Tonno Cover Depot

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below This is a matter of the company not reporting correctly to the credit bureauThey have the collateral for the loan and it is now a repossession "charge off" they are reporting late payments each monthThese are not late payments this is a repossession and should be reported as suchThis company has caused an unimaginable damage to my credit rating already and it is unfair for them to continue reporting as late paymentsThey have the vehicle and I am not responsible for the time in which they sell the collateral, since it is a repossession and they have the collateral in their possession it is only right to report it in that way Regards, [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 and the matter has been resolved Sincerely, [redacted] ?

It is our company policy to charge off a delinquent account after the collateral has been sold.We will continue to follow our course of business with this account.The debtor is welcome to contact our office anytime to receive an update as to the sale of her vehicle

United Consumer Finance (UCF) takes any allegation of fraud seriously, an internal investigation was conducted and completedThe results are as follows: On or about 12/9/16; Mrs*** and Mr*** jointly entered into a Retail Instalment Sales Contract (RISC) with *** ***
***, LLC*** *** ***, LLC then offered to sell the RISC to UCF which then required several supporting documents to accompany the RISC, prior to saleSome of the supporting documents that are required are: credit applications, copies of driver’s licenses, pay stubs (if applicable); etcOnce all of the documents are received by UCF they are then reviewed by the loan underwriting team for validationSaid RISC and supporting documentation passed validation by our underwriting team and was purchased by UCF, who became the legal lien holder and contract servicer, on or about 12/9/ In the ordinary course of business, UCF conducts “Welcome Calls” to all of its new customersOn December 20, 2016, a UCF customer service representative called the primary borrowers cell phone number listed as (*** ***A review of the credit application shows said cell phone number as belonging to Mrs***The UCF representative noted that said cell phone was dialed and answered by a female who then identified herself as Mrs***The UCF representative noted that Mrs*** “…is aware of the payment date, the payment amount, and the optionsShe stated she will go over the (auto pay) with her husband and she will call in if the has any questions or concerns”Call EndedThere was nothing mentioned in that note indicating Mrs*** was concerned that the loan was taken out illegally for the purchase of this vehicle In the months after the RISC was purchased by UCF, the loan proceeded as normalAccording to the notes, payments were being called in by the joint borrower, *** ***On February 16, 2017, Mrs*** called in from the aforentioned cell phone number and indicated (in part) that her husband forged her signature but she did initially know about the loanThe notes also indicated that she never agreed and this loan and this loan is now preventing her from buying a homeWhile it wasn’t noted, it appears Mrs*** requested to speak with a supervisor who wasn’t available at that timeLater that day, Mrs*** was called by a supervisor at UCFThe supervisor noted that Mrs*** was rude and was threatening legal action against UCF if her name is not removed from the loan and her now ex-husband forged her nameShe was advised to go back to the selling dealership to discuss this allegation but Mrs*** started using bad language and Mrs*** abruptly ended the call On June 9, 2017, Mrs*** called UCF on the aforementioned cell phone and attempted to make a payment of $to UCF via a debit card ending in the number (***) but said transaction declinedOn June 12, 2017, a UCF representative called the aforementioned cell phone number and it was answered by Mrs***The note indicated that Mrs*** was advised that the transaction declined and Mrs*** stated (in part) that she would have to call the joint borrower (Mr***) as it was his card but that the payment would be paid that dayOn June 13, 2017, the joint borrower (Mr***) called and presented the same debit card for payment and the transaction was acceptedThere was nothing noted in all of these conversations regarding an unauthorized signature The loan continued as over the next several months until a payment became past due and a UCF representative made a phone call to Mrs*** on October 13, The details of that call as indicated by the note show that Mrs*** again indicated that she never signed any paperwork and that she is not responsible for the payment and asked us to contact the joint borrower On October 27, 2017, Mrs*** called UCF using the aforementioned cell phoneThe note from that communication indicated that Mrs*** allegedly filed a police report regarding the alleged forged signature and again threaten to sue UCFShe was advised to discuss that with the dealership and she discontinued the callUCF did not receive a copy of the alleged police report On December 13, 2017, a UCF made a call to Mrs*** on the aforementioned cell numberThe note indicates that Mrs*** again alleged that the signature was forged but that she was taking the selling dealership to courtShe was advised that until UCF receives any documentation that she is not responsible, she will remain the primary borrower on this account On or around February 2018, vehicle was involved in an accident and was deemed to be a total loss by ***Mrs***’s loan with UCF was paid in full by an insurance payment on February 14, On May 8, 2018, Mrs*** called into UCF from the aforementioned cell number and spoke to a UCF supervisorAccording to the note, Mrs*** stated she needed documentation showing that her ex-husband was the individual making the payments to UCFMrs*** was then advised by the UCF supervisor that we would have to check with our payment processing department and the supervisor would have to call her backMrs*** said she did not want a call back and needed the documentation, nowMrs*** was told by the supervisor that was all we could do, Mrs*** became upset and disconnected the callLater that day, the UCF supervisor returned the call to Mrs***UCF supervisor offered to send Mrs*** a copy of the payment history and a copy of the RISCMrs*** then stated she will have her lawyer subpoena the records and felt the supervisor was refusing to help herMrs*** was speaking with a supervisor at UCF and there was no other department that she could have been transferred toUCF has not been contacted by an attorney claiming they represent Mrs*** While no one at UCF is a hand writing expert, it appears that the signature on the RISC is substantially similar to the signature that appears on the copy of the Mrs***’s driver’s licenseFurthermore, as part of the original documentation received by UCF at the time the loan was purchased from *** *** ***, LLC; UCF also received Mrs***s employment contact with ***.com and a copy of her pay stub from ***.comWhile we cannot absolutely confirm that the signature on the RISC is that of Mrs***, we can reasonably assume that Mrs*** was well aware of the purchase of the vehicle as evidenced by the supporting documentation and with her own words as documented in the UCF “welcome call” note on December 20, Even if Mrs*** didn’t sign the RISC, we are of the opinion that whomever signed the RISC was an authorized agent of Mrs***UCF maintains its position regarding this matter unless new evidence is presented

Upon reviewing the debtors account, we have decided to credit the remaining balance, due to our employee quoting an incorrect payoff of $20.57.The debtor's account has been updated as paid in full

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined
that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #***I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved.
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ***Please add your rejection comments below.
So if the vehicle never sells then what is the course of actionThis is a complete rip off and unacceptable.
Regards,
*** ***

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 and the matter has been resolved
Sincerely,
*** ***
?

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 and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

This auto loan was purchased at an APR of 24%, NOT 27%.This vehicle was repossessed on 9/22/15, and delivered to [redacted] on 10/19/2015.This vehicle has been placed for sale since November, but is not sold yet, most likely due to the extensive mechanical issues.We will charge this loan...

off once the vehicle is sold.UCf is an indirect lender, and thus not capable of refinancing any loans for debtors, directly.We explained this to Ms. [redacted] and advised her to pursue refinancing through other financing source, prior to repossessing vehicle.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
This is a matter of the company not reporting correctly to the credit bureau. They have the collateral for the loan and it is now a repossession "charge off" they are reporting late payments each month. These are not late payments this is a repossession and should be reported as such. This company has caused an unimaginable damage to my credit rating already and it is unfair for them to continue reporting as late payments. They have the vehicle and I am not responsible for the time in which they sell the collateral, since it is a repossession and they have the collateral in their possession it is only right to report it in that way. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. 
 
Regards,
[redacted]