearly on the contract). If they wish to pay off the contract, we will still offer them a significant discount, but that discount is calculated off of the CURRENT balance due. They are also welcome to return the flute to us with no further obligation to continue renting.  We hope this communication provides you with the background you need and are very grateful for any help you can offer in resolving this conflict

We received your letter regarding the above customer concern.  Thank you for allowing our company to respond to this complaint. Accent Music is a family-owned business and we strive to conduct business with integrity. The customer is accusing us of trying to collect twice on their account and...

this is completely untrue.
The customer rented an instrument from us in October 2011 valued at $697.77.   They paid $29.95 at that time and made no other payments.   We sent statements in February, March, April & May of 2012 and received no response. The account was really $127.82 past due when it was first sent to collections. The reason that the customer is confused is because wa switched collection agencies. Due to the length of time this has been in collections, he has had to deal with both companies.
The customer has returned the instrument and has paid the back rental amounts. We consider this account to be closed and in good standing and have sent the customer a letter stating this as well.

Review: In October of 2011, I entered into a contract with this business to rent a trumpet for my son. In the summer of 2012, I was sent to collections for missing payment(s). My options were to either pay more than double what the trumpet was worth to keep it or to pay $318.21 and return it. At that time I was less than $60 passed due on the rental. Nevertheless, I paid the $318 to Allen Lewis and Associates and returned the instrument on August 25, 2012.

This week, I found out that Accent Music has decided to try to collect again out of this same situation. Nineteen months after I paid the penalty of five times my debt and returned the instrument in perfect condition, they sent me to a new collection agency under the misrepresentation that I inadvertently forgot to pay or "willfully disregarded my obligation" to settle the debt.

When I contacted the new collection agency, Charles, David & Associates, they informed me that the owner of Accent misplaced the paperwork on several debt collection cases and decided to simply make all the affected former clients prove that they in fact have settled. I have had to spend time searching through my records and obtaining bank records to prove I made the payment back in 2012.Desired Settlement: I am concerned that others in my position will not have the exonerating evidence to get the hired collection agency off their backs; and those might be coerced into paying a second or third time for the same debt. Therefore, my desired outcome in this case is that Accent Music issue a letter, to me, that apologizes for the inconvenience they have caused me; acknowledges that this debt has been settled once and for all on August 25, 2012; and, promises to implement a record-keeping system that prevents them from erroneously putting me or any other former customer in this situation. I would also like Accent Music to inform the customers whose documents they have lost about the loss and simply ask if they have paid, opposed to presenting their cases to collection agencies.

Business

Response:

We received your letter regarding the above customer concern. Thank you for allowing our company to respond to this complaint. Accent Music is a family-owned business and we strive to conduct business with integrity. The customer is accusing us of trying to collect twice on their account and this is completely untrue.

The customer rented an instrument from us in October 2011 valued at $697.77. They paid $29.95 at that time and made no other payments. We sent statements in February, March, April & May of 2012 and received no response. The account was really $127.82 past due when it was first sent to collections. The reason that the customer is confused is because wa switched collection agencies. Due to the length of time this has been in collections, he has had to deal with both companies.

The customer has returned the instrument and has paid the back rental amounts. We consider this account to be closed and in good standing and have sent the customer a letter stating this as well.