[HN Gopher] Miss a payment? Good luck moving that car (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
Miss a payment? Good luck moving that car (2014)
Author : ColinWright
Score : 48 points
Date : 2021-04-03 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dealbook.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (dealbook.nytimes.com)
| benjohnson wrote:
| If you do know someone who is broke and needs transportation you
| can do them a huge favor - gide them through the process and help
| them pick a reliable car at a fair price. Having someone along to
| be by their side will help keep the pretators at bay.
| zachshefska wrote:
| Yes! The current car buying process takes advantage of the
| consumer. This is entirely why I started working on
| https://yourautoadvocate.com/ a year ago.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Are you suggesting that all a broke person needs to solve their
| transport situation is better advice? That's kind of
| patronizing.
|
| They are broke - affording it is the hard part. If you really
| want to help co-sign on financing, lend them a vehicle, offer
| to car-pool etc
| throwawayboise wrote:
| If you're going to co-sign a loan, just plan on buying the
| person the car as a gift.
| lmilcin wrote:
| Being broke is usually a symptom, frequently result of
| problems with making sound financial decisions.
|
| You can help somebody by explaining they will be happier with
| a used car rather than a new one.
|
| Is that patronizing? Maybe. But if everybody keeps to their
| own business we are just perpetuating the problem.
| benjohnson wrote:
| Most everybody needs a buddy to help them with the car buying
| process to navigate car dealership tricks. Dealerships are
| well oiled machined designed to extract money and they have
| years of practice.
|
| Poor people need even more help give they have no room for
| error.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >help them pick a reliable car at a fair price
|
| I work for an auto loan lender. If you want a fair price, I
| recommend CarMax. They are fair. You won't get a great deal
| there, but you also won't get a bad deal there. It is right
| down the middle.
| Animats wrote:
| (2014)
| dang wrote:
| Added above. Thanks!
| burlesona wrote:
| The shameful fact is that we have not only enthusiastically
| embraced - but required by force of law - that Americans cannot
| participate in the economy without a private vehicle maintained
| in good repair.
|
| Perhaps in the 50's you could say "well there are plenty of pre-
| car places you can still live and work," but first we spent the
| 60's bulldozing those places to put in freeways and parking lots,
| then most of them hollowed out as the jobs moved to the suburbs,
| and now, strangely enough, they're revitalizing as lifestyle
| areas that are very expensive to live in.
|
| This, more than anything, has cut off the bottom rungs of the
| economic ladder. We're not going to fix any of the major societal
| issues in the US until we fix our suburban development pattern.
| We need to quit spreading dense splatters of suburban homes
| butter thin between massive gaps of poorly utilized land (aka
| "leapfrog development" made possible only because subdivisions
| get to externalize their infrastructure and public service
| costs), stop hyper regulating development so that it takes years
| of professional work to get a simple building permit, and design
| for safe pedestrian access as a first priority, so that car
| ownership becomes optional rather than mandatory.
|
| When it comes to housing and development we live in a state
| planned economy and it's failing us just as surely as all the
| others.
| cpursley wrote:
| This is one of the main reasons I won't be moving back to the
| US if I if I can avoid it. Moving to a place built for humans
| is absolutely life changing.
|
| Whenever people where I now live ask what America is like I
| explain that you can't even purchase food without first owning
| a car (with a few exceptions).
| modularform123 wrote:
| I hope you and your family can get the Covid-19 vaccine soon,
| in whatever great place it is you are living in!
| devmunchies wrote:
| > Moving to a place built for humans
|
| It's a factor of whether the city was built before the
| industrial revolution. Humans will always default to the easy
| path.
|
| I think it's the exact same paradigm for software bloat. By
| having higher powered computers, we build websites without
| needing to optimize, so now you need a high powered computer
| to run them.
|
| Building a city without cars is like developing a video game
| 30 years ago, much more deliberate use of limited resources.
| juancb wrote:
| There may be an untapped market there waiting to be
| exploited.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| When our family lived in Boston we did not own a vehicle.
