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
I understand that while the conversation was not found in documentation regarding the fact they would not finance us again (because we held the vehicle hostage) and that was concerning from a business standpoint, I was more interested in them having the Revdex.com involved so that hopefully in the future they treat their client a little differently. They know that they will be held accountable for what they "say" and everyone has the freedom to report bad acts of bad business
No matter what they documented or relayed in this instance, They business relationship ended with their attitude towards a good standing client. I sought financial support elsewhere and will not ever do business with then again. Sad because I was the good client.Sincerely, *** ***
The consumer (a coborrower on the account) complains that Reliable Credit Association Inc(“Reliable”) will not give her any “information about her account or “provide documentation of how much money they’re
taking.” It is unclear what information about the account the coborrower wants and has not receivedThe only information the coborrower has requested relates to a garnishment filed by Reliable On January 4, 2018, the coborrower called and requested a receipt each time money is garnished from the borrower’s paycheckReliable advised her that a garnishment is not a voluntary payment and no receipt can be printedWe suggested they obtain the garnishment amounts from the employer On January 5, 2018, the borrower on the account called Reliable and asked how much he owed on the account and how much Reliable was garnishing each weekReliable provided him a ten-day payoff amount and told him we could not give him an exact amount of each week’s garnishment since it varies based on his pay rate and hours worked. Reliable told the borrower that the amount would be roughly 25% of his pay each pay periodThe borrower said he just had an amount deducted from his paycheck and asked if Reliable Credit had received it. We advised him that we had notThe borrower thanked Reliable for our time and ended the call The borrower and coborrower may access Reliable’s Eservices portal at www.reliablecredit.com to view ongoing transaction history on the accountThe transaction history will show what payments Reliable receives from the borrower’s employer via the garnishment If the borrower or coborrower have any questions or would like any additional specific information about the account, they may contact the Milwaukie branch manager, Michael AA***, directly at (503) 462-***
November 8,
Complaint: #***
A credit inquiry for the consumer was made by Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) on October 31, 2016. This inquiry was made in error and was not authorized by the consumer. On October 31, 2016, Reliable received an
application for credit from an existing Reliable borrower for an interest rate reduction. The consumer is a co-borrower on the existing Reliable account. However, the consumer was not an applicant on the October 31, credit application for a reduced interest rate. Reliable made a credit inquiry for the existing borrower (which was authorized) and inadvertently made an inquiry for the existing co-borrower/consumer (which was not authorized). Upon learning its mistake, Reliable immediately conducted an investigation and sent requests to Equifax and Transunion to suppress the mistaken credit inquiry on the consumer. Although Reliable approved the interest rate reduction on the existing account based, in part, on both consumers’ consumer reports, Reliable will still honor the interest rate reduction
If there are any further questions, the consumer is encouraged to contact me directly at 206-212-
Thank you,
Danielle *M***
Manager
The consumer entered into a *** LAW Retail Installment Contract with a motor vehicle dealer on March 8, for the purchase of a vehicle. Reliable Credit Association, Inc(**) (“Reliable”) purchased the contract from the motor vehicle dealer on March 12, 2014. In
November, Reliable repossessed the vehicle due to the consumer’s nonpayment. Reliable sent the consumer the required statutory repossession notices. The vehicle was sold in a commercially reasonable manner for the then current fair market value and the proceeds from the sale were applied to the consumer’s account. The proceeds from the sale were not enough to pay off the consumer’s account. Under the terms of the contract, Reliable is entitled to collect the remaining account balance plus interest from the consumer. Reliable sent the consumer the statutorily required notice of a deficiency balance. The balance of the contract was assigned to a collection agency in January, 2015. The collection agency filed suit, obtained a judgment on October 1, 2015, and began garnishment. If the consumer would like to set up a voluntary payment plan or otherwise settle the judgment he is encouraged to contact the collection agency
Reliable Credit Association, Inc(“Reliable”) takes seriously all consumer complaints. Reliable conducted a review of the consumer’s accounts and interviewed the employees who serviced the accounts, the results of which do not support the allegations made by the consumer. Instead,
the investigation revealed that Reliable worked with the consumer for months to find mutually beneficial resolutions to address the delinquent accounts. However, the investigation also revealed that the consumer sent Reliable verbally abusive messages and threatened our employees with imminent physical harm
Due to the consumer’s financial hardships, the consumer was unable to make payments on his accounts with Reliable and was in default. The consumer did not respond to Reliable’s efforts to make contact with him to discuss the accounts. Accordingly, Reliable had no choice but to attempt to repossess the consumer’s vehicles to protect its security interest. Reliable lawfully repossessed one vehicle but called off the repossession on the other vehicle after the consumer sent Reliable an electronic message on April 5, containing obscene language and a threat to stay off of his property or our employee would be shot. Due to that threat and Reliable’s concern for the welfare of its employees, Reliable will not attempt to repossesses the remaining vehicle.
The consumer’s accounts have been assigned for collection to a third-party collection agency. However, if the consumer would like to further discuss his account standing, customer service issues, or disposition of vehicles he is welcome to contact a Reliable Credit manager
On March 3, 2016, the consumer entered into a retail installment contract (“Contract”) with a dealership for the purchase of a vehicle. The Contract was later assigned to Reliable Credit Association, Inc(“Reliable”). The first payment due date listed on the Contract was April 17,
2016. On March 15th, Reliable sent the consumer a welcome letter that again stated the first payment due date was April 17th and noted that a payment was due each month thereafter on the 17th. The welcome letter introduced the consumer to Reliable’s online payment portal, “eServices,” which also provides account details and transactional history
On April 2, 2016, the consumer set up recurring automatic ACH payments (“Recurring Payment”) via eServices. The landing page of eServices evidenced that the consumer’s first payment was due on April 17th. However, the consumer set up Recurring Payments to begin on May 1st and continuing on the 1st of each month thereafter. The late fee provision in the Contract states that a late fee will be charged ten days after the payment due date
In response to the consumer’s presumption that Reliable would be aware of “incorrect automatic payments,” Reliable would like to clarify that there is no such thing as an incorrect automatic payment. Reliable allows for Recurring Payments to be set up at a frequency of the customer’s choosing (e.g., weekly, twice a month, or monthly). Therefore, it is not unreasonable or extraordinary for a Recurring Payment date to not coincide with the payment due date.
