Acima Credit

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I have spoken to representatives on several occasions and I never said I had a manufacturers warranty I had a warranty from the store that sold me the appliance APPLIANCE WAREHOUSE the refrigerator stopped working during that warranty period when I tried to contact the store they had gone out of businessand there is no way of contacting themPlain and simple I will not pay for an Item that does not work and my warranty was not honoredi am also requesting that you Cease and Desist Emailing and calling me For Collection
Sincerely,
*** ***

Simple RTO, received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** through the Revdex.com on October 20, We have investigated the complaint, and due to the nature of Ms***’s unique situation, we are going to refund the unauthorized payment of $that was drafted on September 23,
Additionally, due to the nature of Ms***’s current personal hardship, Simple has decided to forgive her lease in good faith with the hope of maintaining an amicable business relationshipWe look forward to working with her in the future

Simple Finance (us, we) has received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** on December 23, We have reviewed her complaint, her Agreement with us, and all the notes regarding her communications with usMs*** alleges, “On December 1, I called to request to move my payment scheduled for
12/to 12/and have a double paymentThis is my way of payingOn 12/5, I discovered that after agreeing to move the payment to 12/instead of 12/03, the company had processed the payment anyway.”We have confirmed that Ms*** was charged a payment that cleared on December 5, in the amount of $Ms*** called our Customer Service department on December 8, to receive a refund for that paymentShe was told that a refund would take at least days to processShe and the Customer Service representative who took the call came to the decision that Simple Finance would not refund that payment, and that her double payment scheduled for December 17, would now be a regular single paymentMs*** asserts that the payment scheduled for December 17, was to be pushed to December 31, for a double paymentOur notes contradict Ms***’s assertion in that our notes reflect that Ms*** wished for her regular payment scheduled for December 17, to remain as is because she could not af* a double payment on December 31, 2016.Ms*** claims, “on 12/21, I discovered that there had in fact been an attempt to take the funds resulting in another overdraft fee of $with my financial institution.”We received another call from Ms*** on December 23, 2016, in which she was informed that we would refund her overdraft fees if we were the cause of the fee We requested some sort of bank-furnished proof that identified our transaction as being the cause for the overdraftWe never received proof from Ms***, and have thus been unable to administer a refund to her accountMs*** then stated that she would like for the merchandise to be picked up and for her lease to be terminatedWe emailed piinstructions, providing the details as to how to initiate the pick-up, but we have not heard from her since that dayMs*** may respond to our instructions, or she may call us at to set up a catplan to bring her account currentUntil we hear back from Ms***, we are unable to provide her with a reasonable resolution to this matter

On May 14, 2015, *** S*** entered *** Furniture Outlet-Acworth, a merchant of Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”), and filled out an application to lease various furniture items through SimpleOn May 14, S*** electronically signed the
"Lease Agreement with Right To Purchase" which describes therein the terms of payments due. It states, "The total of your payments will be $***The Total of payments is the amount you must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless you exercise an early purchase option as outlined herein."The early purchase options are described as follows: "You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying the 90-Day Option amount, $951.12...After ninety (90) days of this agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining lease payments, plus any other charges."For S*** the 90-Day Option expired on August 24th, She first contacted Simple Finance on September 24th, 2015, one month after her expiration date to be able to pay the cash price amount of $921.12, to request her remaining balance, which at the time was $*** as she had paid $***. However, we did advise her that after the days of her agreement, she may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining lease payments, a discount of 25%, if paid before the end of the 12-month Lease Agreement.This is not a legitimate business complaint. Per the agreement, her 90-day option to purchase the property for the cash price has lapsed. However, she may still exercise the second early purchase option by paying 75% of the total remaining payments, or she may continue to make lease renewal payments throughout the remaining lease period\Chelsea A***Administrative Assistant to Vice-President of Business AdministrationSimple Finance

