American Recovery Service

Review: The gear shift and ignition of my vehicle was damaged by the tow company contracted by [redacted] When picking my vehicle up from the tow company, we were approached by thugs who basically threatened our physical safety. Upon entering the vehicle, the gear shift had been ripped out, in addition to damage to the ignition. The vehicle was not drivable due to the damage. In order to rent a car and to have the damage repaired by a local dealership, it cost us $1086. The mechanic working on our vehicle stated that the damage came due to the towing company not properly towing the vehicle and ripping out the gear shift to get the car into neutral. In addition, our vehicle had been broken into in order to get access to the gear shift and ignition. In the company's supposed review of our claim, they basically took the word of the thugs operating the 'tow company,' as they were basically contracted out by [redacted] to carry out the contract. Legally, the company is responsible for the vehicle while it was in their 'care.'Desired Settlement: I have attempted to file a claim with the company, which was rejected by [redacted], who basically completed an 'internal review' of the supposed 'tow company' without taking into consideration that legally, the car was under their care while at the tow yard, that without keys, the car would have to have been broken into, and that the gear shift was ripped off while in their 'facility.' I am requesting a refund in the amount of $1086.

Business

Response:

We are a nationwide repossession management firm. Our team of associates

provides complete repossession portfolio management solutions for financial

institutions across the nation. As a provider of outsourced repossession

management services for banks, credit unions, leasing companies, and other

lenders, ARS/SB does not directly perform any physical repossession. Instead we

make arrangements on behalf of our financial institution clients for

repossession services to be provided by independent, professional licensed

recovery agencies. As a longstanding professional organization we appreciate the opportunity to

evaluate our personnel and processes to ensure that our staff is performing

their employment functions in accordance with our identified policies as well

as industry standards and regulations. By nature, the business of asset

recovery can often times be a contentious and emotion filled process through

which we strive to bring a calm and professional perspective. ARS strives to provide excellence in our services at all

times. Our Claims Department evaluates any allegation of impropriety or

wrongdoing throughout the repossession process. Our purpose is to gather

all material facts, any physical evidence, and written statements from all

involved parties in order to conduct an independent investigation to determine

if any impropriety or wrongdoing took place relative to your claim. If

possible, ARS will work with the local repossession agency to facilitate a

resolution that is acceptable to them and satisfies customer interests. We have

reviewed the provided information and completed the investigation into this

claim. The local repossession agency has the appropriate documentation to

support their position that the damage was not caused by them. This claim was appropriately closed as a result. Again we appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to evaluate our staff

and processes and hope that this will serve as an acceptable response to your

concerns. Regards,

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: Simply discussing what type of business they conduct does not absolve them of their legal responsibility to provide compensation for the damage caused to my vehicle. They claim that they performed an investigation into the damage, but have failed to provide me with any of the documentation which would disprove my claim that the damage to the gear shift and ignition was caused by the towing 'company.' The vehicle was in their possession when the damage occurs, therefore both legally and logically, the da,age was incurred by the tow 'company' hired by this 'business.' They claim to inspect the facilities once a year, but have provided no proof of inspection, no proof of the legitimacy of the tow 'company' no proof of ever having spoken to the tow 'company', no proof of how my vehicle was towed, and no transparency in their entire dealings with me. Since there have been other claims filed against this 'business,' it is obvious that the management does not take due diligence in its contracting process in ensuring the safety of both the vehicles and the owners of these vehicles, as threats were made to my safety and the safety of my father, when we picked up my vehicle from this so called 'facility.' My father is a retired veteran of the USMC and USN with over 30 years of service. Neither my father nor myself would have any reason to lie regarding the damage to my vehicle, especially since we found garbage, damage to the ignition and gear shift, and out belongings having been looked through. This in itself is illegal on the part of the tow 'company' and this so called 'business.' Furthermore, the tow 'company' did not have the keys to the vehicle, meaning that the garbage and damage could only have been caused by illegal entry in the vehicle. For all we know, this tow 'company' could still have illegal copies of the 'key' made to enter my car, which they could use at any time to steal or otherwise cause further damage to my vehicle. Therefore, I am still requesting compensation for the $1086 in da,age made to my vehicle. I could have made additional claims regarding lost wages due to time taken off due to the lack of access to my vehicle. I am also requesting that the business never make use of the tow 'company' in question. (Having read previous complaints made against this 'business,' the management obviously uses their copy and pasted response above as a standard reply to any consumer filing a complaint against them.)