Reliable uses a combination of automated letters and calls to notify our customers if their account is past due beyond a specified number of days. Reliable did not attempt to call the consumer because there was already a payment pending (i.e., the next monthly Recurring Payment).
Reliable attempted in several ways to make sure that the consumer was aware of her due date. Reliable does regret that she did not receive any notification of past due payments and late fees after she set up her Recurring Payment (other than the e-mail referred to in the consumer’s complaint). When Reliable became aware of the problem, we promptly suggested and executed a due date change to coincide with the existing Recurring Payment. Reliable also spoke with the consumer on October 4, 2016, explained what occurred, and lowered her account balance in the amount of $37.95, the total of the late fees that were charged
We hope this is a satisfactory resolution to the consumer’s complaint. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns
The consumer’s complaint alleges that she does not think Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) should have contacted the consumer’s references in an attempt to locate the consumer when the consumer was only one moth past due on her account. As explained below and as allowed by
law, Reliable only contacted the consumer’s references to locate the consumer after the consumer failed to respond to Reliable’s attempts to contact her directly for three weeks
The consumer has an installment loan account with Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) that is secured by collateral in which Reliable has a security interest. On March 10, 2016, the consumer’s account was due for half of her February 10, payment and her full March payment. Neither payment was made by March 10. Starting March 10, and for three weeks thereafter, Reliable attempted to contact the consumer by telephone, letters sent via mail and through electronic messages via Reliable’s online system regarding the outstanding February payment due. The calls were not answered and the consumer did not respond to Reliable’s voicemail messages, letters, or electronic communications. On March 23, 2015, Reliable received the outstanding February payment but the March payment was still outstanding. Due to the lack of response from the consumer for three weeks, Reliable began to consider whether to repossess the collateral.
As a final attempt to locate the consumer, on March 31, 2016, Reliable called the references provided by the consumer. Such contact is allowed by law. That same day, the consumer finally contacted Reliable, advised Reliable she was making a payment on the account (that payment processed on April 1, 2016), and asked Reliable to remove two specific references from her account. Reliable complied with the consumer’s request. On April 1, 2014, the consumer contacted Reliable through Reliable’s online system. The consumer admitted that she chose not to return the calls, electronic communications and letters made and sent by Reliable between March 11, and March 31, because she was unable to make the March payment until April 1, The consumer asked Reliable to remove all other references from her account. Reliable again complied with the consumer’s request. Reliable asked the consumer to please contact Reliable in the future if she was going to be late on a payment.
If the consumer has any further questions about this issue, or her account, she is encouraged to contact me directly
Tracy LD***
Manager
Re: Complaint# [redacted]
Dear Complaint Dept.,
I am responding regarding the follow up complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]. On February 4, 2016, we finally received the Identity Theft Victim’s Complaint and Affidavit (“Affidavit”) necessary to initiate our investigation of Mr. [redacted]’s claims of identity theft. We have yet to receive a copy of the police report but the Affidavit is sufficient for Reliable to initiate its investigation.
Today we are sending Mr. [redacted] copies of all the documents he requested on the account. Those documents are being sent to the address Mr. [redacted] noted in his Affidavit. In addition, until we are finished with our investigation and determine if there has been any identity theft committed, we have suspended all reporting to the credit reporting agencies for Mr. [redacted].
Regarding the impound notice that Mr. [redacted] references in his complaint, we received the impound notice in October, 2015. We did not recover the vehicle from impound because the costs of recovery and selling the vehicle at auction would exceed the value of the vehicle.
Mr. [redacted] is free to contact me if he has any further questions.
Sincerely,
Fred H[redacted]
Manager
The consumer alleges that Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”), “accepted an unethical reference” from her landlord. She further contends that we were “only supposed to verify my...
residence, not check that as a reference.”
On October 20, 2016 Auburn Way Autos (the “dealer”) sent a request to Reliable to purchase a retail installment contract (“contract”). At this time, the consumer was obligated to the terms of the contract with the dealer without regard to the financial institution who would service the contract. The dealer’s request to Reliable included a signed application for credit.
Reliable agreed to purchase the contract, subject to various stipulations. One of the stipulations was a “Satisfactory Rental Reference.” On October 24, a Reliable employee spoke with the consumer’s landlord who was referenced in the customer’s application. The landlord told Reliable that the consumer “is past due about 15 days every month” and that the landlord needed to “serve” the consumer “about 5 times in the past year.” This rental reference was not satisfactory to Reliable. Reliable notified the dealer of its decision to not purchase the contract based upon the unsatisfactory rental reference.
The consumer called Reliable four days later on October 28. A Reliable employee advised her that we would not be purchasing the contract, a fact that consumer already knew. The consumer was told that any questions should be directed to the dealer because the contract could be purchased by another party or serviced by the dealer. Reliable has had no further contact with the consumer.
The consumer enrolled in Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA)’s (“Reliable”) eServices online portal on October 23, 2015. The eServices portal allows Reliable customers to manage their account online. Customers can make a single payment, set up automatic payments, view account...
details and history, and update personal information.
On March 4, 2016, the consumer logged into eServices and set up automatic payments, specifically, recurring monthly payments from the consumer’s account with a credit union (“recurring ACH”). The consumer chose for recurring ACH payments to begin on April 4, 2016 but with payments to pull on the 3rd day of the month. Because April 3 had already passed, the first recurring ACH payment was scheduled for the next month, May 3, 2016.