We lament Ms***'s dissatisfaction with our response to her initial complaintHowever, as stated before, Ms*** had access to review the Agreement prior to signingIf she has further questions regarding her lease, she may contact our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-

We have received and reviewed the complaint filed by Mr*** *** on November 14, After examining the situation regarding his lease, it has been discovered that his desired settlement has already been addressed and granted; Mr*** was offered an early buy-out settlement, and he has
paid that sumMr***’s account with us has been paid in full and is now closedWe regret that he feels he did not receive the exemplary customer service we strive to provide to our customers, but are confident that a fair resolution has been reachedWe look forward to doing business with Mr*** in the future

Acima Credit, LLC received the complaint filed by Ms*** *** through the Revdex.com on November 3, We have prepared our response below Acima is a virtual rent-to- own organization that offers alternative financing to consumers who may not qualify for traditional
financingAcima offers only one lease modelOur lease model constitutes a 12- month lease of the property to the customers wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of 12-months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal paymentsAs a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (“EPOs”); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the lease Our first EPO is our 90-Day EPOThis option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $initial lease payment and a $account closure fee, within the first days of the AgreementThe 90-Day EPO is our most affordable optionThe second EPO stipulates that Ms*** may terminate the agreement at any time after the first days by paying a lump sum equivalent to 55% of the remaining lease renewal payments Ms***’s complaint states that after reading a review of Acima on the Revdex.com’s website, she discovered an Acima customer was given the opportunity to extend the 90-Day EPO deadline for a fee of $Mr***’s complaint discusses her concern that she was not given the same opportunityThe customer that Ms*** references in her complaint, elected to extend the 90-Day EPO deadline for a fee at the beginning of this yearMs*** was not offered this same option due to a policy change that eliminated the option to extend deadlines for a $feeAcima changed this policy in July 2017, before Ms***’s 90-Day EPO expired on September 17, At the time Acima allowed an extension of the 90-Day deadline, it was used only in extenuating circumstances under which Acima failed to provide the customer with adequate information so as to be aware of the 90-Day deadlineIn Ms***’s case, she was aware of the 90-Day deadline as an Acima representative reminded her of her remaining balance of 90-Day deadline during two separate phone conversations when Ms*** called AcimaIn addition to be reminded of the 90-Day deadline in two phone conversations, Ms*** was sent a copy of her Lease-Purchase Agreement which states she could exercise her 90-Day EPO anytime within the first days of the AgreementThe date of the commencement of the Agreement is printed on the top of the first page of the AgreementIn addition to receiving a copy of the Agreement, Ms*** was mailed and emailed a Welcome Notice which stated the expiration date of the 90-Day EPO Ms*** may exercise her second EPO and purchase the property by paying 55% of the remaining lease renewal payments in one lump sumIf Ms*** no longer wishes to make lease renewal payments, she may return the property to us without incurring any penalty and thereby terminate the Agreement If Ms*** has any further question regarding her lease, she may contact our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-

Acima Credit, LLC received the complaint filed by Mr*** *** through the Revdex.com on February 7, We have worked with Mr***’s attorney regarding the issue mentioned in the complaintMr*** notified Acima, through his attorney, that he feels this matter
has been resolved to his satisfaction

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 to a certain extentI'm satisfied the company did a "internal investigation" but not entirely satisfied by the companies response due to that the company had the audacity to suggest my complaint was due to the denial of creditNo where in my complaint did I speak of credit or my credit worthiness, etcMy complaint was strictly on the customer service provided by said companyNow the employee may feel she wasn't rude, but her attitude is what upset me to the point that I cancelled my application and filed this complaintI was attempting to work with Simple RTO and provide them the proper documentation to get my application completed (this can be verified by speaking with the gentleman I spoke with)He did an amazing job, I had no issue with himThe second rep who called me made it seem as if I was lying to her when I told her I'm not sure why my account only displayed days when I've had the account open for nearly yearsThen the comment of "oh well your application is denied anyways" is something that was truly uncalled for and unprofessionalAll I asked was to withdraw my applicationIn conclusion I am accepting the company's response in order not to prolong this any further than what it needs to be, I have already obtained credit elsewhere and and am purchasing the merchandise as we speakThank you again Revdex.com for your attention and cooperation in regards to this matter
Sincerely,
Benjamin A***

