Dealertrack Technologies

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,
*** ***

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. The supervisor of MyTitleSupport called the complainant on 4/4/2016 and left a message for the complainant to call him back. The complainant called the MyTitleSupport...

supervisor back forty five minutes later and the MyTitleSupport supervisor explained to the complainant that the delay on his order for a lien satisfaction letter for a 2001 [redacted] with the VIN ending in [redacted] was caused by MyTitleSupport having to contact the lender to obtain the account and payoff information due to the age of the vehicle. The supervisor then mailed the complainant’s document to the complainant, followed by a faxed copy, within an hour of speaking with the complainant. The complainant was satisfied with that resolution and told the MyTitleSupport supervisor that he no longer wanted a refund and that his needs had been met.   We have had no communication with the complainant since 4/4/16. At this time, the requested document has been mailed to the complainant and the fax was sent as requested. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter.   Regards,     [redacted]

In regards to complaint [redacted] I was contacted by a supervisor, [redacted], to resolve the question of where my title was. My title was already at the business and [redacted] sent it next day mail to the requested DMV. I still think someone needs to coach [redacted] on if someone has a complaint and...

wants to speak to a supervisor how to handle that especially when she cannot answer my question, but am grateful that I was contacted by [redacted] and the title was found and sent immediately. I feel comfortable closing the complaint for this issue and this is my in writing notification of that. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,  [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com posted 08/07/15, our employees have further investigated the history of this matter.In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, submitted 7/9/15, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. The complainant placed a phone order for a duplicate title for a 2010 Subaru Outback with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ending in 2003 on 3/26/15. The complainant’s order was fulfilled on 4/1/15, meaning a duplicate title application was mailed to the PA DMV, along with a check in the amount of $50, a lien satisfaction letter, an “Assignment Pursuant to Purchase and Interim Servicing Agreement” between Bank of America NA and Citizens Bank, and a letter instructing the PA DMV to remove the lien and send the duplicate title directly to the owner. Normally, once the PA DMV receives this type of paperwork, they process the application, deposit the check, remove the lien, issue a title without a lien, and mail the title to the owner’s address as indicated on our instructional letter. The MyTitleSupport representatives never received a rejection letter from the PA DMV for this vehicle, so the MyTitleSupport representatives did not know there was a problem until the complainant called on 7/9/15. The complainant told a MyTitleSupport team lead representative on 7/9/15 that the PA DMV sent a rejection letter to her because in addition to placing an order for MyTitleSupport to apply for a duplicate title, the complainant also applied for her own duplicate title. The application that the PA DMV rejected was the application that the complainant submitted, which is why the PA DMV sent the rejection letter to the complainant and not to MyTitleSupport. The complainant told the MyTitleSupport team lead representative that the PA DMV told her that MyTitleSupport didn’t submit any documents to the PA DMV. The MyTitleSupport team lead representative told the complainant that she would investigate the issue, and on 7/9/15 she sent a notarized lien satisfaction letter to the complainant in case the PA DMV required her to submit one. Upon further investigation, MyTitleSupport discovered that the $50 check that was sent to the PA DMV (PennDOT) did clear, and MyTitleSupport has an image of the cleared check. That information was given to the complainant on 7/10/15. On 7/10/15, the complainant called MyTitleSupport and said that the PA DMV now told her that they issued a duplicate title and mailed it to Bank of America in Jacksonville, FL. On 7/10/15, a MyTitleSupport team lead representative called the PA DMV to find out why the PA DMV did not issue the title according to the paperwork that was submitted. The MyTitleSupport team lead representative requested that a corrected title be issued or that the PA DMV refund MyTitleSupport. The PA DMV representative said he was sending a message to the processing unit that received the paperwork that MyTitleSupport submitted and said that somebody would call the MyTitleSupport team lead representative back directly with an update within threebusiness days. The PA DMV did not call MyTitleSupport with an update. A MyTitleSupport supervisor left a voicemail for the complainant on 8/12/15 to follow up on this issue, but did not receive a call back.Besides leaving a voicemail on 8/12/15, we have had no communication with the complainant since 7/10/15. After reviewing this complaint we find that we have followed our policies and procedures and no errors were made on our part. Upon further investigation with the complainant’s home state of Ohio, MyTitleSupport learned that the OH BMV issued a title without a lien on 8/1/15. In order for OH to issue a title, an out of state title must have been submitted to OH, so it appears that the complainant was able to obtain a lien free PA title. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions regarding this matter.Regards,Dealertrack(937) 655-4704