Even though the consumer set up recurring ACH payments, the consumer also logged into eServices again on April 29, 2016 and scheduled a one-time ACH payment for that same day. The recurring ACH payment was not cancelled by the consumer, and pulled, as scheduled, on May 3, 2016. This recurring ACH payment was returned to Reliable as unpaid due to insufficient funds.
The occurrence of the two payments (the recurring ACH and one-time ACH) resulted from the consumer’s own request, not an error of Reliable or its online portal. When the consumer contacted Reliable, our representative tried to explain that the May 3, 2016 payment was not Reliable’s error and the consumer initiated the request for both payments. It is not unusual for Reliable customers to intentionally make double payments or pay ahead on their accounts. Reliable explained to the consumer that Reliable cannot delete any scheduled ACH payment without the customer’s instructions and permission to do so. Here, the consumer did not ask Reliable to cancel the May 3, 2016 scheduled payment.
In regards to the May 3, 2016 payment being run a second time, it is Reliable’s policy (and standard in the industry) to automatically redeposit ACH payments returned due to insufficient funds. This is also disclosed in Reliable’s Automatic Payment Terms and Conditions, which the consumer expressly consented to prior to submitting the recurring ACH. Specifically, the terms and conditions state, “If a payment is rejected by your financial institution for any reason (other than a stop payment request or termination of your authorization), including without limitation insufficient or uncollected funds in your “Pay From” account, you understand that Reliable may in its discretion attempt to process the payment again for a period of up to 180 days.” Reliable representatives do not have control over, and cannot stop, the redeposit. Understandably the consumer was upset each time she called into the office to discuss the payment issue. Upon hearing that Reliable could not cancel the ACH payments or the redeposit, the consumer abruptly ended the conversation.
Reliable understands the consumer’s frustration and is sorry to learn that the consumer can no longer afford the payments. I encourage the consumer call Reliable’s Lynwood branch office and ask to speak with a manager to discuss her options, including voluntarily returning the vehicle.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I still have not received my money back. Today is October 27, 2015 and to date I have not received a check. I paid off my entire balance with Reliable Credit on October 2, 2015 which was well over $2,000. Knowing their own process better than I do, they should have quoted me The total balance due minus the $252.00 that they sent my bank the request to debit my account for the day before I called to pay off my loan. I have been an excellent customer of theirs and don't believe I was ever late on a payment and even paid the loan off early. I have yet to even receive an apology.........just an explanation. If they did mail a check why did they wait so long to mail it? I surely didn't receive a call saying that they were late in mailing a check to me and I was told they would mail it out the next day (October 7, 2015) not October 19, 2015. If they truly mailed a check maybe they should have called me to follow up and see if I had received it. Whatever happened to customer service? We're sorry, we were wrong and we hope this didn't inconvenience you, would have gone a long way. This complaint will only be resolved when I receive my money back and the check clears the bank.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: While Reliable encouraged us to submit an application, the Manager relayed verbally, twice, that they most likely would not finance us. I was not going to submit an application and have my credit run, when they had no intention of financing another loan. I want to know that our name has been removed from the other account as any sort of reference. They have the right to take legal action and report back credit on the other individual to recoup their loss. Our account with them was on good standings and now paid off. I do not trust that we will ever be able to have a loan processed and approved with this company as things stand. Sincerely,[redacted]
We spoke to our valued customer on October 27th. We explained what happened and why the automatic payment was processed after she paid off her account. We apologized for the inconvenience. Our customer requested that we overnight a new check and we did so via Fed Ex on October 28th. Today, October 29th, we confirmed with [redacted] that the envelope containing the check was delivered to the address specified by the customer. We also called the customer and left a voicemail notifying her that [redacted] confirmed delivery and we asked her to call us if she did not receive it.
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]
On November
29, 2016, the consumer, along with his wife (collectively referred to herein as
“consumers”), entered into a retail installment contract (“contract”) with Affordable
Car Company (“dealer”) for the purchase of a vehicle. The contract had a stated interest rate of
29.99%. All...
terms of the contract were negotiated between the consumers and the
dealer. The contract was subsequently assigned to Reliable Credit Association,
Inc. (“Reliable”). On December
9, 2016, Reliable received an email from the consumer’s wife asking to discuss the interest
rate. Reliable’s assistant manager called
the consumer’s wife’s cell phone and left a message. Reliable never heard back
from the consumers. Seven months later, on July 25, 2017, the consumers applied
via Reliable’s website for a modification of their interest rate. Reliable’s interest
rates are based on Reliable’s proprietary, comprehensive, and objective underwriting
policies and guidelines. The consumers’ application was
reviewed by a Reliable loan officer pursuant those underwriting policies and
guidelines. The underwriting process
considers the consumers’ credit score, employment, collateral value, payment to
income ratio, leftover income, and several other factors. After
completing the underwriting, the loan officer determined that it could not
approve the consumers’ application on the terms requested because the value of
the vehicle was insufficient to secure repayment of the loan. However, Reliable was willing to reconsider
the interest rate application if additional collateral could be provided as
security. The loan
officer reviewed the application with an assistant manager and the assistant manager
confirmed his agreement with the loan officer’s decision. Later in the
date on July 25, the consumer’s wife phoned the office and was informed of
Reliable’s decision. The consumer’s wife
requested to speak with a manager. The manager reviewed the application and
decision and informed the consumer’s wife that the decision was consistent with
Reliable’s underwriting policies and guidelines. The manager attempted to describe
the underwriting process and decision to the consumer’s wife, explain that the
decision was reviewed by more than one individual, and inform her that the same
decision was independently made by all Reliable employees. The consumer’s wife
alleged that everyone lied to her and she eventually hung up on the manager.Reliable is
sorry that it could not approve the consumers’ application. Reliable did try to explain the basis for its
decision and presented the consumers’ a counteroffer. Reliable asked the consumer’s wife how
Reliable lied to her but we could not get a clear answer. Although Reliable is unable to offer the
consumers a lower interest rate at this time, Reliable will reconsider the
application if the consumers can provide additional collateral as security. If the
consumers have additional questions or would like further information, they
should feel free to contact me directly at (208) 288-2300 ext [redacted]Sincerely, Shawn
S[redacted]Manager
Revdex.com complaint case #[redacted] Reliable Credit Association,Inc. (“RCA”) has completed an internal review of this matter. Mr. [redacted] was delinquent on his auto loanwhich resulted in repossession after several attempts by phone and mail tocontact him with no response. During thecourse...
