Reliable Credit has attached it's response to complaint file #[redacted].Thank you.
Revdex.com Complaint Response
Complaint ID [redacted] submitted on 9/18/15
The customer’s allegations are inaccurate in that no payments debited by Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”) from...
their bank account were unauthorized. Reliable’s records indicate that all payments identified in the complaint were in fact initiated by the customer via Reliable’s “eServices” website. The following is an accurate chronology and description of payments and events, specific to the customer’s complaint:
· 7/15/15 – The customer set up automatic (recurring) ACH payments of $340.78 to be debited on the 16th of each month, beginning on 7/16/15 (“Auto Pay 1”) (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 7/16/15 – July 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 7/16/15
· 8/17/15 – August 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 8/17/15 (since 8/16/15 was a Sunday)
· 8/17/15 – The customer made a one-time ACH payment of $340.78, effective 8/17/15 (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 8/17/15 – The customer set up additional automatic (recurring) ACH payments of $340.78 to be debited on the 16th of each month, beginning on 9/16/15 (“Auto Pay 2”) (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted])
· 8/19/15 – Reliable discussed the customer’s payment history with the customer and agreed to refund one of the 8/17/15 ACH payments. Reliable was not aware at the time that
· 8/20/15 – Reliable mailed the refund check to the customer but inadvertently addressed the envelope without the customer’s apartment number. The envelope was subsequently returned to Reliable as undeliverable on 8/31/15.
· 9/8/15 – The other 8/17/15 ACH payment was returned by the customer’s bank for the ACH return reason, “customer advises not authorized.” Consistent with the terms of the customer’s retail installment contract, Reliable assessed a $40 fee for a returned payment.
· 9/15/15 – The customer made a one-time ACH payment of $340.78, effective 9/15/15 (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 9/16/15 – September 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 9/16/15
· 9/16/15 – September 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 2; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 9/16/15
· 9/18/15 – The customer deleted Auto Pay 1 and Auto Pay 2 (i.e., revoked authorization).
In all cases, the customer initiated and expressly authorized ACH payments that were debited from their bank account. Reliable apologizes for its error that resulted in a significant delay in refunding one of the 8/17/15 ACH payments. As a gesture of goodwill and appreciation for the customer’s business, Reliable has reversed the $40 fee that was assessed on 9/8/15. If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at [redacted]
Our customer set up her Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”) account to be paid via automatic recurring electronic ACH payments from her bank account on the 5th of each month. October 5, 2015 was a Monday. In accordance with its ACH procedures, and in order to provide...
sufficient time for our customer’s bank to process the requested transaction, Reliable sent a NACHA file to its bank 2 business days in advance, on Thursday, October 1, 2015. The NACHA file instructed our customer’s bank to debit her bank account on October 5th. On October 2, 2015, our customer paid off her Reliable account in full. Because the NACHA file had already been sent on October 1st, the payment was processed from her bank account on October 5th, as she had previously instructed. There was no way for Reliable to cancel the October 5th paymentUnfortunately, a Reliable representative gave our customer erroneous refund information when she called to discuss the October 5th payment. Reliable’s policy is to wait 2 weeks after payment of non-certified funds before issuing a refund, unless Reliable receives verification prior to 2 weeks that an ACH payment was received. This allows Reliable to confirm that a payment will not be dishonored by the paying bank. Our customer called Reliable on October 8, 2015 and a Reliable representative told her a refund check would be issued the same day. The representative then failed to take steps to issue the refund immediately. Reliable continued with its normal process and mailed a refund check to our customer on October 19, 2015. The Reliable representative has been re-trained on the proper way to handle refunds.To date the refund check has not been negotiated by our customer. Reliable has called and left her a voice message to follow up on the refund. We would be happy to assist her in getting the refund reissued to her, if necessary, and paying any bank fees that may have been assessed as a result of this unfortunate situation.