I am rejecting this response because:BECAUSE IN THE PAST I HAD 3 OTHER LEIN RELEASES THAT TOOK MORE PHONE CALLS AND FAXES FOR EACH ONE - ALL THE SAME RESPONSE FROM THEM - SAYING THEY NEVER REC'D WHAT I SENT THEM EVEN THO I SENT THE CONFIRMATION SHEETS WITH THE FAXES IN THE PAST  I SENT A COMPAINT TO MY TITLE SUPPORT THEY GAVE ME AN ADDRESS FOR DEALTRACK TECHNOLIGES. WHICH I GAVE YOU THE ADDRESS IN MY COMPAINTTHEY WILL NEVER TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED BUT I WILL FIND ANOTHER COMPANY TO DEAL WITH.  WE PAID TO MUCH MONEY FOR THE SERVICE WE RECEIVED FROM  THIS COMPANY

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com posted 08/07/15, our employees have further investigated the history of this matter.In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, submitted 7/9/15, our employees have investigated the history of this...

matter. The complainant placed a phone order for a duplicate title for a 2010 Subaru Outback with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ending in 2003 on 3/26/15. The complainant’s order was fulfilled on 4/1/15, meaning a duplicate title application was mailed to the PA DMV, along with a check in the amount of $50, a lien satisfaction letter, an “Assignment Pursuant to Purchase and Interim Servicing Agreement” between Bank of America NA and Citizens Bank, and a letter instructing the PA DMV to remove the lien and send the duplicate title directly to the owner. Normally, once the PA DMV receives this type of paperwork, they process the application, deposit the check, remove the lien, issue a title without a lien, and mail the title to the owner’s address as indicated on our instructional letter. The MyTitleSupport representatives never received a rejection letter from the PA DMV for this vehicle, so the MyTitleSupport representatives did not know there was a problem until the complainant called on 7/9/15. The complainant told a MyTitleSupport team lead representative on 7/9/15 that the PA DMV sent a rejection letter to her because in addition to placing an order for MyTitleSupport to apply for a duplicate title, the complainant also applied for her own duplicate title. The application that the PA DMV rejected was the application that the complainant submitted, which is why the PA DMV sent the rejection letter to the complainant and not to MyTitleSupport. The complainant told the MyTitleSupport team lead representative that the PA DMV told her that MyTitleSupport didn’t submit any documents to the PA DMV. The MyTitleSupport team lead representative told the complainant that she would investigate the issue, and on 7/9/15 she sent a notarized lien satisfaction letter to the complainant in case the PA DMV required her to submit one. Upon further investigation, MyTitleSupport discovered that the $50 check that was sent to the PA DMV (PennDOT) did clear, and MyTitleSupport has an image of the cleared check. That information was given to the complainant on 7/10/15. On 7/10/15, the complainant called MyTitleSupport and said that the PA DMV now told her that they issued a duplicate title and mailed it to Bank of America in Jacksonville, FL. On 7/10/15, a MyTitleSupport team lead representative called the PA DMV to find out why the PA DMV did not issue the title according to the paperwork that was submitted. The MyTitleSupport team lead representative requested that a corrected title be issued or that the PA DMV refund MyTitleSupport. The PA DMV representative said he was sending a message to the processing unit that received the paperwork that MyTitleSupport submitted and said that somebody would call the MyTitleSupport team lead representative back directly with an update within threebusiness days. The PA DMV did not call MyTitleSupport with an update. A MyTitleSupport supervisor left a voicemail for the complainant on 8/12/15 to follow up on this issue, but did not receive a call back.Besides leaving a voicemail on 8/12/15, we have had no communication with the complainant since 7/10/15. After reviewing this complaint we find that we have followed our policies and procedures and no errors were made on our part. Upon further investigation with the complainant’s home state of Ohio, MyTitleSupport learned that the OH BMV issued a title without a lien on 8/1/15. In order for OH to issue a title, an out of state title must have been submitted to OH, so it appears that the complainant was able to obtain a lien free PA title. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions regarding this matter.Regards,Dealertrack###-###-####

Well, you processed the request and accepted my payment. If you can not provide the information I should be refunded the fee paid.  I also explained to the caller I was looking for the fax confirmation which was never received. I also stated, I had full power of attorney and would provide. Had I not called there would have been no question asked as I completed for [redacted]. This is unacceptable to take money and not provide a service. This was also not a request for a replacement lein release. The original was never sent when the loan was paid off.  I do not understand how a company can withhold something that is rightfully mine and you must pay for something that should have been sent.  A refund for a service not provided needs to be provided.  If this issue is not resolved a lawyer will be contacted through the military to assist a disabled veteran. Thank you.