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received Mr***’s rejection of our response on February 23, Acima keeps a detailed record of all communications with customers, including a register of text messages, emails, and phone calls Acima uses a system where every text message sent from Acima to a customer is tracked as successfully or unsuccessfully delivered to the customer’s cell phone All text messages sent to or received from Mr***’s cell phone were successfully delivered We have attached Mr***’s text message record below We have reviewed the call recordings between our customer service agents and Mr*** Mr*** asked whether or not emails could be confirmed as delivered and our agent correctly informed him no In our previous response, we noted that text messages to our customers’ cell phones can be confirmed through our system as delivered We have not conflicted any information given to Mr*** Mr*** alleges that the buyout amount following the 90-Day EPO expiration date should not be double the amount of the 90-Day EPO purchase price The lease-purchase agreement (“Agreement”) was signed containing the full total of payments Mr*** would pay over the course of the 12-month lease term As stated in our previous response, Mr***’s total of payments is $2,to be made in payments of $weekly for months The 90-Day EPO is an option offered to customers to decrease the cost of ownership of the merchandise by paying the cash price of the merchandise within the first 90-days of the Agreement The cost of ownership and total of payments contracted for in the Agreement do not change The amounts have remained exactly the same since the commencement of the Agreement Pursuant to the 90-Day EPO expiration date, Mr*** is subject to no greater cost of ownership His failure to exercise his 90-Day EPO within the terms of the Agreement, is not a failure by Acima Mr*** was sent a copy of the Agreement on February 19, by the agent he spoke withAs stated in our previous response, Mr*** may exercise his second EPO, continue his regular payment schedule, or return the merchandise to terminate the Agreement If Mr*** has further questions, he may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-

Acima reported updated information regarding Ms***’s account to Experian on April 20, We received Ms***’s second response on April 24, stating that her report has not been updatedAcima can only control what we report to Experian, we cannot control how quickly they update their recordsHowever, it generally takes more than business daysWe ask Ms*** to wait for the next reporting cycle to see the updated information on her accountIt may take up to days to see the updated account information reflected on her credit report