On September 9, 2016, the consumer submitted a credit application to Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) via its website for an automobile loan in the amount of $5,000. A Credit Officer reviewed the consumer’s online application and noticed that the application lacked information...
about the specific vehicle or private party to make a final underwriting decision. Accordingly, the Credit Officer called the consumer to obtain that information. The consumer told the Credit Officer that she did not have an exact vehicle in mind but wanted to have financing completed before she visited dealerships. Reliable does not make unsecured loans for $5,000 and needed more information about the vehicle before it could complete the underwriting process and give the applicant final approval. The Credit Officer suggested that the applicant shop around and present Reliable with a vehicle description and price and Reliable would be happy to complete the underwriting process. The consumer voiced disappointment that (1) her credit report was obtained even though Reliable could not complete its underwriting, and (2) the online credit application did not state that vehicle or dealer information was a stipulation to processing the application.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) allows a consumer reporting agency to furnish a consumer report to a person that “intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.” 15 USC 1681b(1)(3)(A). Here, the consumer submitted a credit application to Reliable via its website for an automobile loan. In other words, the consumer was requesting an extension of credit. Therefore, Reliable had a permissible purpose under the FCRA to obtain her credit report at the time of her application. Nothing in the FCRA prohibits Reliable, or any other creditor, from obtaining a credit report as a first step in underwriting. Reliable is not required to wait until the end of its underwriting process to obtain a credit report.
The consumer appears to believe that vehicle information is a pre-requisite or stipulation to underwriting for a secured loan. Reliable apologizes for any misunderstanding of its underwriting process. Although the vehicle information will eventually be required to complete the underwriting process, it is not required to start the process (i.e., a credit application). We have reached out to the consumer to see how we can help her obtain the financing she requested and have received no response.
The consumer requests that we make a “correction to [her] credit report.” Although Reliable permissibly obtained her credit report, Reliable will submit a request to the credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) to suppress the credit inquiry as a courtesy to the consumer. Ultimately it is the CRAs choice whether or not to suppress the credit inquiry, not Reliable’s. In this case because Reliable had a permissible purpose to obtain the credit report, we presume the CRAs will not suppress the inquiry.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: first off you never called me whatever number you have is not me so please don't state I hung up on you guys twice. second you guys were in contact with the person who took my identity I barely found out about the account and called in do you guys have the recordings? please match them to when I called in as its not the same person. I faxed the paperwork twice to you guys and have emailed the FTC AFFDAVIT over so that you guys cane help me fix the issue. Your repo company must not be no good as I got a bill from a tow yard for almost 6k stating they have a vehicle of mine. I have not gotten any vehicle from this place as if you check all the information out you will find that is not me you guys have not even look into the matter I am a victim of fraud and im getting treated like I did something wrong. I have emailed over again the Ftc papers to brent he said they will be put in the file and that was it he said he does not deal with this type of issue and I would have to speak to someone else that can help me.Sincerely,[redacted]
We received the consumer’s complaint on October 20, 2017. The consumer complains that Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) will not honor a payoff amount we quoted to the consumer for his credit union to payoff his Reliable account. We reviewed his account and conducted an...
investigation. The results of that review and investigation reveal that the consumer’s credit union sent a check for the payoff amount eight (8) days after the payoff quoted to the consumer expired. Accordingly, the payoff amount was short eight (8) days of interest. As soon as Reliable alerted the credit union that the payoff was short, the credit union sent Reliable a check for the correct amount. The details are set forth below. On September 9, 2017, the consumer entered into a retail installment contract (“contract”) with Huntsman Wholesale (“dealer”) for the purchase of a vehicle. The contract stated that monthly payments were due on the ninth day of each month starting October 9, 2017. All terms of the contract were negotiated between the consumer and the dealer. The contract was subsequently assigned to Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”). On September 14, 2017 Reliable purchased the contract. That same day Reliable sent the consumer a Welcome Letter detailing the terms of the account, including the APR, the payment amount, and the first payment due date of October 9. Reliable‘s next contact with the consumer was on September 27 when he called requesting a payoff good for two weeks. Reliable provided him the payoff which was good until October 11, 2017. The amount of the payoff was $16,913. Reliable received a check for $16,913.92 from Idaho Central Credit Union (“ICCU”) on October 19, 2017, eight (8) days after the quoted payoff amount expired. Reliable contacted the ICCU and informed it that the payoff was $89.73 short of the amount required to get the account paid in full. ICCU said it would send out the check for this difference the next morning. The difference was received by Reliable on October 23 and the title was mailed to ICCU per their instructions on October 24. We note that the consumer complains that Reliable called him five times within two weeks. Most of the calls were messages left with the consumer to discuss the vehicle purchase before Reliable decided whether to purchase the contract from the dealer. One of the calls was a September 13 call where Reliable actually spoke with the consumer. The only other call to the consumer was placed on October 17 to follow up on the consumer’s past due October 9 payment. At this time, Reliable had not yet received the payoff check from ICCU. The consumer requested that Reliable stop calling. Reliable complied with his request. There are no notes or comments in the consumer’s account that he requested a due date change. However, it is Reliable’s policy that a due date change is not permitted until a customer has made at least one payment on the account. This consumer never made a payment before his account was paid off by ICCU. Even if a due date change was available it would not have changed the interest that accrued from October 11 (the date the payoff expired) to October 19 (the date Reliable received the short payoff). The payoff would have been short by the same amount. If the consumer has additional questions or would like further information, he should feel free to contact me directly at (208) 288-2300 ext [redacted]. Sincerely, Shawn S[redacted] Manager
The consumer filed this Revdex.com complaint on April 10, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the consumer contacted Reliable Credit Association, Inc. ("Reliable") to discuss whether Reliable would finance the consumer's potential purchase of a motorcycle through [redacted]. This consumer had...