I am writing in reference to Case #[redacted]. To provide some background, MyTitleSupport (MTS) is a service offered by Dealertrack. This service enables lenders and their clients to obtain a Release of Lien or a Duplicate Title for eligible post paid-off vehicles. Our lender partners...

may also submit State and Name Change transactions for active loans with Dealertrack acting as title agents on behalf of our lender partners. We have procedures in place, based on the requirements of our lenders, to ensure the requestor is eligible prior to executing their requests.In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, we have investigated the history of this transaction, which is listed below. 12/07/16: The complainant placed a phone order for a duplicate title. 12/13/16: A Duplicate Title Application was mailed to the complainant to sign and return. The reason for mailing the application is due to the state of Illinois requiring the owner's signature when ordering a duplicate title.01/13/17: Since MTS had not yet received the signed Duplicate Title Application, an email message was sent to the complaint reminding her to complete and return the application. 02/15/17: The complainant called MTS to report she had not received the Duplicate Title Application.04/17/17: The complainant called MTS and stated she had received the second Duplicate Title Application, completed it, and mailed it the next day in return-address envelope provided with the application. MTS had no record of receiving the completed application. The complainant stated she could no longer remain on the phone, so the MTS  team member told her a Team Lead would research the issue and call her back. The Team Lead called the complainant back and left a voice mail message asking her to call him so they could discuss how she would like to proceed with her order. The complaint returned the Team Lead's call, who offered to refund the duplicate Title transaction fee. He then asked if the complainant wanted MTS to send her another Duplicate Title application, or if she preferred a Lien Satisfaction Letter which she could take to the Illinois Secretary of State and order a duplicate title. The complaint opted for the Lien Satisfaction Letter, and the Team Lead waived the Lien Satisfaction Letter fee.04/18/17: The Lien Satisfaction Letter was mailed to the complainant. 05/09/17: The complainant called MTS to report she had not yet received the refund check for her Duplicate Title order. The MTS team ember asked the Team Lead to research the issue and call the complainant back.  The Team Lead contacted the Accounting Department and was informed they did not receive a refund check request from 04/17/17. The Team Lead submitted a new refund check request. 05/10/17: The Accounting Department confirmed receipt of the refund check request, and reported the check would be issued on 05/19/17. 05/30/17: The complainant called MTS and asked to speak with a Team Lead, and reported she had not received the refund check. The Team Lead said he would research the issue and call the complainant back. The Team Lead contacted our Accounting Department and was told the check had been mailed out on 05/19/17. The Team Lead reviewed the mailing address and discovered the Accounting Department had entered an incorrect digit in the complainant's address, which resulted in the check being mailed to the wrong address. The Team Lead called the complainant to explain the error. He also stated a new check would be mailed to her, and he would call her back with the new check number and mailing date once he had the information. 06/07/17: A new refund check was issued and mailed to the complainant. 06/13/17: The complainant cashed or deposited the refund check. The action represented satisfaction of the complainant's issue. MTS has had no further communication with the complainant since 05/30/17, and we have fully refunded all fees associated with these transactions.

Complaint Information:

...


The customer’s account was closed and removed from billing as requested by 10/24/14. However, Dealertrack maintains that it is not possible for a customer to enter into a contract accidentally, as prior to signing a contract, the customer must engage in conversations about the product and will often view a demonstration. After those steps have been completed, the customer must fill out and sign multiple documents, including the contract. The cancellation of a signed contract is not a typical business practice, but Dealertrack had, in fact, canceled the contract in this case and had responded appropriately and timely to the customer. Dealertrack continues to strive for excellence in all facets of business.