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Ms*** *** through the Revdex.com on April 12, We have investigated the allegations and have prepared a response to explain the nature of the Lease-Purchase Agreement (the
“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms*** Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing Acima offers only one lease model, which is a 12-month leaseUnder the Acima lease program, the customer selects property from an independent third-party merchant, and Acima purchases that property from the merchant The customer takes the property and leases it from Acima until all of the scheduled lease renewal payments have been madeAfter all payments have been made, the Agreement is satisfied and the customer owns the property As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (“EPOs”); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and satisfies the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the AgreementThe first option is a 90-Day EPO This option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $initial payment, and a $account closure fee, within the first days of the Agreement The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the Agreement at any time after the first days of the Agreement by paying a lump sum equivalent to 50% of the remaining lease renewal payments To exercise either EPO, a customer must call Acima’s Customer Service Department or access our online customer portal to initiate the payoff processAcima will not initiate the EPO payoff without appropriate consent from the customer because such action would necessarily require Acima to violate the terms of the Agreement by withdrawing more than the regularly scheduled payment amount from the customer’s preferred payment method On November 20, 2017, Ms*** entered into the Agreement wherein she agreed to rent a set of four new tires (the “Property”) through bi-weekly payments of $for a total of $(the “Total of Payments”) The 90-Day EPO amount of $expired on February 28, On December 29, 2017, Ms*** called Acima to inquire about the Agreement terms and payment schedules Our agent advised Ms*** that her 90-Day EPO would expire on February 28, and she can set up a payment schedule to automatically exercise her EPO by the deadline Ms*** elected to use the 90-Day payoff planThe plan constituted payments of $bi-weekly until the expiration of her 90-Day EPOOur agent advised Ms*** that should any payments fail during the 90-Day payoff plan, the plan would be terminated and the regular lease renewal payments would resume On January 2, 2018, Acima attempted to draft a payment of $as agreed under the 90-Day payoff plan The payment failed due to insufficient funds and incurred a $non-sufficient funds fee as contracted for under Paragraph of the Agreement Acima did not hear from Ms*** until April 12, when our collections agent called her attempting to cure her past due balanceMs*** had failed to make her payments due on March and April 13, due to insufficient funds Ms*** admitted during this phone call that she was aware the January 2, payment had failed and she had not attempted to make payment arrangements to reinstate her 90-Day payment planAs her 90-Day EPO expired in February, Ms*** is liable for the Total of Payments contained within the Agreement As of the date of this response, Ms*** has paid a total of $in lease renewal payments and has a remaining Total of Payments balance of $Ms*** alleges in her complaint that Acima has charged $in service fees This is untrueMs*** has accrued $in non-sufficient funds fees and late fees for three failed payments Ms*** says she will not pay more than $for a non-sufficient funds feeShe is paying $each for three failed payments Two late fees of $each were applied to the March and April failed paymentsMs*** has asked Acima to honor her 90-Day EPO price by allowing a final payment of $ However, such a payment would not satisfy even the 90-Day EPO amountSince the 90-Day EPO expired day ago, we cannot honor this request Ms*** was advised that any payment failure would terminate the 90-Day payoff plan and failed to contact Acima to cure the failed payments or to exercise her 90-Day EPO However, Ms*** may still exercise her second EPOAs of the date of this response, she may terminate the Agreement by paying a lump sum of $plus sales taxWe hope this explanation of the Agreement helps Ms*** understand her contractual obligations We appreciate her business and look forward to working with herIf Ms*** has remaining questions or wishes to make a payment, she may call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-

To Whom It May Concern: The potential customer issuing the complaint, Benjamin A***, attempted to qualify for credit with Simple RTO, LLC, on July 20, 2015, the same day he issued the complaint The two employees that work in the underwriting department that took A***'s phone calls
were available for interviewing, just a few hours after the alleged misconduct occurred Internal Procedure: First, A*** submitted an application with our company Secondly, as standard procedure, an employee called A*** to verify the information submitted in the application and to make sure the application was not sent fraudulently Next, our underwriting department is required to verify bank account information before running an initial background check This bank account verification resulted in a denial I'm not certain exactly what A***'s complaint is, whether it is that he was treated "rudely" or he was denied credit Because finance companies are free to run background checks and approve or deny the extension of credit based upon an applicant's "credit-worthiness," I will assume that A*** is attempting to complain about our employee's communication skills A*** said our employee "...gave me a major attitude...Once she got rude I then changed my mind about the whole application so I asked her can I cancel my request, she then said 'oh don't worry, your getting denied anyway.' I then hung up the phone furious." We concede that the substance of the communication is what A*** states, but we reject the accusation of our employee acting rudely The employee that happened to be speaking to A*** sits directly next to the manager of the underwriting department Both the employee and the manager flatly refused the accusation that the employee spoke rudely to A*** In fact, when questioned, the employee was taken aback when told of A***'s accusation, and she was confused because she said that she thought the phone call went well and that A*** and she were both calm and nice to each other on the phone Furthermore, the underwriting manager said that this particular employee is the most soft-spoken and kindest employees in her department The manager also said that she doesn't recall one terse conversation from this particular employee this morning, as she sits directly next to her Simple RTO, LLC has done nothing wrong in the implementation of its policies nor has its employees communicated with A*** in anything but a professional manner Jesse S*Vice-PresidentSimple RTO, LLC