some prior interactions with Reliable related to another Reliable account belonging to a different consumer. Reliable suffered a large loss on that account. The consumer expressed concern that Reliable may not finance the [redacted] purchase due to the issue with the other account. Reliable advised the consumer that it would not be an issue and Reliable would be more than happy to process an application. To date, Reliable has yet to receive an application from the consumer or [redacted]
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]
March 18, 2016
RE: Complaint ID [redacted]
The consumers’ complaint arises from a miscommunication between Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) and the consumers regarding payments made to keep their account current during the pendency of a guaranteed asset protection waiver (“GAP...
Waiver”) claim. Reliable and the consumers discussed the issue on March 8, 2016 and March 9, 2016 and were able to resolve the matter on March 9. The background facts and resolution are set forth below.
On March 20, 2015, the consumers entered in a loan agreement with Reliable. The consumers pledged a 2005 Chevrolet Silverado (“Chevrolet”) and a 2003 Chrysler 300M (“Chrysler”) as collateral. The vehicles were insured by State Farm Insurance. In addition, the consumers purchased a GAP Waiver.
On October 23, 2015, the consumers informed Reliable that the Chrysler was involved in an accident and was a total loss. On November 17, 2015, Reliable received a check from State Farm Insurance for the total loss of the Chrysler, which was applied to the consumers’ loan account as a principal reduction. Reliable then filed a claim with the GAP Waiver product administrator on the consumers’ behalf. At this time, the consumers expressed concern about affording the monthly installments on the loan account. Due to the total loss of the Chrysler and the pending GAP Waiver claim, Reliable agreed to accept a monthly payment of $50 on the loan account to advance the account to the next due date until the GAP Waiver claim was resolved. Such payments were made on the loan account in November and December. Reliable’s acceptance of these partial payments helped the consumers to avoid being assessed any late charges.
The GAP Waiver claim unfortunately took longer than expected and was ultimately denied on January 22, 2016. Reliable advised the consumers of the denial and the consumers expressed dissatisfaction over the time involved with the GAP Waiver claim and the interest that had accrued on the account during this time. As a courtesy, Reliable reamortized the consumers’ account to reduce the monthly payment amount and changed the monthly due date to a date chosen by the consumers. The consumers made the full reamoritzied monthly payments on the loan account in February and March 2016. Due to the $50 payments made in November and December 2015, the consumers’ account had accrued interest and the February and March 2016 payments were applied to the accrued interest only (i.e., the payments were not enough to pay down principal).
On March 8, 2016, the consumers telephoned Reliable as they were upset that the payments were not applied to the loan’s principal balance. At this time, Reliable realized there was confusion regarding Reliable’s agreement to accept the $50 partial payments. Reliable accepted those payments not as full monthly payments, but as a courtesy to the consumers to advance the account to the next due date while the GAP Waiver claim was pending. The simple interest loan continued to accrue interest during this time. Upon realizing the miscommunication, Reliable offered to refund the consumers all interest on the loan account that accrued between November 17, 2015 (the date Reliable received the check for the total loss) and February 8, 2016 (the date of the first monthly payment after the GAP Waiver claim was denied and the account was reamortized). That amount was approximately $614.
On March 9, 2016, Reliable and the consumers agreed to resolve the matter for a total of $700 to be split evenly between two accounts the consumers hold at Reliable -- the loan account and a retail installment contract account for another vehicle that the consumers purchased to replace the Chrysler. On March 11, Reliable credited the principal balance of each of the consumers’ accounts $350.00. On March 14, Reliable sent the consumers account statements reflecting the credits.
If the consumers have any questions, they are encouraged to contact Reliable.
Reliable Credit has attached it's response to complaint file #[redacted].Thank you.