of the repossession there was damage to the lower front bumper andquarter panel, the repossession company filed a claim with their insurancecompany and Mr. [redacted] was notified directly with the claim information. Mr. [redacted] did pay his balance in full withRCA to redeem the vehicle. The debtor may contact medirectly at [redacted] to discuss his account further during our normalbusiness hours. Sarah B[redacted]Reliable Credit Association,Inc.Manager
On December 8, 2014 Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) purchased a retail installment contract (“contract”) between a consumer identified in the contract as Mr. [redacted] and I-Carz Auto Sales (“I-Carz”) for the purchase of a vehicle.
Between December 3, 2014 and April 7, 2015 Reliable...
had numerous contacts with the consumer and he never mentioned to Reliable that the account was fraudulent. The defaulted contract was eventually assigned to a repossession company on April 14, 2015. The vehicle has never been recovered, and the contract remains in default.
Over five months later, on December 15, 2015, a consumer representing himself as Mr. [redacted] called Reliable and claimed that he lost his driver’s license and the vehicle was fraudulently purchased in his name. He stated that he filed a fraud claim with the police department and asked Reliable to send him a copy of the contract. Pursuant to Reliable’s Identity Theft Prevention Program (“Program”), Reliable told Mr. [redacted] that it needed a written request for the contract, a copy of the police report evidencing his claim of identity theft, and a copy of an identification document (i.e., his driver’s license) before Reliable could release the records. He hung up the phone. Immediately thereafter, Reliable twice called him back and he hung up both times.
He telephoned Reliable again on January 6, 2016 and asked if Reliable received the police report that he allegedly faxed. Reliable had received no such documentation and gave him an email address where he could resend the police report. To date Reliable has not received the requested information via fax, US mail or email.
Reliable would gladly provide him a copy of the contract if, in compliance with Reliable’s Program, he sends Reliable the previously requested documentation evidencing his claim of identity theft, or a properly completed affidavit of identity theft available at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0094-identity-theft-affidavit.pdf,
The consumer alleges that Reliable has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by making collection calls to the...
consumer and his family members (who were provided as references by the consumer). As explained below, the FDCPA does not prohibit Reliable from contacting its own customers to collect its own debts. Furthermore, as a courtesy to the consumer, Reliable ceased communications with his references upon his request.
The FDCPA applies only to debt collectors who attempt to collect the debts of a third-party and debt buyers. Reliable collects its own debts, in its own name, and is therefore not a debt collector under the FDCPA. Accordingly, the FDCPA does not apply to Reliable and Reliable is permitted to contact the consumer and his references in an attempt to collect its own debts. That is what occurred on this account.
The last payment that Reliable received from the consumer was on November 6, 2015. This payment covered the installment that was due on October 14, 2015. The next installment due on November 14, 2015 was never paid by the consumer. Beginning on November 24, 2015, Reliable attempted to contact the consumer via telephone calls and letters.
After numerous attempts to contact the consumer regarding his delinquent account without any response, Reliable had reason to believe that the consumer’s contact information on file was no longer current. On December 22, 2015, Reliable attempted to contact one of the consumer’s references, leaving a message for a return call. Also on December 22, Reliable sent an e-mail directly to the consumer requesting that he contact Reliable. That same day, Reliable received an email response informing Reliable of his financial difficulties, the potential sale of Reliable’s collateral, and requesting that Reliable no longer contact his references. Reliable immediately honored the consumer’s request and has not attempted to contact his references since December 22.
As of February 19, 2016, Reliable had not received payment or any further communications from the consumer, despite several additional attempts to contact him. As the consumer’s account was over 90 days past due, Reliable charged off the account and assigned the debt to Action Collection Services, Inc. (“ACS”). According to ACS, they provided a first collection notice to the consumer on February 23, but they have not yet attempted to call the consumer or his references (as of the date of this letter).
If the consumer has any questions or would like to discuss settling his account, he is encouraged to contact Reliable.
We have again investigated the consumer’s allegations. Based on interviews of Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) employees and a review of Reliable’s system notes and comments, the consumer’s allegations that Reliable would likely not finance her is unfounded.
On April 11, 2016, the consumer called Reliable, saying she wanted to submit an application to Reliable through a motorcycle dealership. Reliable told the consumer that Reliable would be more than happy to process the application. The consumer said she was concerned that her application would be turned down due to the consumer’s involvement with the collateral on another Reliable account. That other account was charged off causing a loss to Reliable. Reliable told the consumer that what occurred on the other account was a concern but should not be an issue as Reliable understood that the consumer did what she needed to do to protect her interest in the collateral. Reliable again reiterated that Reliable would process her application.
As to the consumer’s request that her name be removed from the other account as a reference, the consumer is not listed on the other account as a reference. The consumer’s name appears only in the system comments to that account. Reliable cannot remove system comments, but those comments will not affect how Reliable processes future applications from the consumer or how Reliable conducts its underwriting process.
Reliable understands the consumer’s lack of trust that a loan will be processed and approved by Reliable and we apologize for any confusion arising from the April 11, 2016 telephone conversation. However, Reliable is unable to tell the consumer (or any consumer) whether she will be approved for a loan without first processing an application. Reliable continues to encourage the consumer to submit her application to Reliable for consideration.
If the consumer has additional questions or concerns, she should feel free to call me.