|
| Especially now with everyone using post pandemic delivery, it
| will get even easier to not have to own a vehicle.
| nja wrote:
| Boston is certainly in a better position than a lot of the
| country. However, even in Boston, being able to be car-free
| is not always feasible for lower-income folks, especially
| as development relentlessly moves forward.
|
| As an example: the neighborhood I've lived in for a decade
| used to be a relatively low-income neighborhood. Rents were
| low in the old buildings, most folks walked to their jobs
| in the medical area, and there was a cheap Shaws grocery
| store for food, as well as several fast food places and
| family-run storefronts. Public transit (light rail, buses,
| and commuter rail) was accessible close by.
|
| Then a development company bought nearly all of the parcels
| along the main road and built a wall of mid-to-high-rises.
| Accordingly, all rent in the area went way up, forcing most
| of the lower-income folks out of even the older, shittier
| tenement buildings. A Target went in, and the Shaws
| rebranded as the more expensive Star Market (and will soon
| close so they can build a new Whole-Foods-type expensive
| megastore). All of the small storefronts closed, and now
| the area is nearly entirely high-end shopping outlets and
| expensive gastro-restaurants. They shut down the bus lines
| running through the neighborhood because all the rich
| people who moved in have cars (Porsches and Lambos now rev
| through the neighborhood at all hours) and bus ridership
| was down.
|
| Where did all of the folks -- and their families --
| previously able to afford the area go? To areas of Boston
| where the rent is still cheap. Many of these places are
| nowhere near good public transit (e.g. if someone moved
| from this area of Boston to Dorchester, then took transit
| to their same job, it would require 3-4 transfers on packed
| buses and trains). So now these people are forced to get a
| car as well.
|
| The worst part of all of this is: who wins here? Not the
| people forced to leave their neighborhood, not the people
| who suddenly need to buy a car, not the people who can no
| longer afford to run a restaurant in the area... not even
| the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not
| living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas).
| The developers win. They pumped as much money as they could
| out of the neighborhood, and then moved on to their next
| target, leaving a less livable city in their wake.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > not even the rich people living in the expensive high-
| rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments"
| from overseas).
|
| Why don't these people win?
| ghaff wrote:
| I'd just add that Boston also just doesn't have a car-
| free culture like Manhattan in particular has.
|
| So even if you're a middle-class/upper-middle-class tech
| worker who wants to live in the city:
|
| 1.) Many of the tech jobs are in the suburbs and you
| mostly need a car to get to them. (There are today more
| jobs in the city again but many aren't.)
|
| 2.) Many of your friends probably live in transit
| unfriendly suburbs so you'll probably find it hard to get
| together with them unless they come in to meet you.
|
| Of course, people adapt to what is easier for them and
| just behave accordingly.
| hn_user82179 wrote:
| Yep, Boston frequently tops lists of cities with the best
| public transportation in the country. Really wish more
| cities had that infrastructure.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The underlying requirement for a city to have good public
| transportation is to have more dense populations, which
| is almost always only found in older parts of cities. All
| the newer parts of any city in the previous decades were
| zoned to be less dense, so you're not going to see
| comprehensive public transportation any of the cities
| that have experienced recent growth. It's simply
| untenable under a certain amount of density, not to
| mention that most people prefer cars if they have the
| option to use them.
| alostpuppy wrote:
| I live in a nice semi dense area and our one walkable food
| outlet closed last year. We technically live in a food
| desert.
| axaxs wrote:
| May I ask where you live now, and also in what ways it's
| built for humans? Just intrigued.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Where do you live now?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| There are a few places where you don't need a car. I didn't
| have a car in NYC and now I still don't in Chicago. Of course
| if you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to move.
