Sign in

Hitachi Capital America Corp.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Hitachi Capital America Corp.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Hitachi Capital America Corp.

Hitachi Capital America Corp. Reviews (2)

Review: Refusal to reverse bank charges due to fraud that were never confirmed. We had fraud on our account two times. Bank confirmed via letter.

Dear Revdex.com Representative,

I have emailed and spoken to HCA Representatives for over a month and have had over thirty emails go back and forth since the beginning of March 2013.

1.) February 28 HCA attempted to withdraw the automatic payment amount. Unfortunately we had fraud on our bank accounts and Erica (HCA) contacted me and requested the new account information. I faxed this over March 9th.

2.) March 17 - fraud on the new account, so I emailed Erica (March 17th) and let her know that I would be faxing the second new account information and I was glad the 508.40 had not hit the account. Erica stated that she had put it through manually and that it was still going to go through. An attempt from HCA was not made. The new account information was faxed March 24th, however, it was unreadable, so I had my Secretary fax it again on March 25th. This would be prior to the March 28th payment that would be due.

3.) I was notified that because of the second problem (second fraud and having to get new information), that the automatic payment would not be accepted and that I was to send hard checks. She requested certified, however, I was out of town, so I just mailed them (April 11th cleared 508.40 - February and $508.40 - March).

4.) My Banker, Valerie form Wells Fargo had emailed Erica and let her know that yes, there was fraud. As per Erica, the email was not enough, so she requested a letter on Wells letterhead with our account information. This was sent March 19th from Wells Fargo. I sent it a second time April 13th.

If there are charges from HCA bank, then it makes sense to me that they would be waived by HCA's bank once they are notified of the fraud (the Wells letter should suffice). I worked in a bank for years, and if you are dealing with humans, then this can be done. If your bank is refusing to reverse the alleged charges, then please provide verification on their letterhead (as HCA had requested by HCA of my bank) and my bank will deal with it. I have made this request on several occasions. Please understand that by just explaining I had fraud may not have been believed by HCA, so I had no problem getting the bank involved. With that is mind, I don't understand why this has turned into something that I feel could be resolved very easily. It is really about the principal of the issue.

Basically, there are supposedly two $50.00 charges from HCA's bank. We have yet to receive verification as such other than from HCA. I don't know if their bank received the letter from Wells explaining the fraud and have still refused to reverse.

We have sent HCA over $30,000.00 since 2007, and cannot understand why this cannot be either verified on their bank letter head (as was requested of us) so my banker can deal with it or be reversed.

Thank you,

Michelle Musson

Desired Settlement: Reversal of charges so we can pay off our account.

Business

Response:

Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/05/02) */

Good Afternoon,

This is a response to case#XXXXXXXX regarding the waiver of $100 in NSF fees.

There have been several conversations regarding 2 NSF fees and their validity from 3/7/13 to the present. This response [redacted] review and finalize the issue for HCAC.

The basis for the customer's complaint revolves around two $50 NSF fees that were assessed to her account for payment attempts made on 2/28/13 (ACH) from the original checking account on file and 3/15/13 (Check by Phone) from the replacement checking account that were denied due to the accounts being frozen or refer to maker.

HCAC became aware of the fraud associated with the 2/28/13 payment when a call was placed to the customer on 3/7/13 by one of our collectors to collect the past due payment. The customer did not initiate contact with HCAC alerting us of the fraudulent activity on the account. During that conversation the customer informed us of the fraud and wanted to provide us with new checking account information to satisfy the payment. Email addresses were exchanged to have the proper documentation completed and sent back to HCAC for this to occur. The new information was provided on 3/14/13 and a check by phone transaction was done on 3/15/13 for the outstanding balance.

An email was sent by the customer on 3/17/13 alerting us to fraud on the new account. A response was sent to the customer on 3/18/13 to inform them that future ACH payments would be temporarily suspended and to confirm that the 3/15/13 payment would bounce, which the customer confirmed the same day.

On 3/25, the customer was sent an email requesting the replacement checking account information to be re-sent due to transmission errors. The email also included a breakdown of the balance owed on her account at the time: past due balance including the NSF and late fees, the current payment due and the need for these to be paid via certified funds due to the 2 consecutive bounced payments. (The monthly payments were later received on 4/11 in the form of 2 company checks minus the fees.) The customer responded the same day informing HCAC that she [redacted] have the new ACH information resent by her secretary. She also informed us that her bank would be covering the fees associated with the bounced payments. The customer requested a copy of our bank invoice showing the NSF fees so that her bank could remit payment for them. HCAC sent the customer a copy of her HCAC invoice for the NSF fees to forward to her bank. The customers request for our banks invoice would not have been possible given the fact that these NSF fees are communicated in a lump sum not itemized. We can provide copies of the statements showing the returned items, however, it does not disclose the fees. Those fees are communicated through our invoice and it is stated in Paragraph 1 of the customer's agreement that:

"The Buyer shall be responsible for and pay to the Seller a returned check fee, not to exceed the maximum permitted by law, which fee [redacted] be equal to the sum of the actual bank charges incurred by the Seller plus all other costs and expenses incurred by the Seller. The returned check fee is payable upon demand as indebtedness secured by the Collateral under the Security Agreement."