On October 14, 2015, *** *** entered US Made
Mattress, Inc., an independent merchant of Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple
Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”), and filled out an application
to lease various furniture items through Simple. On October 14, ***
***
electronically signed the “Lease Agreement with Right to Purchase” which
describes therein the terms of payments owed
1. Ms*** said, “On 12/28/I missed my scheduled payment so I called on 12/30/2015”
Ms*** was set up on automatic payments to pay the
minimum amount of $***On 12/28/15, when the scheduled payment was due,
Simple processed her minimum paymentAll payments processed through the ACH
network can take several days to be processed before they are returned for
insufficient funds or received for paymentWhen Ms*** called Simple
Finance on 12/30/15, her payment that had been processed on 12/28/was
still “pending”, of which she was made aware by the customer service
representative with whom she spoke on 12/30/15, as notated in her account
2. Ms*** also said, “I spoke to [Customer Service Representative] and he told me in order to
close the account and be in compliance with my day same as cash agreement I
had to pay $so I paid the amount to Jeff and he sent me a receipt via
e-mail.”
The Lease-Purchase Agreement states in paragraph two (2),
titled “Payments”, “You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during
the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying $*** (“90-Day
Option”)It later states in the same paragraph, “You must be current in your
payments to exercise an early purchase option.” Ms*** was informed
correctly that her remaining balance to be paid was $657.20, because as of
12/30/the payment from 12/28/had not yet returned, it was still
“pending”, and showed on her account as having paid $***Therefore, Simple
took the payment of $on 12/30/and closed the account, showing it was
paid in fullOn 1/4/Simple was notified that the payment processed on
12/28/was returned as “Non-Sufficient Funds”Consequently, the account
was no longer “Paid in Full”, as Ms*** now owed the last payment of
$75.76, in addition to the $returned check fee charged by Simple Finance for
a returned payment, agreed upon in the Lease-Purchase Agreement under paragraph
ten (10) titled, “Payment method/Payment change”, section “Returned Payment/Bad
Check Fees”, which states “You agree to pay us $for each payment returned to
us unpaid, be it paper check, demand draft, ACH/EFT, wire transfer, or any
negotiable instrument.” Because the payment of $*** that was processed on
12/28/was returned unpaid, and incurred a fee of $25.00, the balance owed to
close the account was $***Simple processed her regular minimum payment of
$*** on 1/5/16, the day after her original payment returnedThe payment on
processed on 1/5/returned on 1/11/with a non-sufficient fund fee,
incurring another $returned check fee from Simple Finance, bringing the
remaining balance to $***
3. Ms*** said, “On 01/11/I e-mailed [Customer Service Representative] that I was
still being charged as of 01/08/for $and accruing NSF fees because
of this, on 1/13/he replied back via e-mail “Sorry to get back to you a
day laterI looked over your account and reviewed what happened and as far as
I can tell your account was closed before the charge was sent throughI have
informed my supervisor about that and he is currently working on reversing the
charge.”
Upon further review of the account’s payment history it was
discovered that a reversal of all charges, or all refunds was not necessary nor
required as it is Ms***’s responsibility to have sufficient funds in her
bank account to pay the regular minimum scheduled payment towards her Simple
balanceThe payment taken on 1/4/was to cover the unpaid amount
originally due on 12/28/There was a payment taken again on 1/7/to
cover her next due date for 1/8/2016, however, the credit card payment of
$had not been calculated by the computer system, which would have made
the next payment due to not be on 1/8/15, rather further in the futureBecause
of the miscalculation in due dates by the computer system Simple will refund an
NSF fee to Ms***, pending the receipt of her bank statement clearly
showing the 1/8/payment to Simple causing an NSF fee
4. Ms*** claims, “One week later I was called again by a representative…from the finance
company and told that I did not pay my account in full that I still owed the