| burlesona wrote:
| Nor is New York or Chicago a good place to move if you're
| very poor, as the housing and cost of living are difficult to
| manage.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| Ironically places where you have happily live without a car
| tend to be more expensive to live in. It's not just the
| moving costs; if you can't afford a car you probably also
| can't afford the rent in a place where you don't need a car.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Probably that has a lot to do with the fact (or my opinion)
| that places where you can live car-free are also much nicer
| places to live, thus more sought after. Although I base
| that mostly on myself I'm sure there is some research into
| it.
| cnasc wrote:
| You would have to pay me to live in New York again
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I think this is a reason a lot of people live in New
| York...
| stevewodil wrote:
| Sometimes people are like, 'Why'd you move back to New
| York?' And I was like, 'I don't know, I just really love
| the ambience and there's such a charm to the city, you
| know?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I'm curious about the economics of that market segment.
|
| How often can the seller repossess a car successfully (I assume
| these devices makes it way easier to do so). And how often is the
| vehicle in a good enough condition that it can be resold?
| Repossession has a cost, but how many months are required to be
| able to repossess and turn a profit by then reselling the car?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| They don't rely on reposession to make a profit. That threat is
| just a stick to keep the loan payments coming in. They make
| their profit by selling the car for a hefty markup in the first
| place, and with usurious interest rates.
|
| So they take a $1,000 car from auction, sell it for $3,500 or
| $4,000 at 18% interest, with a loan structured so that all the
| principal is paid at the end, it doesn't take long for them to
| be in the black even if they have to repo it.
| hakfoo wrote:
| Actually, from what I understand, the Buy-Here-Pay-Here car
| dealership model frequently revolves around the assumption
| the car will be reposessed and resold several times.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-buyhere-payhere/
| effingwewt wrote:
| It's worse. They typically charge the vehicle price as the
| down payment, so anything else paid is profit. Every time
| they repo a car they get this money paid to them _again_.
| On top of that, they will lie about the 'buy here pay
| here' and will sell of your auto loan to a loan shark
| company, who will then try to add more fees/interest/anti-
| consumer clauses after the fact.
|
| I dealt with this myself once, and will never do so again.
| Also, they tried to penalize me for paying early to get out
| from under them, and refused to send my title until I
| threatened to sue with all my voice recordings of every
| phone call. They tried to say I could only pay advance
| payments, not pay down my principal, and tried to extend my
| contract length _two years_ after purchasing my loan
| without my consent or knowledge, despite having a written
| contract forbidding the car lot from selling my loan.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| > They typically charge the vehicle price as the down
| payment, so anything else paid is profit.
|
| Wait. If the borrower could afford that down payment, and
| that's what the car cost originally, then why couldn't
| they have just bought a similar car outright from a
| similar seller? Is this purely a matter of ignorance
| being exploited?
| hakfoo wrote:
| I'd suspect some of it is access and perception.
|
| You might be able to find a similar car at the same price
| in a private-party deal, but it would entail skimming
| newspapers/websites and then finding transportation to
| each seller's home to see one vehicle. In contrast, you
| can probably get a bus to a scummy dealership located on
| a main commercial street and see dozens of lemons at
| once.
|
| I also suspect there's a perception of legitimacy from a
| dealer-- that a private-sale vehicle could be faulty, but
| one being sold commercially can be assumed roadworthy.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| BHPH model is NOT the same as getting a subprime loan from
| a bank or credit union. Very few cars are sold via BHPH.
|
| Also, many states require that repossessed cars are sold at
| auction, and the proceeds go towards the balance owed (aka
| the poor person who borrowed the money).
|
| Usery laws are complex, and it is difficult to know why the
| lady in this article got a loan for 20%. That is unfair and
| I feel bad for her.
| Black101 wrote:
| > So they take a $1,000 car from auction
|
| and non-dealers aren't allowed to buy cars at these auctions
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's state-by-state. In some states you can. In states
| where you can't, there are many people with the
| broker/dealer creds who will give you access for a
| percentage or flat-fee (typically $300-500) markup.
| rtkwe wrote:
| > And how often is the vehicle in a good enough condition that
| it can be resold?