Revdex.com Complaint Response
Complaint ID [redacted] submitted on 9/18/15
The customer’s allegations are inaccurate in that no payments debited by Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”) from...
their bank account were unauthorized. Reliable’s records indicate that all payments identified in the complaint were in fact initiated by the customer via Reliable’s “eServices” website. The following is an accurate chronology and description of payments and events, specific to the customer’s complaint:
· 7/15/15 – The customer set up automatic (recurring) ACH payments of $340.78 to be debited on the 16th of each month, beginning on 7/16/15 (“Auto Pay 1”) (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 7/16/15 – July 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 7/16/15
· 8/17/15 – August 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 8/17/15 (since 8/16/15 was a Sunday)
· 8/17/15 – The customer made a one-time ACH payment of $340.78, effective 8/17/15 (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 8/17/15 – The customer set up additional automatic (recurring) ACH payments of $340.78 to be debited on the 16th of each month, beginning on 9/16/15 (“Auto Pay 2”) (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted])
· 8/19/15 – Reliable discussed the customer’s payment history with the customer and agreed to refund one of the 8/17/15 ACH payments. Reliable was not aware at the time that
· 8/20/15 – Reliable mailed the refund check to the customer but inadvertently addressed the envelope without the customer’s apartment number. The envelope was subsequently returned to Reliable as undeliverable on 8/31/15.
· 9/8/15 – The other 8/17/15 ACH payment was returned by the customer’s bank for the ACH return reason, “customer advises not authorized.” Consistent with the terms of the customer’s retail installment contract, Reliable assessed a $40 fee for a returned payment.
· 9/15/15 – The customer made a one-time ACH payment of $340.78, effective 9/15/15 (confirmation number provided to customer was [redacted]).
· 9/16/15 – September 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 1; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 9/16/15
· 9/16/15 – September 16th payment that was preauthorized with Auto Pay 2; $340.78 posted to the customer’s account on 9/16/15
· 9/18/15 – The customer deleted Auto Pay 1 and Auto Pay 2 (i.e., revoked authorization).
In all cases, the customer initiated and expressly authorized ACH payments that were debited from their bank account. Reliable apologizes for its error that resulted in a significant delay in refunding one of the 8/17/15 ACH payments. As a gesture of goodwill and appreciation for the customer’s business, Reliable has reversed the $40 fee that was assessed on 9/8/15. If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at [redacted]
Our customer set up her Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (WA) (“Reliable”) account to be paid via automatic recurring electronic ACH payments from her bank account on the 5th of each month. October 5, 2015 was a Monday. In accordance with its ACH procedures, and in order to provide...
sufficient time for our customer’s bank to process the requested transaction, Reliable sent a NACHA file to its bank 2 business days in advance, on Thursday, October 1, 2015. The NACHA file instructed our customer’s bank to debit her bank account on October 5th. On October 2, 2015, our customer paid off her Reliable account in full. Because the NACHA file had already been sent on October 1st, the payment was processed from her bank account on October 5th, as she had previously instructed. There was no way for Reliable to cancel the October 5th paymentUnfortunately, a Reliable representative gave our customer erroneous refund information when she called to discuss the October 5th payment. Reliable’s policy is to wait 2 weeks after payment of non-certified funds before issuing a refund, unless Reliable receives verification prior to 2 weeks that an ACH payment was received. This allows Reliable to confirm that a payment will not be dishonored by the paying bank. Our customer called Reliable on October 8, 2015 and a Reliable representative told her a refund check would be issued the same day. The representative then failed to take steps to issue the refund immediately. Reliable continued with its normal process and mailed a refund check to our customer on October 19, 2015. The Reliable representative has been re-trained on the proper way to handle refunds.To date the refund check has not been negotiated by our customer. Reliable has called and left her a voice message to follow up on the refund. We would be happy to assist her in getting the refund reissued to her, if necessary, and paying any bank fees that may have been assessed as a result of this unfortunate situation.