Michael A[redacted]
Manager
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
I understand that while the conversation was not found in documentation regarding the fact they would not finance us again (because we held the vehicle hostage) and that was concerning from a business standpoint, I was more interested in them having the Revdex.com involved so that hopefully in the future they treat their client a little differently. They know that they will be held accountable for what they "say" and everyone has the freedom to report bad acts of bad business
No matter what they documented or relayed in this instance, They business relationship ended with their attitude towards a good standing client. I sought financial support elsewhere and will not ever do business with then again. Sad because I was the good client.Sincerely, *** ***
The consumer (a coborrower on the account) complains that Reliable Credit Association Inc(“Reliable”) will not give her any “information about her account or “provide documentation of how much money they’re
taking.” It is unclear what information about the account the coborrower wants and has not receivedThe only information the coborrower has requested relates to a garnishment filed by Reliable On January 4, 2018, the coborrower called and requested a receipt each time money is garnished from the borrower’s paycheckReliable advised her that a garnishment is not a voluntary payment and no receipt can be printedWe suggested they obtain the garnishment amounts from the employer On January 5, 2018, the borrower on the account called Reliable and asked how much he owed on the account and how much Reliable was garnishing each weekReliable provided him a ten-day payoff amount and told him we could not give him an exact amount of each week’s garnishment since it varies based on his pay rate and hours worked. Reliable told the borrower that the amount would be roughly 25% of his pay each pay periodThe borrower said he just had an amount deducted from his paycheck and asked if Reliable Credit had received it. We advised him that we had notThe borrower thanked Reliable for our time and ended the call The borrower and coborrower may access Reliable’s Eservices portal at www.reliablecredit.com to view ongoing transaction history on the accountThe transaction history will show what payments Reliable receives from the borrower’s employer via the garnishment If the borrower or coborrower have any questions or would like any additional specific information about the account, they may contact the Milwaukie branch manager, Michael AA***, directly at (503) 462-***
November 8,
Complaint: #***
A credit inquiry for the consumer was made by Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) on October 31, 2016. This inquiry was made in error and was not authorized by the consumer. On October 31, 2016, Reliable received an
application for credit from an existing Reliable borrower for an interest rate reduction. The consumer is a co-borrower on the existing Reliable account. However, the consumer was not an applicant on the October 31, credit application for a reduced interest rate. Reliable made a credit inquiry for the existing borrower (which was authorized) and inadvertently made an inquiry for the existing co-borrower/consumer (which was not authorized). Upon learning its mistake, Reliable immediately conducted an investigation and sent requests to Equifax and Transunion to suppress the mistaken credit inquiry on the consumer. Although Reliable approved the interest rate reduction on the existing account based, in part, on both consumers’ consumer reports, Reliable will still honor the interest rate reduction
If there are any further questions, the consumer is encouraged to contact me directly at 206-212-
Thank you,
Danielle *M***
Manager
The consumer entered into a *** LAW Retail Installment Contract with a motor vehicle dealer on March 8, for the purchase of a vehicle. Reliable Credit Association, Inc(**) (“Reliable”) purchased the contract from the motor vehicle dealer on March 12, 2014. In
November, Reliable repossessed the vehicle due to the consumer’s nonpayment. Reliable sent the consumer the required statutory repossession notices. The vehicle was sold in a commercially reasonable manner for the then current fair market value and the proceeds from the sale were applied to the consumer’s account. The proceeds from the sale were not enough to pay off the consumer’s account. Under the terms of the contract, Reliable is entitled to collect the remaining account balance plus interest from the consumer. Reliable sent the consumer the statutorily required notice of a deficiency balance. The balance of the contract was assigned to a collection agency in January, 2015. The collection agency filed suit, obtained a judgment on October 1, 2015, and began garnishment. If the consumer would like to set up a voluntary payment plan or otherwise settle the judgment he is encouraged to contact the collection agency
Reliable Credit Association, Inc(“Reliable”) takes seriously all consumer complaints. Reliable conducted a review of the consumer’s accounts and interviewed the employees who serviced the accounts, the results of which do not support the allegations made by the consumer. Instead,
the investigation revealed that Reliable worked with the consumer for months to find mutually beneficial resolutions to address the delinquent accounts. However, the investigation also revealed that the consumer sent Reliable verbally abusive messages and threatened our employees with imminent physical harm
Due to the consumer’s financial hardships, the consumer was unable to make payments on his accounts with Reliable and was in default. The consumer did not respond to Reliable’s efforts to make contact with him to discuss the accounts. Accordingly, Reliable had no choice but to attempt to repossess the consumer’s vehicles to protect its security interest. Reliable lawfully repossessed one vehicle but called off the repossession on the other vehicle after the consumer sent Reliable an electronic message on April 5, containing obscene language and a threat to stay off of his property or our employee would be shot. Due to that threat and Reliable’s concern for the welfare of its employees, Reliable will not attempt to repossesses the remaining vehicle.
The consumer’s accounts have been assigned for collection to a third-party collection agency. However, if the consumer would like to further discuss his account standing, customer service issues, or disposition of vehicles he is welcome to contact a Reliable Credit manager
On March 3, 2016, the consumer entered into a retail installment contract (“Contract”) with a dealership for the purchase of a vehicle. The Contract was later assigned to Reliable Credit Association, Inc(“Reliable”). The first payment due date listed on the Contract was April 17,
2016. On March 15th, Reliable sent the consumer a welcome letter that again stated the first payment due date was April 17th and noted that a payment was due each month thereafter on the 17th. The welcome letter introduced the consumer to Reliable’s online payment portal, “eServices,” which also provides account details and transactional history
On April 2, 2016, the consumer set up recurring automatic ACH payments (“Recurring Payment”) via eServices. The landing page of eServices evidenced that the consumer’s first payment was due on April 17th. However, the consumer set up Recurring Payments to begin on May 1st and continuing on the 1st of each month thereafter. The late fee provision in the Contract states that a late fee will be charged ten days after the payment due date
In response to the consumer’s presumption that Reliable would be aware of “incorrect automatic payments,” Reliable would like to clarify that there is no such thing as an incorrect automatic payment. Reliable allows for Recurring Payments to be set up at a frequency of the customer’s choosing (e.g., weekly, twice a month, or monthly). Therefore, it is not unreasonable or extraordinary for a Recurring Payment date to not coincide with the payment due date.