The customer's attempt to compare our request for a letter from her bank confirming fraud on her checking account to her request for a letter from our bank confirming the NSF fees is unwarranted. Given the customers claim of fraud as the reason why her payment bounced, she would be obligated to secure a letter from her bank in order to validate the reason why the payment was returned. This would act as proof to any financial institution that her company was not in default of their contractual obligation for payment. The customer is also aware due to her communicated experience in banking that if a payment is returned, regardless of the reason, that a fee would be associated with the returned payment. Further verification of these fees would not be required. Although the NSF fees on our statement serves as a reimbursement for fees we have incurred from our bank attempting to process a bad payment, it becomes an HCAC generated fee as per the terms and conditions of the customer's agreement. It is at the discretion of HCAC whether those fees should be enforced or waived in a given circumstance. The customer's bank should not have had an issue with using HCAC's invoice to cover the fees.

There are other communications between 4/10 and 4/30 that are repetitive of the previous communications mentioned.

I am in possession of a copy of the 3/19/13 email and letter from the customer's bank explaining the fraud on the original checking account that was associated with the 2/28/13 ACH pull. There is no letter or email on record from the customer's bank regarding the alleged fraud that occurred on the 2nd checking account that is associated with the 3/15/13 Check by Phone payment attempt.

As a result of my investigating this complaint, I [redacted] accept the 3/19/13 letter from the customer's bank as proof of fraud and [redacted] waive the $50 NSF associated with the 2/28/13 transaction. The $50 NSF fee for the 3/15/13 transaction [redacted] stand due the lack of proof from the customer or their bank confirming that the 2nd account was the subject of fraudulent activity as well. These fees were recently withdrawn from the customer's latest checking account on 4/28/13 along with the current monthly payment. The $50 NSF fee associated with the 2/28/13 ACH [redacted] be reimbursed once the entire payment has cleared without incident.

Resolving such issues in this fashion is always unfortunate. We appreciate the customers business over the last 72 months and wish them well in their future endeavors.

Consumer Response /* (3000, 12, 2013/05/17) */

Dear Revdex.com,

I am requesting that this case be reopened. I was asked to provide a letter regarding the fraud from my bank (Wells), which I did. As far as I knew, it was sufficient. After reading the response from Hitachi, it looks like their explanation has changed stating that I did not provide a second letter. They did not request a second letter for the second fraud, and it was assumed the letter was sufficient for both fraud incidents. They did not say otherwise, and I was unaware that they wanted one. I will provide this from my bank right away and submit it to Hitachi - to the same contact, unless there is someone new I should deal with due to the lack of communication about requiring a second letter and that this is why the additional fees were charged. Please let me know who I shall provide the second letter to?

I can tell you there was an additional $100.00 withdrawn from my bank account on top of my monthly $508.40 just recently. I wrote to Hitachi and explained that this had happened without a response.

I will assume that once the second letter has been received by Hitachi, both $50.00 charges will be returned. At this point, the one $50.00 charge has yet to be returned as their response indicates.

I want to thank you for your time with regard to this matter. It is indeed unfortunate that a third party, Revdex.com, had to get involved when this issue could have been resolved with the request of a second letter in any one of the many communications I had with Hitachi prior to this complaint.

Thank you,

Michelle Musson

Consumer Response /* (-5, 15, 2013/06/14) */

As we have not heard back from Hitachi as to whom I send the last confirmation letter from the bank, how shall this be resolved? Our account will be almost completely paid off this month and I do not want to miss out on the credit they said they would refund.

Review: Wrong information provided months ago.

I had called Hitachi and spoken to a representative in the fall of 2012. My request at that time was to change my due date. I was advised that I couldn't do it at that time but that 18 months of having the loan I would be able to contact Hitachi back and get that changed. I now call on 8/22/13 and speak to another representative and I am told that no such changes can be made. This is very frustrating to be given wrong information.

I have had other issues with Hitachi also when I had an insurance claim. They made it more difficult than normal to get an endorsement stamp from them. Once this truck is paid off, I never want to work with Hitachi again. Customer service is not their fortè. Desired Settlement: I would like to be able to change the date that the payment is taken out of my account (due date), like I was originally told the first time I called.

Business

Response:

Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/08/26) */

This is a response to Revdex.com case# XXXXXXXX.

The customer is welcome to fax a detailed letter regarding her request for a due date change to the attention of our Collections Department at XXX-XXX-XXXX. Due date change requests are evaluated on a case by case basis and it is at the discretion of HCAC to approve or deny such a request.

Approved due date changes are subject to additional fees and are a one time only transaction.

Customers that are declined from a due date change must ensure that they budget for the expense accordingly.

Thank you.

Check fields!

Write a review of Hitachi Capital America Corp.

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Hitachi Capital America Corp. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Loans, Consumer Finance & Loan Companies, Leasing Service, Commercial Banking (NAICS: 522110)

Address: 800 Connecticut Ave, Norwalk, Connecticut, United States, 06854-1631

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Hitachi Capital America Corp..



Add contact information for Hitachi Capital America Corp.

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated