Snap-on Credit LLC

To whom it may concern, I write on behalf of SnCredit LLC (“SOC”) in response to the complaint lodged by MrE [redacted] H [redacted] I note at the outset that the relationship between SOC and MrH [redacted] is commercial in nature because the item (a tool storage box) purchased by MrH [redacted] was for use at his place of employment in his capacity as a technician The tool storage box was not purchased for personal, family, or household purposes, and the contract between MrH [redacted] and SOC expressly provides that the relationship is commercial, not consumer, in nature Before responding to the substance of MrH [redacted] ’s allegations, SOC wants to make it known that it reached out to MrH [redacted] after it received his Revdex.com complaint in an attempt to resolve this matter More specifically, on June 20, I spoke with MrH [redacted] about his complaint and the status of his account with SOC At no time during the course of this conversation did MrH [redacted] state the account did not belong to him Further, our records show that during all of the conversations we have had with MrH [redacted] , not once has he disputed the debt was his Additionally, I offered to settle the matter for less than 60% of the amount currently owed, but MrH [redacted] rejected that offer SOC has made other offers to settle the matter with MrH [redacted] in the past, but as with the offer made during this phone call, MrH [redacted] has rejected all of them That said, I should note that MrH [redacted] made a counteroffer to my settlement offer, but I rejected the counteroffer and that is how we left the matter at the conclusion of the call Moving to the substance of the complaint, regarding MrH [redacted] ’s demand for validation of the debt: SOC would note that, for many reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the relationship between MrH [redacted] and SOC is commercial in nature, and because the money owed to SOC by MrH [redacted] is owed to it and not to a third party, the obligation is not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices ActOur records also show that at no point in conversations prior to this complaint has MrH [redacted] asked for validation, nor did he request it while I spoke with him Nonetheless, we are forwarding him a copy of the contract and payment history to show his current status We are also happy to review any other information he might provide to show that SOC’s records are inaccurate Along those same lines, SOC would note that MrH [redacted] ’s claim that SOC has “refused to respond” to a federal agency is similarly without merit SOC’s records do not reflect receipt of any demand for information or explanation from any state or federal agency related to MrH [redacted] ’s account Finally, MrH [redacted] ’s demand for information demonstrating that SOC is licensed to collect in the state of Louisiana is devoid of legal merit; regardless, SOC states affirmatively that it is properly licensed to conduct its business in Louisiana and that it has made known its statutory agent to the state of Louisiana in all filings where the state has asked for that information To conclude, MrH [redacted] ’s has already acknowledged he entered into a contract to finance the purchase of a tool storage unit, and he breached his obligations to SOC under the contract by failing to pay the sums due thereunder As discussed above, several settlement offers have been made by SOC to MrH [redacted] in order to resolve this matter, but MrH [redacted] has consistently refused to accept them in the timelines offered; instead, he seems inclined to make improper allegations against SOC to confuse the issue at hand I trust this information will bring this matter to a close Should you need anything else from SOC, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience Regards, SnCredit LLC M [redacted] HW [redacted] Director of Compliance/As’t Corporate Counsel

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/02) */
To whom it may concern
I write on behalf of SnCredit LLC ("SOC") in response to the complaint lodged by *** ***I am pleased to report that, after SOC investigated the issues raised by Mr***, and after we reached out to him
to discuss same, an agreement has been reached that satisfies the interests of all concerned
I believe that by coming to an agreement, the parties have successfully resolved this matter
Very truly yours,
SnCredit LLC
*** H***
Director of Compliance/Assistant Corporate Counsel
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/06/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

To whom it may concern,I write on behalf of SnCredit LLC ("SOC") in response to the complaint lodged by Mr***. I note at the outset both that Mr*** is not a "consumer" as that term is defined by, among other things, the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
and that the transaction between Mr*** and SOC is not "trade or commerce" as defined by the Michigan Consumer Protection Act because the products were not primarily for personal, family or household use. That said, SOC understands Mr***'s concerns and it will take the following actions to alleviate them. SOC believes these actions will satisfy Mr*** based on a conversation held between him and an SOC representative. First, with regard to the late fees, SOC has advised Mr*** that it will waive the $charged to him as late fees. SOC is in the process of directing a payment history to Mr*** that shows those charges were waived. Second, with regard to the tool warranty issue, an SOC representative gave the phone number of SnTools’ Customer Care Center to Mr***. SOC did this because warranty issues are the province of SnTools ("SOT"), an affiliate of SOC. When Mr*** contacts the Customer Care Center, the warranty and repair issues will be resolved. I would also note that it is SOT that is responsible for the placement of franchisees into territories, not SOC. I am advised that SOT is endeavoring to place a franchisee or other sales representative into the area where Mr*** is employed, but that process takes timeWhen a franchisee or other sales representative for that territory is located, Mr*** will be notified. Finally, with regard to the billing issue, SOC will provide a monthly statement to Mr*** that will allow Mr*** to remain current on his payments to SOC even while no franchisee or sales representative services his place of employment. The monthly statement will explain how the weekly payment has been converted to a monthly payment amount and that no late charges will be due or owing if the monthly payment amount is timely remitted.If Mr*** has any additional questions or concerns, he may contact me directly. Otherwise, I trust this response will result in the resolution of Mr***’s complaint lodged with the Revdex.com.Very truly yours, SnCredit LLC Michael H***Director of Compliance/As’t Corporate Counsel