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. On 8/2/16, the complainant placed an online order for a name change on the title for a 2014 [redacted]. About three hours after the order was placed, a MyTitleSupport...

representative reviewed the complainant’s order. The “old name” and “new name” listed on the order were completely different names, so it was unclear if the name change that was requested was to remove an individual from the title and add another individual to the title, or if the name change was to change the entire name of the individual who was on the title. The MyTitleSupport representative called the complainant and left a voicemail asking her to call MyTitleSupport back regarding her order. The complainant called MyTitleSupport a few minutes later and informed the MyTitleSupport representative that her first, middle, and last names have all changed. The MyTitleSupport representative asked the complainant to fax proof of the name change to MyTitleSupport so MyTitleSupport can confirm that the complainant’s name did legally change. On 8/3/16, the complainant faxed a copy of her most recent marriage certificate, a copy of her driver license, and a copy of her social security card to MyTitleSupport. A MyTitleSupport representative reviewed the documents and was unable to locate anything that indicates that the complainant’s middle name was becoming her first name, or that her maiden name was becoming her new middle name. At the time the marriage certificate was issued, her last name was not her maiden name; it was the last name from a previous marriage. The MyTitleSupport representative called the complainant and left a message asking her to call MyTitleSupport regarding her order. The complainant called MyTitleSupport and explained that her middle name is becoming her first name, her maiden name is becoming her middle name, and her husband’s last name is becoming her last name. The MyTitleSupport representative asked the complainant if she had any other documentation to show all of the changes that are being made, and she said that the documents she already faxed to MyTitleSupport was the only proof she has, and no other documentation was given to her when her name changed. The MyTitleSupport representative explained that the documentation received didn’t show her middle name becoming her first name or her maiden name becoming her middle name and explained that MyTitleSupport usually receives more documentation than what she was able to provide. The complainant requested to cancel her order, and the MyTitleSupport representative reminded the complainant that when she placed her order, she agreed that all sales are final and no refunds are given, but if she can provide MyTitleSupport with more documentation supporting all of the changes being made to her name, MyTitleSupport would be able to continue to process the name change on her title. The complainant still wanted to cancel her order. On 8/8/16, a MyTitleSupport supervisor e-mailed the complainant’s lender to explain the situation and provided a copy of the fax that was sent to MyTitleSupport. The lender responded to the MyTitleSupport supervisor on 8/9/16 approving the name change. The MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant on 8/10/16 to let her know that her order was going to be processed based on her lender’s approval. The complainant told the MyTitleSupport supervisor that she received poor customer service the last time she spoke with a MyTitleSupport representative. The MyTitleSupport supervisor apologized and let her know that he was refunding her order in full. The complainant was satisfied with this resolution. We have had no communication with the complainant since the MyTitleSupport supervisor called her on 8/10/16. At this time, the complainant’s name change order with MyTitleSupport is being processed as she requested and the complainant has received a refund of the purchase price. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter. Regards, [redacted] Vice President Lender Solutions Dealertrack Technologies [redacted]

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. On 6/13/16 the complainant placed an online order for a lien satisfaction letter for a 2004 Dodge Ram Pickup with the VIN ending in [redacted]. Within forty five minutes of...