Reliable uses a combination of automated letters and calls to notify our customers if their account is past due beyond a specified number of days. Reliable did not attempt to call the consumer because there was already a payment pending (i.e., the next monthly Recurring Payment).
Reliable attempted in several ways to make sure that the consumer was aware of her due date. Reliable does regret that she did not receive any notification of past due payments and late fees after she set up her Recurring Payment (other than the e-mail referred to in the consumer’s complaint). When Reliable became aware of the problem, we promptly suggested and executed a due date change to coincide with the existing Recurring Payment. Reliable also spoke with the consumer on October 4, 2016, explained what occurred, and lowered her account balance in the amount of $37.95, the total of the late fees that were charged
We hope this is a satisfactory resolution to the consumer’s complaint. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns
The consumer’s complaint alleges that she does not think Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) should have contacted the consumer’s references in an attempt to locate the consumer when the consumer was only one moth past due on her account. As explained below and as allowed by
law, Reliable only contacted the consumer’s references to locate the consumer after the consumer failed to respond to Reliable’s attempts to contact her directly for three weeks
The consumer has an installment loan account with Reliable Credit Association, Inc(WA) (“Reliable”) that is secured by collateral in which Reliable has a security interest. On March 10, 2016, the consumer’s account was due for half of her February 10, payment and her full March payment. Neither payment was made by March 10. Starting March 10, and for three weeks thereafter, Reliable attempted to contact the consumer by telephone, letters sent via mail and through electronic messages via Reliable’s online system regarding the outstanding February payment due. The calls were not answered and the consumer did not respond to Reliable’s voicemail messages, letters, or electronic communications. On March 23, 2015, Reliable received the outstanding February payment but the March payment was still outstanding. Due to the lack of response from the consumer for three weeks, Reliable began to consider whether to repossess the collateral.
As a final attempt to locate the consumer, on March 31, 2016, Reliable called the references provided by the consumer. Such contact is allowed by law. That same day, the consumer finally contacted Reliable, advised Reliable she was making a payment on the account (that payment processed on April 1, 2016), and asked Reliable to remove two specific references from her account. Reliable complied with the consumer’s request. On April 1, 2014, the consumer contacted Reliable through Reliable’s online system. The consumer admitted that she chose not to return the calls, electronic communications and letters made and sent by Reliable between March 11, and March 31, because she was unable to make the March payment until April 1, The consumer asked Reliable to remove all other references from her account. Reliable again complied with the consumer’s request. Reliable asked the consumer to please contact Reliable in the future if she was going to be late on a payment.
If the consumer has any further questions about this issue, or her account, she is encouraged to contact me directly
Tracy LD***
Manager
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Re: Complaint# [redacted]
Dear Complaint Dept.,
I am responding regarding the follow up complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]. On February 4, 2016, we finally received the Identity Theft Victim’s Complaint and Affidavit (“Affidavit”) necessary to initiate our investigation of Mr. [redacted]’s claims of identity theft. We have yet to receive a copy of the police report but the Affidavit is sufficient for Reliable to initiate its investigation.
Today we are sending Mr. [redacted] copies of all the documents he requested on the account. Those documents are being sent to the address Mr. [redacted] noted in his Affidavit. In addition, until we are finished with our investigation and determine if there has been any identity theft committed, we have suspended all reporting to the credit reporting agencies for Mr. [redacted].
Regarding the impound notice that Mr. [redacted] references in his complaint, we received the impound notice in October, 2015. We did not recover the vehicle from impound because the costs of recovery and selling the vehicle at auction would exceed the value of the vehicle.
Mr. [redacted] is free to contact me if he has any further questions.
Sincerely,
Fred H[redacted]
Manager
The consumer alleges that Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”), “accepted an unethical reference” from her landlord. She further contends that we were “only supposed to verify my...
residence, not check that as a reference.”
On October 20, 2016 Auburn Way Autos (the “dealer”) sent a request to Reliable to purchase a retail installment contract (“contract”). At this time, the consumer was obligated to the terms of the contract with the dealer without regard to the financial institution who would service the contract. The dealer’s request to Reliable included a signed application for credit.
Reliable agreed to purchase the contract, subject to various stipulations. One of the stipulations was a “Satisfactory Rental Reference.” On October 24, a Reliable employee spoke with the consumer’s landlord who was referenced in the customer’s application. The landlord told Reliable that the consumer “is past due about 15 days every month” and that the landlord needed to “serve” the consumer “about 5 times in the past year.” This rental reference was not satisfactory to Reliable. Reliable notified the dealer of its decision to not purchase the contract based upon the unsatisfactory rental reference.
The consumer called Reliable four days later on October 28. A Reliable employee advised her that we would not be purchasing the contract, a fact that consumer already knew. The consumer was told that any questions should be directed to the dealer because the contract could be purchased by another party or serviced by the dealer. Reliable has had no further contact with the consumer.
The consumer enrolled in Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA)’s (“Reliable”) eServices online portal on October 23, 2015. The eServices portal allows Reliable customers to manage their account online. Customers can make a single payment, set up automatic payments, view account...
details and history, and update personal information.
On March 4, 2016, the consumer logged into eServices and set up automatic payments, specifically, recurring monthly payments from the consumer’s account with a credit union (“recurring ACH”). The consumer chose for recurring ACH payments to begin on April 4, 2016 but with payments to pull on the 3rd day of the month. Because April 3 had already passed, the first recurring ACH payment was scheduled for the next month, May 3, 2016.
Even though the consumer set up recurring ACH payments, the consumer also logged into eServices again on April 29, 2016 and scheduled a one-time ACH payment for that same day. The recurring ACH payment was not cancelled by the consumer, and pulled, as scheduled, on May 3, 2016. This recurring ACH payment was returned to Reliable as unpaid due to insufficient funds.