$and that I was informed by [Customer Service Representative] in their
notes, that he told me there was a pending balance still, and that I was made
aware of thisThis is completely false! I let the female representative know
that had I known there was still a pending balance I would have paid it at the
time I called on the 30th of December and that I should not still
have to pay the return check fees from Simple finance that were charged to me
after 12/30/ [15] when I called to pay the account in fullI told the repI
would have gladly paid any late fees or the pending balances if I would have
just been made aware there was still outstanding or pending balances.”
Although Ms*** claims to not have been made aware of
her pending payment, our Customer Service Representative did, in fact, notate
on her account that he notified her of the 12/18/payment and its pending
statusWhich, later Ms*** admitted to our Customer Service Supervisor
that she was aware would return and failed to notify the Customer Service
Representative on 12/30/
The supervisor who reviewed Ms***’s account called her
on 1/15/16, and 2/2/before Ms*** returned the call on 2/5/to discuss
her accountAs of 1/18/the 90-Day Option to pay off the account for a total
of $*** had expired, leaving the total of payments for ownership at $***
($*** + $late fee + $late fee) owed to Simple Finance to pay off the
accountThe supervisor waived both returned check fees and extended the 90-Day
Option, giving a total pay off balance of $***Ms*** claims that she
was not made aware of any pending balances, or she would have paid them on
12/30/as stated aboveHowever, Ms*** seems to have misunderstood that
there was not a “pending balance”, rather a “pending payment”
When a payment is pending, it is impossible to know if it
will be received or returned as an insufficient fund feeOn 12/30/15, there was
no way Simple could have possibly known that Ms***’s payment of $***
paid on 12/28/would return unpaid on 1/4/16, reopening her accountWe
cannot ask a customer to pay an additional amount equaling their minimum
payment, in this case $***, to their pay off balanceBecause if the pending
payment of $*** had been cleared, Ms*** would have paid an extra
$***As a company that values honesty and fairness, we cannot require extra
payments from customers “just in case” payments are returned, requiring
refundsWe legally can only take the amount of what is owed, including late
fees, in which case we waived as a courtesy to Ms***
5. She also said, “She then again threatened to re-open my contract to charge me hundreds
and hundreds of dollars.”
The supervisor did not “threaten” Ms***The fact is
that her account already was automatically reopened after her payment returned
In addition to waving $in returned check fees, Simple also extended the
90-Day expiration date, well after the deadline of 1/18/2016, by allowing the
Ms*** to pay off her account on 2/5/for $***Simple would never,
nor could we legally charge “hundreds and hundreds” of extra dollars that were
never owed
This is not a legitimate business complaintMs*** was
never lied to, threatened or treated rudelyWhen the complaint was brought to
our attention, her case was investigated in depth, which resulted in the
discovery that she did not have sufficient funds in the checking account she
gave to us to pay her remaining balanceShe is responsible for having
sufficient funds to make her paymentsIf she doesn’t have sufficient funds for
her scheduled payments, and she receives an NSF fee from her financial
institution then it is her responsibility to pay for it, as it is not the fault
of Simple Finance
As previously explained, the payment processed on 1/8/
was not a regularly scheduled payment and is therefore eligible for a refund of
an NSF fee if it did in fact cause one, pending the receipt of a bank statement
clearly showing that the 1/8/payment for $*** processed by Simple
Finance incurred an NSF feeWithout a bank statement proving the NSF fee, with
its corresponding date and transaction, the refund will not be issued
Even though Simple Finance has the legal right, per the
signed Lease Agreement, to require the full contract amount of $*** to be
paid in full, as the 90-Day Option expired two (2) weeks before the total of
payment for ownership was paid in full, we still waived two (2) returned check
fees totaling $and extended the 90-Day Option, saving Ms***
$***