Business

Response:

I'm very sorry that our initial detailed response failed to meet with the customers satisfaction. In reference to this issue, on November 19th 2015 at 12:24 PST our office provided the customer full details of the findings associated with this claim as well as a clear disposition for it's denial. Should the customer feel the need to revisit this issue for further clarity please feel free to contact our Claims and Professional Standards Department at [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: As stated previously, the company provided no clear or legal basis for its decision. The company claimed that they inspected the facility but have provided no proof of their inspections and no proof that the damage was not caused by the thugs running this facility. This company had no regard for the safety of the consumer nor the safety of the vehicles in their possession. The thugs running this facility threaded the physical safety of both myself and my father. There was garbage strewn about the vehicle, as well as the gear shift having been ripped from vehicle, and the ignition tampered with. The company has provided no legally sufficient proof of how the vehicle was towed. The thugs broke into my vehicle and ripped off the gear shift to place the vehicle in neutral according to the car dealership. Because no clear or legally sufficient proof has been provided for the denial of this claim, I am still requesting the full amount of $1086 required to repair my vehicle so that it was even drivable again. In addition, the dealership had to take significant steps to clean the interior and exterior of my vehicle.

Review: I work for a bankruptcy attorney and Investigations called a mutual client trying to collect. They called mutual client for collection post petition.

Problem Date: 12/16/13

Account Number: Company refused to provide

Phone Number Called: ###-###-####

Contact Person: [redacted]

According to my client, this company has called her many times demanding payment and payment arrangement. If agreeable terms were not met, they would be charging her with bank fraud and send her to jail. As I assisted with her bankruptcy filing, I attempted to contact the company with my client on the phone to determine if the debt was discharged in the bankruptcy filed in April 2012. Mr. [redacted], refused to speak with me or my client or provide any information regarding why they have been contacting her. When she requested the information, we were met with silence. It is illegal for a company to attempt to collect on a discharged debt and the phone call's purpose was to ensure that they were not trying to do that. I have had companies sell discharged debt in the past and I wanted to ensure that this was not the case.Desired Settlement: Stop the collection against my client and change collection practices to help the consumer. Stop threatening consumers and use legal collection practices.

Business

Response:

We are a nationwide repossession management firm. Our team of associates provides complete repossession portfolio management solutions for financial institutions across the nation. As a provider of outsourced repossession management services for banks, credit unions, leasing companies, and other lenders, ARS/SB does not directly perform any physical repossession. Instead we make arrangements on behalf of our financial institution clients for repossession services to be provided by independent, professional licensed recovery agencies. As a longstanding professional organization we appreciate the opportunity to evaluate our personnel and processes to ensure that our staff is performing their employment functions in accordance with our identified policies as well as industry standards and regulations. By nature, the business of asset recovery can often times be a contentious and emotion filled process through which we strive to bring a calm and professional perspective. In accordance with our highly regulated industry, ARS/SB prides itself in ensuring the strictest of confidentiality is maintained when it comes to the identities of our client’s and their customers who have found themselves navigating through the unfortunate process of repossession. The details of the interaction outlined by [redacted]’s client is that of collections activity and is outside of the scope of services that ARS/SB performs for our clients. Therefore the conduct and statements alleged by [redacted]’s client are not only outside the business need for ARS/SB they would also be in direct contradiction to our service purpose which is repossession. Although we appreciate anytime a client informs us that an account is being closed as a result of an arrangement between the finance company and the customer, it is in no way our business model to facilitate such a resolution. Again we appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to evaluate our staff and processes and hope that this will serve as an acceptable response to your concerns.