|
| Kind of an implicit assumption in that question that just
| because the owner is missing payments and has bad credit
| they're dirty or the car is beat to hell. Any ways there's
| markets for cars in every shape between pristine and just on
| the usable side of totaled.
|
| > how many months are required to be able to repossess and turn
| a profit by then reselling the car?
|
| They can sell it to an intermediary or send it to auction
| pretty quickly.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| >They can sell it to an intermediary or send it to auction
| pretty quickly.
|
| In many cases, the court requires it goes to auction to
| demonstrate it was sold "at market value". Lenders don't
| really like to repossess cars - we are in the business of
| putting people IN to cars, not taking them OUT.
| Bostonian wrote:
| "But before they can drive off the lot, many subprime borrowers
| like Ms. Bolender must have their car outfitted with a so-called
| starter interrupt device, which allows lenders to remotely
| disable the ignition."
|
| Such technology enables subprime borrowers to get car loans at
| interest rates that are lower than they would be otherwise,
| because it reduces delinquency rates.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| I doubt it reduces delinquency rates that much. If you don't
| have the money, you don't have the money.
|
| But I bet it makes it much more likely for the lender to be
| able to get the car back in the event of a default (and
| probably cheaper to recover). This probably does result in them
| extending credit to people they otherwise wouldn't.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| From the article: "A leading device maker, PassTime of
| Littleton, Colo., says its technology has reduced late
| payments to roughly 7 percent from nearly 29 percent."
|
| It's rarely the case that people don't have the money. It's
| that they have the money, but they'd rather spend it on other
| things, like food, or entertainment.
| mrstone wrote:
| Funny you'd lump food in with entertainment.
| zepto wrote:
| How did they 'lump them in'? They both seem like things
| someone would prefer to spend money on than a car
| payment.
| goldcd wrote:
| Yes - none of this is magically making the borrower have
| more money. The sole purpose of this device is to ensure
| that from an amount of money that doesn't cover their
| outgoings, the car payment has a higher priority and is
| more likely to be paid.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Having worked repo for a summer, I believe this. We'd drive
| hundreds of miles in a day, only to find the vehicles not
| where we thought they'd be.
| klyrs wrote:
| So you're parked in a spot that becomes a towaway zone at 7am,
| but you can't start your car, can't get to work. You're fired
| with cause, ineligable for unemployment, and your car is
| impounded. In this situation, the lender is _more likely_ to
| get paid? I think not
| true_religion wrote:
| In the event that you are that close to being unable to pay
| your debt, the lender would probably just want the car you
| are borrowing back so they can use it themselves and/or lend
| it to someone else.
| [deleted]
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Two assertions made without data backing it up:
|
| (1) that this reduces the effective delinquency rate (2) that a
| reduced delinquency rate is being passed to subprime borrowers
| as savings in reduced interest rates.
|
| (1) depends on whether unavoidable, but temporary, delinquency
| will not have knock-on effects that will exacerbate the
| likelihood of default, such as losing one's job because you're
| unable to get to work. (2) I believe that many subprime lenders
| are counting on being able to repossess the car; it's part of
| their business model. But I might be wrong about that. (3) in a
| functioning market, lower delinquency rates might translate
| into reduce interest rates, but it is not clear to me that it
| is a functional market, rather than one built explicitly on
| exploiting subprime borrowers with limited avenues for between
| lender competition for subprime borrowers.
| SilasX wrote:
| That's the great part about markets: If you think the terms
| are unfair or overestimate the default risk, you can offer
| car loans at the same or lower rates without such odious
| restrictions! (Or invest in someone who does &c.)
|
| If no one's willing to do it, then maybe they're actually
| calibrating the risk correctly?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Or there are market frictions that limit the ability of
| subprime borrowers from actually shopping around.
| SilasX wrote:
| That would be a hard case to make:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=auto+loan
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> that a reduced delinquency rate is being passed to
| subprime borrowers as savings in reduced interest rates
|
| What are the barriers to entry for subprime auto lending?