the order being placed, a [redacted] representative called the complainant and left a voicemail explaining that we needed written approval from the party who paid off his loan prior to sending a lien satisfaction letter to him. If the complainant were to have been the party who paid off the loan, authorization would not be required and [redacted] would have sent the lien satisfaction letter to him; however, when a third party pays off a loan, they are the only party who is authorized to receive a lien satisfaction letter, unless [redacted] is provided with written approval from the payoff party to send a lien satisfaction letter to another party. Some examples of acceptable written approvals are a bill of sale or a written authorization letter. When the complainant placed his order online, there was a statement on the [redacted] website which said, “If you are not the party that paid off the account, please note that authorization will be required and may delay receipt of your Lien Satisfaction.” The same verbiage appears on his [redacted] order receipt in the “Special Instruction” section. The complainant called [redacted] on 6/13/16 and a [redacted] representative told the complainant that [redacted] needed authorization from the payoff party before the lien satisfaction letter could be sent to the complainant. The complainant called [redacted] about ten minutes later and said that the payoff party would not provide him with any kind of authorization to send to [redacted]. Then on 6/14/16 the complainant called [redacted] and said that the payoff party didn’t have any documentation to provide to [redacted], except for a lien satisfaction letter from [redacted], which is the same thing that the complainant is requesting from [redacted]. The complainant faxed the lien satisfaction letter to [redacted], and upon its receipt, [redacted] contacted Citizens to let them know that the payoff party will not provide authorization and [redacted] asked Citizens if a lien satisfaction letter could be sent to the complainant. Citizens responded to [redacted] on 6/15/16 saying that the complainant was not the payoff party so a lien satisfaction letter could not be sent to him without the approval of the payoff party. A [redacted] representative called the complainant and left a voicemail letting him know what Citizens said. The complainant called [redacted] and escalated the call to a team lead. The [redacted] team lead explained why authorization from the payoff party was needed, and then the complainant requested to speak with Citizens. The [redacted] team lead initiated a conference call with the complainant and Citizens. The Citizens representative told the complainant to whom the account was released and told the complainant whom to contact to get the authorization needed before [redacted] could send a lien satisfaction letter to him. We have had no communication with the complainant since 6/15/16. At this time, [redacted] has not received authorization from the payoff party to send a lien satisfaction letter to the complainant. When authorization is received, [redacted] will fulfill the complainant’s order and mail a lien satisfaction letter to the complainant. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter. Regards, [redacted] Vice President Lender Solutions Dealertrack Technologies [redacted]

The above referenced complaint has been closed. I was not able to follow up on this until yesterday. I was out of town and had no access to email.  I would like to address that the lien holder has never even been changed on the credit report.  I get one around after another.  These people are holding a title to a vehicle that all that needs to happen is to be sent to the dealership. I am not even asking it to be sent to [redacted].  The lien holder was originally [redacted] and then was sold to [redacted].  If you pull  the credit report, [redacted] never even updated that information.  How can they do that and then sell my lien to a title place that won’t even give it to the person who now holds the property. This has become ridiculous.  I am trying to obtain a bill of sale but it is difficult when the lien holder won’t even help you.  All I ask is for the lien to be sent to [redacted] Racine, WI.    Thank you for your time and reopening this request.

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. The complainant placed an order with MyTitleSupport for a lien satisfaction letter for a 2001 [redacted] with the VIN ending in [redacted] on 3/26/15. The lien satisfaction...

letter was faxed and mailed via USPS standard mail to the complainant on 3/27/15. The complainant called MyTitleSupport on 4/6/15 to inform MyTitleSupport that the lien satisfaction letter that was mailed had not been received. A MyTitleSupport representative confirmed that the mailing address was correct and requested that another lien satisfaction letter be re-mailed to the complainant. A subsequent lien satisfaction letter was mailed via USPS standard mail to the complainant on 4/7/15. The complainant called MyTitleSupport on 4/9/15 to check the status of her second lien satisfaction order and a MyTitleSupport representative informed her that it was re-mailed on 4/7/15. The complainant called MyTitleSupport on 4/14/15 to let MyTitleSupport know that neither the first nor second lien satisfaction letters were received. Again, a MyTitleSupport representative confirmed that the mailing address was correct. The complainant’s call was transferred to a team lead. The team lead did confirm with the complainant that the mailed lien satisfaction letters were not received, but the faxed copy had been received. The complainant asked for MyTitleSupport to send a lien satisfaction letter to her via [redacted] at no cost, and the team lead informed her that MyTitleSupport does not re-mail via [redacted] at no cost, but MyTitleSupport does offer one courtesy re-mail via USPS standard mail, which has already been done. The MyTitleSupport team lead recommended placing another order with a [redacted] ship method, and recommended sending it to a different address if she is not receiving the documents at the address she listed on her order. The complainant did not wish to place another order, so the MyTitleSupport team lead advised her to allow a full 7 business days from the latest ship date for the lien satisfaction letter to arrive. The complainant called MyTitleSupport on 4/20/15 and said that she did not receive the lien satisfaction letter yet. She was transferred to a different team lead, who offered to place a new order for a lien satisfaction letter with [redacted] shipping, and offered to refund the processing fee, only making the complainant pay for the extra shipping. The complainant agreed and placed her new order for a lien satisfaction letter (confirmation # [redacted]) on 4/20/15. The lien satisfaction letter was sent to the complainant via [redacted] 2-Day shipping on 4/20/15 and was delivered on 4/22/15. A refund for the processing fee was entered by the team lead on 4/20/15, and the refund processed successfully on 4/21/15. The complainant called MyTitleSupport on 4/21/15 to check on the refund, and was informed by a MyTitleSupport representative that the refund was processed. We have had no communication with the complainant since 4/21/15. After reviewing this complaint we find that we have followed our policies and procedures and no errors were made on our part. At this time, the complainant has received the document she requested and, since we refunded her the processing fee and only charged her for the [redacted] shipping, the resolution of this matter would appear to be acceptable to complainant, based on the description of her desired settlement. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter.