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/21) */
To whom it may concern,
I write on behalf of Snap-on Credit LLC ("SOC") in response to the complaint lodged by Mr. [redacted]. I note that SOC engages in commercial transactions with customers who use the tools and diagnostic equipment...

in the course of their employment. SOC facilitates the purchase of Snap-on tools and diagnostic equipment by those working in the automobile repair industry.
While SOC disagrees with the facts as alleged by Mr. [redacted], I am pleased to report that the matter has been resolved. More specifically, after reaching out to Mr. [redacted], SOC and he have entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, and each party to the agreement is satisfied with the outcome.
I trust that by providing this information that the matter will be considered successfully resolved. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to ask.
Very truly yours,
Michael H. [redacted]
Director of Compliance/Assistant Corporate Counsel
Snap-on Credit LLC

To whom it may concern,   I write on behalf of Snap-on Credit LLC (“SOC”) in response to the complaint lodged by Mr. E* H[redacted].  I note at the outset that the relationship between SOC and Mr. H[redacted] is commercial in nature because the item (a tool storage box) purchased by Mr. H[redacted]...

was for use at his place of employment in his capacity as a technician.  The tool storage box was not purchased for personal, family, or household purposes, and the contract between Mr. H[redacted] and SOC expressly provides that the relationship is commercial, not consumer, in nature.     Before responding to the substance of Mr. H[redacted]’s allegations, SOC wants to make it known that it reached out to Mr. H[redacted] after it received his Revdex.com complaint in an attempt to resolve this matter.  More specifically, on June 20, I spoke with Mr. H[redacted] about his complaint and the status of his account with SOC.  At no time during the course of this conversation did Mr. H[redacted] state the account did not belong to him.  Further, our records show that during all of the conversations we have had with Mr. H[redacted], not once has he disputed the debt was his.   Additionally, I offered to settle the matter for less than 60% of the amount currently owed, but Mr. H[redacted] rejected that offer.  SOC has made other offers to settle the matter with Mr. H[redacted] in the past, but as with the offer made during this phone call, Mr. H[redacted] has rejected all of them.  That said, I should note that Mr. H[redacted] made a counteroffer to my settlement offer, but I rejected the counteroffer and that is how we left the matter at the conclusion of the call.    Moving to the substance of the complaint, regarding Mr. H[redacted]’s demand for validation of the debt: SOC would note that, for many reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the relationship between Mr. H[redacted] and SOC is commercial in nature, and because the money owed to SOC by Mr. H[redacted] is owed to it and not to a third party, the obligation is not subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Our records also show that at no point in conversations prior to this complaint has Mr. H[redacted] asked for validation, nor did he request it while I spoke with him.  Nonetheless, we are forwarding him a copy of the contract and payment history to show his current status.  We are also happy to review any other information he might provide to show that SOC’s records are inaccurate.   Along those same lines, SOC would note that Mr. H[redacted]’s claim that SOC has “refused to respond” to a federal agency is similarly without merit.  SOC’s records do not reflect receipt of any demand for information or explanation from any state or federal agency related to Mr. H[redacted]’s account.       Finally, Mr. H[redacted]’s demand for information demonstrating that SOC is licensed to collect in the state of Louisiana is devoid of legal merit; regardless, SOC states affirmatively that it is properly licensed to conduct its business in Louisiana and that it has made known its statutory agent to the state of Louisiana in all filings where the state has asked for that information.    To conclude, Mr. H[redacted]’s has already acknowledged he entered into a contract to finance the purchase of a tool storage unit, and he breached his obligations to SOC under the contract by failing to pay the sums due thereunder.  As discussed above, several settlement offers have been made by SOC to Mr. H[redacted] in order to resolve this matter, but Mr. H[redacted] has consistently refused to accept them in the timelines offered; instead, he seems inclined to make improper allegations against SOC to confuse the issue at hand.       I trust this information will bring this matter to a close.  Should you need anything else from SOC, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.   Regards,   Snap-on Credit LLC     M[redacted] H. W[redacted] Director of Compliance/As’t Corporate Counsel