The occurrence of the two payments (the recurring ACH and one-time ACH) resulted from the consumer’s own request, not an error of Reliable or its online portal. When the consumer contacted Reliable, our representative tried to explain that the May 3, 2016 payment was not Reliable’s error and the consumer initiated the request for both payments. It is not unusual for Reliable customers to intentionally make double payments or pay ahead on their accounts. Reliable explained to the consumer that Reliable cannot delete any scheduled ACH payment without the customer’s instructions and permission to do so. Here, the consumer did not ask Reliable to cancel the May 3, 2016 scheduled payment.
In regards to the May 3, 2016 payment being run a second time, it is Reliable’s policy (and standard in the industry) to automatically redeposit ACH payments returned due to insufficient funds. This is also disclosed in Reliable’s Automatic Payment Terms and Conditions, which the consumer expressly consented to prior to submitting the recurring ACH. Specifically, the terms and conditions state, “If a payment is rejected by your financial institution for any reason (other than a stop payment request or termination of your authorization), including without limitation insufficient or uncollected funds in your “Pay From” account, you understand that Reliable may in its discretion attempt to process the payment again for a period of up to 180 days.” Reliable representatives do not have control over, and cannot stop, the redeposit. Understandably the consumer was upset each time she called into the office to discuss the payment issue. Upon hearing that Reliable could not cancel the ACH payments or the redeposit, the consumer abruptly ended the conversation.
Reliable understands the consumer’s frustration and is sorry to learn that the consumer can no longer afford the payments. I encourage the consumer call Reliable’s Lynwood branch office and ask to speak with a manager to discuss her options, including voluntarily returning the vehicle.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I still have not received my money back. Today is October 27, 2015 and to date I have not received a check. I paid off my entire balance with Reliable Credit on October 2, 2015 which was well over $2,000. Knowing their own process better than I do, they should have quoted me The total balance due minus the $252.00 that they sent my bank the request to debit my account for the day before I called to pay off my loan. I have been an excellent customer of theirs and don't believe I was ever late on a payment and even paid the loan off early. I have yet to even receive an apology.........just an explanation. If they did mail a check why did they wait so long to mail it? I surely didn't receive a call saying that they were late in mailing a check to me and I was told they would mail it out the next day (October 7, 2015) not October 19, 2015. If they truly mailed a check maybe they should have called me to follow up and see if I had received it. Whatever happened to customer service? We're sorry, we were wrong and we hope this didn't inconvenience you, would have gone a long way. This complaint will only be resolved when I receive my money back and the check clears the bank.
Sincerely,[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: While Reliable encouraged us to submit an application, the Manager relayed verbally, twice, that they most likely would not finance us. I was not going to submit an application and have my credit run, when they had no intention of financing another loan. I want to know that our name has been removed from the other account as any sort of reference. They have the right to take legal action and report back credit on the other individual to recoup their loss. Our account with them was on good standings and now paid off. I do not trust that we will ever be able to have a loan processed and approved with this company as things stand. Sincerely,[redacted]
We spoke to our valued customer on October 27th. We explained what happened and why the automatic payment was processed after she paid off her account. We apologized for the inconvenience. Our customer requested that we overnight a new check and we did so via Fed Ex on October 28th. Today, October 29th, we confirmed with [redacted] that the envelope containing the check was delivered to the address specified by the customer. We also called the customer and left a voicemail notifying her that [redacted] confirmed delivery and we asked her to call us if she did not receive it.
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]
On November
29, 2016, the consumer, along with his wife (collectively referred to herein as
“consumers”), entered into a retail installment contract (“contract”) with Affordable
Car Company (“dealer”) for the purchase of a vehicle. The contract had a stated interest rate of
29.99%. All...
terms of the contract were negotiated between the consumers and the
dealer. The contract was subsequently assigned to Reliable Credit Association,
Inc. (“Reliable”). On December
9, 2016, Reliable received an email from the consumer’s wife asking to discuss the interest
rate. Reliable’s assistant manager called
the consumer’s wife’s cell phone and left a message. Reliable never heard back
from the consumers. Seven months later, on July 25, 2017, the consumers applied
via Reliable’s website for a modification of their interest rate. Reliable’s interest
rates are based on Reliable’s proprietary, comprehensive, and objective underwriting
policies and guidelines. The consumers’ application was
reviewed by a Reliable loan officer pursuant those underwriting policies and
guidelines. The underwriting process
considers the consumers’ credit score, employment, collateral value, payment to
income ratio, leftover income, and several other factors. After
completing the underwriting, the loan officer determined that it could not
approve the consumers’ application on the terms requested because the value of
the vehicle was insufficient to secure repayment of the loan. However, Reliable was willing to reconsider
the interest rate application if additional collateral could be provided as
security. The loan
officer reviewed the application with an assistant manager and the assistant manager
confirmed his agreement with the loan officer’s decision. Later in the
date on July 25, the consumer’s wife phoned the office and was informed of
Reliable’s decision. The consumer’s wife
requested to speak with a manager. The manager reviewed the application and
decision and informed the consumer’s wife that the decision was consistent with
Reliable’s underwriting policies and guidelines. The manager attempted to describe
the underwriting process and decision to the consumer’s wife, explain that the
decision was reviewed by more than one individual, and inform her that the same
decision was independently made by all Reliable employees. The consumer’s wife
alleged that everyone lied to her and she eventually hung up on the manager.Reliable is
sorry that it could not approve the consumers’ application. Reliable did try to explain the basis for its
decision and presented the consumers’ a counteroffer. Reliable asked the consumer’s wife how
Reliable lied to her but we could not get a clear answer. Although Reliable is unable to offer the
consumers a lower interest rate at this time, Reliable will reconsider the
application if the consumers can provide additional collateral as security. If the
consumers have additional questions or would like further information, they
should feel free to contact me directly at (208) 288-2300 ext [redacted]Sincerely, Shawn
S[redacted]Manager
Revdex.com complaint case #[redacted] Reliable Credit Association,Inc. (“RCA”) has completed an internal review of this matter. Mr. [redacted] was delinquent on his auto loanwhich resulted in repossession after several attempts by phone and mail tocontact him with no response. During thecourse...