In response to the rejected complaint received from the Revdex.com posted 2/26/15, our employees have further investigated the history of this matter. In response to a letter received from the Revdex.com, dated February 9, 2015, our employees investigated into the history of this matter. It appears from our records that on January 28, 2015, the complainant placed a web order for an additional “Lien Satisfaction” on a 2007 [redacted] Fusion, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ending in [redacted]. On January 29, 2015 the complainant called and spoke with one of our representatives, asking to update the borrower name on the order that she had placed. The name that the complainant had previously provided did not match the lender’s account records on file. The complainant was informed that they would need to provide a letter of authorization from the party that paid off the loan with the lienholder, and that we would not be able to process her request until we received authorization. No further information was provided by the complainant at that time of the call. Additionally, an email with a list of acceptable documentation and instructions on how to submit the required documentation to MyTitleSupport was sent to the complaint on January 29, 2015. Our refund policy, which the complainant agreed to prior to placing their order, states ”Eligible requesters (as defined by the applicable lienholder) that have provided us with all necessary information required to fulfill their order may receive a refund if, and only if, MyTitleSupport fails to provide the documents ordered”. As mentioned above the complainant has not met the eligibility requirements, and has not provided the required documentation that was previously requested. Once the complainant provides the required documentation, MyTitleSupport would proceed with fulfilling the complainant’s order. We have had no further communication with complainant since January 29, 2015. After reviewing this case we find that we have followed our policies and procedures and no errors were made on our part. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter.

I am rejecting this response because: I was told by the dmv that [redacted] was the lien holder. I did not know this was the case until after I did my own research and found this out. I had also found this out AFTER the request was processed by [redacted]. I did NOT have ample time to cancel. Besides...I requested a release of lein through [redacted].com prior to the [redacted] request when I was informed by the end that santader was my lien holder. I called [redacted] and asked if there was a way to check if this was correct. I was told no however if they cannot process my request I will be told so and refunded my money and that is what happened. Except the second time my refund had been rejected. Also I did NOT give "incorrect" information ...the information was correct it was just that I was not in [redacted]s database and therefore my request should have been rejected and refunded.

In response to a letter received from the Revdex.com, dated February 9, 2015, our employees investigated into the history of this matter. It appears from our records that on January 28, 2015, the complainant placed a web order for an additional “Lien Satisfaction” on a 2007 [redacted],...

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) ending in [redacted]. On January 29, 2015 the complainant called and spoke with one of our representatives, asking to update the borrower name on the order that she had placed. The name that the complainant provided did not match the lender’s account records on file. The complainant was informed that they would need to provide a letter of authorization from the party that paid off the loan with the lienholder, and that we would not be able to process her request until we received authorization. Additionally, an email with a list of acceptable documentation and instructions on how to submit the required documentation to MyTitleSupport was sent to the complaint on January 29, 2015. We have had no further communication with complainant since January 29, 2015. After reviewing this case we find that we followed our policies and procedures and no errors were made on our part. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter.

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. The complainant placed an order with [redacted] over the phone for a lien satisfaction letter for a 2001 Chrysler Town and Country with the VIN ending in [redacted] on...