On September 9, 2016, the consumer submitted a credit application to Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) via its website for an automobile loan in the amount of $5,000. A Credit Officer reviewed the consumer’s online application and noticed that the application lacked information...
about the specific vehicle or private party to make a final underwriting decision. Accordingly, the Credit Officer called the consumer to obtain that information. The consumer told the Credit Officer that she did not have an exact vehicle in mind but wanted to have financing completed before she visited dealerships. Reliable does not make unsecured loans for $5,000 and needed more information about the vehicle before it could complete the underwriting process and give the applicant final approval. The Credit Officer suggested that the applicant shop around and present Reliable with a vehicle description and price and Reliable would be happy to complete the underwriting process. The consumer voiced disappointment that (1) her credit report was obtained even though Reliable could not complete its underwriting, and (2) the online credit application did not state that vehicle or dealer information was a stipulation to processing the application.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) allows a consumer reporting agency to furnish a consumer report to a person that “intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.” 15 USC 1681b(1)(3)(A). Here, the consumer submitted a credit application to Reliable via its website for an automobile loan. In other words, the consumer was requesting an extension of credit. Therefore, Reliable had a permissible purpose under the FCRA to obtain her credit report at the time of her application. Nothing in the FCRA prohibits Reliable, or any other creditor, from obtaining a credit report as a first step in underwriting. Reliable is not required to wait until the end of its underwriting process to obtain a credit report.
The consumer appears to believe that vehicle information is a pre-requisite or stipulation to underwriting for a secured loan. Reliable apologizes for any misunderstanding of its underwriting process. Although the vehicle information will eventually be required to complete the underwriting process, it is not required to start the process (i.e., a credit application). We have reached out to the consumer to see how we can help her obtain the financing she requested and have received no response.
The consumer requests that we make a “correction to [her] credit report.” Although Reliable permissibly obtained her credit report, Reliable will submit a request to the credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) to suppress the credit inquiry as a courtesy to the consumer. Ultimately it is the CRAs choice whether or not to suppress the credit inquiry, not Reliable’s. In this case because Reliable had a permissible purpose to obtain the credit report, we presume the CRAs will not suppress the inquiry.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: first off you never called me whatever number you have is not me so please don't state I hung up on you guys twice. second you guys were in contact with the person who took my identity I barely found out about the account and called in do you guys have the recordings? please match them to when I called in as its not the same person. I faxed the paperwork twice to you guys and have emailed the FTC AFFDAVIT over so that you guys cane help me fix the issue. Your repo company must not be no good as I got a bill from a tow yard for almost 6k stating they have a vehicle of mine. I have not gotten any vehicle from this place as if you check all the information out you will find that is not me you guys have not even look into the matter I am a victim of fraud and im getting treated like I did something wrong. I have emailed over again the Ftc papers to brent he said they will be put in the file and that was it he said he does not deal with this type of issue and I would have to speak to someone else that can help me.Sincerely,[redacted]
We received the consumer’s complaint on October 20, 2017. The consumer complains that Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) will not honor a payoff amount we quoted to the consumer for his credit union to payoff his Reliable account. We reviewed his account and conducted an...
investigation. The results of that review and investigation reveal that the consumer’s credit union sent a check for the payoff amount eight (8) days after the payoff quoted to the consumer expired. Accordingly, the payoff amount was short eight (8) days of interest. As soon as Reliable alerted the credit union that the payoff was short, the credit union sent Reliable a check for the correct amount. The details are set forth below. On September 9, 2017, the consumer entered into a retail installment contract (“contract”) with Huntsman Wholesale (“dealer”) for the purchase of a vehicle. The contract stated that monthly payments were due on the ninth day of each month starting October 9, 2017. All terms of the contract were negotiated between the consumer and the dealer. The contract was subsequently assigned to Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”). On September 14, 2017 Reliable purchased the contract. That same day Reliable sent the consumer a Welcome Letter detailing the terms of the account, including the APR, the payment amount, and the first payment due date of October 9. Reliable‘s next contact with the consumer was on September 27 when he called requesting a payoff good for two weeks. Reliable provided him the payoff which was good until October 11, 2017. The amount of the payoff was $16,913. Reliable received a check for $16,913.92 from Idaho Central Credit Union (“ICCU”) on October 19, 2017, eight (8) days after the quoted payoff amount expired. Reliable contacted the ICCU and informed it that the payoff was $89.73 short of the amount required to get the account paid in full. ICCU said it would send out the check for this difference the next morning. The difference was received by Reliable on October 23 and the title was mailed to ICCU per their instructions on October 24. We note that the consumer complains that Reliable called him five times within two weeks. Most of the calls were messages left with the consumer to discuss the vehicle purchase before Reliable decided whether to purchase the contract from the dealer. One of the calls was a September 13 call where Reliable actually spoke with the consumer. The only other call to the consumer was placed on October 17 to follow up on the consumer’s past due October 9 payment. At this time, Reliable had not yet received the payoff check from ICCU. The consumer requested that Reliable stop calling. Reliable complied with his request. There are no notes or comments in the consumer’s account that he requested a due date change. However, it is Reliable’s policy that a due date change is not permitted until a customer has made at least one payment on the account. This consumer never made a payment before his account was paid off by ICCU. Even if a due date change was available it would not have changed the interest that accrued from October 11 (the date the payoff expired) to October 19 (the date Reliable received the short payoff). The payoff would have been short by the same amount. If the consumer has additional questions or would like further information, he should feel free to contact me directly at (208) 288-2300 ext [redacted]. Sincerely, Shawn S[redacted] Manager
The consumer filed this Revdex.com complaint on April 10, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the consumer contacted Reliable Credit Association, Inc. ("Reliable") to discuss whether Reliable would finance the consumer's potential purchase of a motorcycle through [redacted]. This consumer had...