On February 5, 2018, Ms*** rejected our response to her initial complaint alleging Acima was not answering our telephones and she was unable to contact us to change her banking information It is the customer’s responsibility to notify Acima when their banking information has changed Acima provides both telephone, email, and online chat service to help our customers with their service needs Ms*** missed her first payment on December 28, Ms*** had multiple ways to reach Acima to update her banking information since her first missed paymentAcima values our customers and wishes to provide excellent customer serviceTo date, Ms*** has not provided updated banking information and has a past due balance of $ Ms*** has refused to work with Acima to resolve her account issues We ask Ms*** to call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-to update her banking information and cure her past due balance

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Your so called response of my obligation once again was not as I was told off hand again if I was told you were going to add more fees then the excess of $i was told about and the paper I put my signature on stated $some how ended up to be over $if tour employees knew how to explain exactly what all fees will be placed there is no way in hell I would have agreed to any of it and your merchants handed out the rights and regulations as they should and certainly before you put your signature on something that is completely not what you were signing up for it would be different yall are crooks in my eyes and I will not pay what yall state im contracted to I will pay what I knew what I was paying you all messed up not me
Sincerely,
*** ***

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.
Sincerely,
*** ***

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
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: you do not train your representatives, to properly offer your service, I have read multiple complaints where several people had the exact same experience as me, not only on the Revdex.com website, but it also includes the consumer financial protection bureau, and your very own Facebook pageI would understand if this a isolated incident that happened to me but how do you explain all those other exact same complaints with the same exact issueFrom all the complaints it looks like you are scamming customers by not allowing consumers to read your agreements and not providing copies alsoI want you to honor the verbal agreement that your representative explained to me or take your product back and provide me a full refundAnd also please update your representatives with proper training and give your potential customers full disclosure of your agreements/practices
Sincerely,
*** ***

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received Mr*** ***’s rejection of our response on March 21, We have accurately and truthfully recounted the events surrounding the initiation of Mr***’s lease-purchase agreement (“Agreement”) in our previous response Mr*** has made new allegations which we shall address belowMr*** claims he was told he would have monthly payments drafted on the 18th of every month We have no records of this being relayed to Mr*** nor of him requesting this payment schedule Acima drafts automatic lease renewal payments on our customers’ pay daysMr*** indicated on his application for our services that he was paid semi-monthly We built his Agreement according to the information verified on his applicationWe did not violate the terms of the Agreement by drafting his first renewal payment on December 4, As stated in our previous response, Mr*** requested to change his payment schedule to monthly payments drafted on the 20th of every monthMr*** has been unsatisfied and uncooperative in arranging and completing a payment scheduleAt no time did any Acima agent advise Mr*** to dispute the December 4th payment with his bank Mr*** chose to dispute the charge on his own accordAcima offered to credit Mr***’s account to cover the cost of the first lease renewal payment to reduce the payment amount to de-escalate Mr***’s complaint Mr*** alleges our supervising agents never returned his phone calls This is untrueOur supervisors have returned his calls on December and December 22, Mr*** alleges two persons “with paperwork” took the Property Mr*** has provided conflicting information regarding the location of the Property On March 20, 2018, he called Acima and claimed the Property had been returned to the merchant, Crazy Deals Our Resolutions Department verified with Crazy Deals that the Property had not been returned or repossessedMr*** has provided unclear and conflicting information regarding the Property’s location Pursuant to Paragraph of the Agreement, Mr*** “must keep the Property at [his home address], unless we give [him] permission to move it.” Acima has not initiated a repossession or return of the Property as Mr*** has refused to comply with our return instructions Acima has not sent any agents to repossess the PropertyMr*** has been verbally abusive with our agents If Mr*** calls Acima and becomes verbally abusive or threatens violence again, Acima will not tolerate such abuse and will take appropriate measures to protect our agents and contact local authorities Acima seeks to provide the highest degree of customer service while maintaining the safety and integrity of our employees and workplaceWe have done everything in our power to help Mr*** with his Agreement He has been recalcitrant and uncooperative in reaching any form of solutionMr*** will not be approved for our services in the future