4/9/15. When the order was placed, there was a discrepancy in the spelling of her name. When she spelled it “[redacted]” over the phone it sounded like “[redacted]n”. It was repeated back by a [redacted] representative as “[redacted]” and the complainant confirmed the spelling was correct. A lien satisfaction letter was faxed and mailed, via standard USPS mail, to the complainant on 4/13/15. The complainant called [redacted] on 4/23/15 regarding the mis-spelling and was told that the order was fulfilled as requested and that she would need to place a new order if an alternate spelling was required. Upon further review by a [redacted] supervisor on 5/26/15, it was determined that the name discrepancy should have been questioned and a lien satisfaction letter with the correct spelling of “[redacted]” should have been sent to the complainant at no additional charge. On 5/26/15, [redacted] attempted to contact the complainant to obtain a physical address so a corrected lien satisfaction letter could be sent to her via [redacted] at no additional cost to the complainant. Her mailing address on the order is a PO Box and [redacted] won’t deliver to a PO Box. The complainant didn’t answer the phone and her voice mailbox is full so a message could not be left. To avoid further delays, a lien satisfaction letter was mailed via standard USPS mail to the complainant on 5/26/15. We have had no communication with the complainant since 4/23/15. After reviewing this complaint we find that an error was made by [redacted] by entering the spelling of the complainant’s name incorrectly and by not correcting the name discrepancy at the time the information on the order was validated. At this time, the requested document has been mailed, at no additional charge, to the complainant. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter. . Regards, [redacted] Vice President Lender Solutions

Revdex.com,Just wanted you to know that this matter has been resolved.My Title Support did mail me the lien release form I requested. My only concern is that they did not mail me the car title when the carwas paid in full.  As a result, they charged me $30 for the new release.I would like to have...

my $30 refunded, but Thanks to you they did at leastsend the title release.THANKS   FOR  Y0UR  HELP.[redacted]

In response to the complaint received from the Revdex.com, our employees have investigated the history of this matter. On 6/30/16, the complainant placed an online order for a lien satisfaction letter for his 2009 [redacted]. His order was placed for an incorrect lender, and his account with...

the correct lender still had a balance, so a lien satisfaction letter could not be sent to him. A MyTtitleSupport representative called the complainant on 6/30/16 and told him that MyTitleSupport was voiding his order and providing a full refund. The refund was provided on 6/30/16. The complainant told the MyTitleSupport representative that he was attempting to place an order for a state change and had selected the lien satisfaction letter option and the incorrect lender by mistake. The complainant said he would go online and place a new order for a state change with his correct lender. A few hours later on 6/30/16, the complainant placed a web order for a state change for his 2009 [redacted]. His order was completed on 7/11/16 when a certified copy of his title and a permission letter were sent to the complainant via [redacted] to the address provided by the complainant. An e-mail with the tracking number was sent to the complainant. According to [redacted], the package was delivered on 7/12/16 and was left at the side door. The complainant never called MyTitleSupport to indicate that he didn’t receive the package, so no further action was taken by MyTitleSupport. Upon receipt of this complaint, the MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant on 9/23/16 to find out what his complaint was about, as his complaint indicates he needs the documents to complete his state change, but MyTitleSupport already sent them over two months prior. The complainant didn’t answer his phone, so the MyTitleSupport supervisor left a message asking for the complainant to call back. The complainant called back later on 9/23/16 and told a MyTitleSupport representative that he never received his state change documents and he needed the documents to be sent again. The MyTitleSupport representative notified the MyTitleSupport supervisor, and on 9/27/16 the MyTitleSupport supervisor called and left another message for the complainant asking him to call back, as the notes on the complainant’s order indicate that the package was delivered on 7/12/16 and MyTitleSupport needs to know why the documents weren’t received. The complainant did not return the call, so the MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant on 10/3/16 and left a voicemail asking for the complainant to call back to confirm the address that the state change documents should be sent to so MyTitleSupport can be sure that there isn’t a problem with the delivery address, which could have caused the issue with the first shipment. The complainant did not return the call, so the MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant again on 10/4/16 and spoke with the complainant. The complainant said that the original delivery address was his mother’s address. The MyTitleSupport supervisor confirmed the complainant’s home address and told the complainant that another copy of the state change documents would be sent to the complainant’s home address to ensure the package gets delivered to him. The complainant was ok with that solution. The state change documents were shipped to the complainant on 10/4/16 via [redacted] next day air. The MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant to give him the tracking number. The complainant did not have a pen at the time, so the MyTitleSupport supervisor offered to call the complainant again and leave the tracking number in a voicemail. The complainant was ok with that, so the MyTitleSupport supervisor called the complainant back and left a voicemail with the tracking information. The complainant was satisfied with the resolution that MyTitleSupport provided, and there was no further communication with the complainant after that. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this matter.  Regards,  [redacted]Vice President Lender SolutionsDealertrack Technologies [redacted]