some prior interactions with Reliable related to another Reliable account belonging to a different consumer. Reliable suffered a large loss on that account. The consumer expressed concern that Reliable may not finance the [redacted] purchase due to the issue with the other account. Reliable advised the consumer that it would not be an issue and Reliable would be more than happy to process an application. To date, Reliable has yet to receive an application from the consumer or [redacted]
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]
March 18, 2016
RE: Complaint ID [redacted]
The consumers’ complaint arises from a miscommunication between Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (“Reliable”) and the consumers regarding payments made to keep their account current during the pendency of a guaranteed asset protection waiver (“GAP...
Waiver”) claim. Reliable and the consumers discussed the issue on March 8, 2016 and March 9, 2016 and were able to resolve the matter on March 9. The background facts and resolution are set forth below.
On March 20, 2015, the consumers entered in a loan agreement with Reliable. The consumers pledged a 2005 Chevrolet Silverado (“Chevrolet”) and a 2003 Chrysler 300M (“Chrysler”) as collateral. The vehicles were insured by State Farm Insurance. In addition, the consumers purchased a GAP Waiver.
On October 23, 2015, the consumers informed Reliable that the Chrysler was involved in an accident and was a total loss. On November 17, 2015, Reliable received a check from State Farm Insurance for the total loss of the Chrysler, which was applied to the consumers’ loan account as a principal reduction. Reliable then filed a claim with the GAP Waiver product administrator on the consumers’ behalf. At this time, the consumers expressed concern about affording the monthly installments on the loan account. Due to the total loss of the Chrysler and the pending GAP Waiver claim, Reliable agreed to accept a monthly payment of $50 on the loan account to advance the account to the next due date until the GAP Waiver claim was resolved. Such payments were made on the loan account in November and December. Reliable’s acceptance of these partial payments helped the consumers to avoid being assessed any late charges.
The GAP Waiver claim unfortunately took longer than expected and was ultimately denied on January 22, 2016. Reliable advised the consumers of the denial and the consumers expressed dissatisfaction over the time involved with the GAP Waiver claim and the interest that had accrued on the account during this time. As a courtesy, Reliable reamortized the consumers’ account to reduce the monthly payment amount and changed the monthly due date to a date chosen by the consumers. The consumers made the full reamoritzied monthly payments on the loan account in February and March 2016. Due to the $50 payments made in November and December 2015, the consumers’ account had accrued interest and the February and March 2016 payments were applied to the accrued interest only (i.e., the payments were not enough to pay down principal).
On March 8, 2016, the consumers telephoned Reliable as they were upset that the payments were not applied to the loan’s principal balance. At this time, Reliable realized there was confusion regarding Reliable’s agreement to accept the $50 partial payments. Reliable accepted those payments not as full monthly payments, but as a courtesy to the consumers to advance the account to the next due date while the GAP Waiver claim was pending. The simple interest loan continued to accrue interest during this time. Upon realizing the miscommunication, Reliable offered to refund the consumers all interest on the loan account that accrued between November 17, 2015 (the date Reliable received the check for the total loss) and February 8, 2016 (the date of the first monthly payment after the GAP Waiver claim was denied and the account was reamortized). That amount was approximately $614.
On March 9, 2016, Reliable and the consumers agreed to resolve the matter for a total of $700 to be split evenly between two accounts the consumers hold at Reliable -- the loan account and a retail installment contract account for another vehicle that the consumers purchased to replace the Chrysler. On March 11, Reliable credited the principal balance of each of the consumers’ accounts $350.00. On March 14, Reliable sent the consumers account statements reflecting the credits.
If the consumers have any questions, they are encouraged to contact Reliable.