of the repossession there was damage to the lower front bumper andquarter panel, the repossession company filed a claim with their insurancecompany and Mr. [redacted] was notified directly with the claim information. Mr. [redacted] did pay his balance in full withRCA to redeem the vehicle. The debtor may contact medirectly at [redacted] to discuss his account further during our normalbusiness hours. Sarah B[redacted]Reliable Credit Association,Inc.Manager
On December 8, 2014 Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) purchased a retail installment contract (“contract”) between a consumer identified in the contract as Mr. [redacted] and I-Carz Auto Sales (“I-Carz”) for the purchase of a vehicle.
Between December 3, 2014 and April 7, 2015 Reliable...
had numerous contacts with the consumer and he never mentioned to Reliable that the account was fraudulent. The defaulted contract was eventually assigned to a repossession company on April 14, 2015. The vehicle has never been recovered, and the contract remains in default.
Over five months later, on December 15, 2015, a consumer representing himself as Mr. [redacted] called Reliable and claimed that he lost his driver’s license and the vehicle was fraudulently purchased in his name. He stated that he filed a fraud claim with the police department and asked Reliable to send him a copy of the contract. Pursuant to Reliable’s Identity Theft Prevention Program (“Program”), Reliable told Mr. [redacted] that it needed a written request for the contract, a copy of the police report evidencing his claim of identity theft, and a copy of an identification document (i.e., his driver’s license) before Reliable could release the records. He hung up the phone. Immediately thereafter, Reliable twice called him back and he hung up both times.
He telephoned Reliable again on January 6, 2016 and asked if Reliable received the police report that he allegedly faxed. Reliable had received no such documentation and gave him an email address where he could resend the police report. To date Reliable has not received the requested information via fax, US mail or email.
Reliable would gladly provide him a copy of the contract if, in compliance with Reliable’s Program, he sends Reliable the previously requested documentation evidencing his claim of identity theft, or a properly completed affidavit of identity theft available at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0094-identity-theft-affidavit.pdf,
[redacted]
Revdex.com
PO Box 9817
Boise, ID 83707
March 8, 2016
RE: Complaint ID [redacted]
Dear Ms. [redacted],
The consumer alleges that Reliable has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by making collection calls to the...
consumer and his family members (who were provided as references by the consumer). As explained below, the FDCPA does not prohibit Reliable from contacting its own customers to collect its own debts. Furthermore, as a courtesy to the consumer, Reliable ceased communications with his references upon his request.
The FDCPA applies only to debt collectors who attempt to collect the debts of a third-party and debt buyers. Reliable collects its own debts, in its own name, and is therefore not a debt collector under the FDCPA. Accordingly, the FDCPA does not apply to Reliable and Reliable is permitted to contact the consumer and his references in an attempt to collect its own debts. That is what occurred on this account.
The last payment that Reliable received from the consumer was on November 6, 2015. This payment covered the installment that was due on October 14, 2015. The next installment due on November 14, 2015 was never paid by the consumer. Beginning on November 24, 2015, Reliable attempted to contact the consumer via telephone calls and letters.
After numerous attempts to contact the consumer regarding his delinquent account without any response, Reliable had reason to believe that the consumer’s contact information on file was no longer current. On December 22, 2015, Reliable attempted to contact one of the consumer’s references, leaving a message for a return call. Also on December 22, Reliable sent an e-mail directly to the consumer requesting that he contact Reliable. That same day, Reliable received an email response informing Reliable of his financial difficulties, the potential sale of Reliable’s collateral, and requesting that Reliable no longer contact his references. Reliable immediately honored the consumer’s request and has not attempted to contact his references since December 22.
As of February 19, 2016, Reliable had not received payment or any further communications from the consumer, despite several additional attempts to contact him. As the consumer’s account was over 90 days past due, Reliable charged off the account and assigned the debt to Action Collection Services, Inc. (“ACS”). According to ACS, they provided a first collection notice to the consumer on February 23, but they have not yet attempted to call the consumer or his references (as of the date of this letter).
If the consumer has any questions or would like to discuss settling his account, he is encouraged to contact Reliable.
We have again investigated the consumer’s allegations. Based on interviews of Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) employees and a review of Reliable’s system notes and comments, the consumer’s allegations that Reliable would likely not finance her is unfounded.
On April 11, 2016, the consumer called Reliable, saying she wanted to submit an application to Reliable through a motorcycle dealership. Reliable told the consumer that Reliable would be more than happy to process the application. The consumer said she was concerned that her application would be turned down due to the consumer’s involvement with the collateral on another Reliable account. That other account was charged off causing a loss to Reliable. Reliable told the consumer that what occurred on the other account was a concern but should not be an issue as Reliable understood that the consumer did what she needed to do to protect her interest in the collateral. Reliable again reiterated that Reliable would process her application.
As to the consumer’s request that her name be removed from the other account as a reference, the consumer is not listed on the other account as a reference. The consumer’s name appears only in the system comments to that account. Reliable cannot remove system comments, but those comments will not affect how Reliable processes future applications from the consumer or how Reliable conducts its underwriting process.
Reliable understands the consumer’s lack of trust that a loan will be processed and approved by Reliable and we apologize for any confusion arising from the April 11, 2016 telephone conversation. However, Reliable is unable to tell the consumer (or any consumer) whether she will be approved for a loan without first processing an application. Reliable continues to encourage the consumer to submit her application to Reliable for consideration.
If the consumer has additional questions or concerns, she should feel free to call me.
Michael A[redacted]
Manager