| Those lenders are ubiquitous in the inner city, so I don't
| think there is much of a barrier to entry, maybe I'm missing
| something.
|
| If there is no barrier to entry, and reduced delinquency
| rates aren't being used to reduce interest rates, then that
| is a problem poor people have that I could help solve by
| getting rich. In my experience, those type of problems do not
| exist.
|
| For the first assertion, there are some numbers in the
| article, but beyond that, why would lenders pay for this if
| it didn't reduce delinquency rates? It would be easy to run
| the numbers to see if it was worth the price, even a mom and
| pop shop could A/B test it.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Having a low barrier to entry is not sufficient for there
| to be real competition between those in the market. Why?
| Well, for one thing, subprime borrowers buying cars are
| probably limited in their ability to shop around. If you
| cannot do price comparison, then there really is no effect
| on prices of competition. Firms will compete in other ways,
| for example, by making themselves more accessible, or
| limiting access to competitors. Look, the likely thing that
| is happening is they get a ride to the nearest local
| dealership, and take whatever loan package they're
| offering. And if they are doing that, its probably some
| shady corner dealership anyway.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| >> Having a low barrier to entry is not sufficient for
| there to be real competition between those in the market.
| Why? Well, for one thing, subprime borrowers buying cars
| are probably limited in their ability to shop around
|
| Everybody's got a phone. And everybody can ask around,
| places get reputations. If you offer significantly better
| rates than the competition, you will get a good
| reputation.
|
| >> Look, the likely thing that is happening is they get a
| ride to the nearest local dealership, and take whatever
| loan package they're offering
|
| That's not what I did when I was poor, and it isn't what
| the other poor people I knew did.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| In that case, it seems like there is a social problem with a
| system that creates "subprime borrowers" that both need a car
| to survive, and can only get one under feudal conditions.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| It can be a social problem, it can also be an individual
| problem. A lot of people want a nicer car than they can
| afford. I make well into 6 figures as a programmer, and drive
| a year 2000 Civic which cost me ~4 days of my salary. A
| friend of mine makes 40k/yr as a bike mechanic and drives a
| 2017 Civic and it cost him ~6 months of his salary. In a more
| rational world our car ownership would be swapped.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| Isn't there also a pretty big difference in crash safety
| though between the 2000 and 2017 Civic? I'd rather work a
| few more days for a higher chance of surviving a crash.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Somewhat, but by 2000 cars were pretty safe. At least,
| some were. You could look for brands that were leading
| the way on safety, such as Mercedes or Volvo.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Not really an individual problem, even then. Usury is one
| of the most legislated-on topics in history, and allowing
| solutions like the one described in the article is a
| societal choice. Your anecdote aside, most of the people
| borrowing on these terms are doing it out of necessity, and
| the ones who aren't should be told No.
| effingwewt wrote:
| Not even close, the rates are _far_ more onerous, and often
| require bi-weekly payments which also doubles the chance for
| late /missed payments and thus increases the lot's chance of
| re-selling the vehicle again.
|
| The lenders, as ever, are the only ones benefitting.
| nulbyte wrote:
| I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus,
| reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not
| reduce delinquency. Neither are subprime lenders interested in
| reducing delinquency; rather, they rationalize such abhorrent
| practices that increase the likelihood of delinquency because
| it generates more revenue.
| rsync wrote:
| "I assure you, disabling one's transportation and, thus,
| reducing one's likelihood to arrive to work on time does not
| reduce delinquency."
|
| You are correct, of course, for any one particular borrower.
|
| However, I suspect the _aggregate_ delinquencies drop as
| _marginal_ "delinquents", aware that their car is going to
| cease functioning, adjust their behaviors throughout the
| month, etc., to make absolutely sure the car payment is made.
|
| I'm not defending the practice, I merely suggest that your
| (correct) observation about individual borrowers doesn't
| negate a net-positive result for the lender.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah you better believe that if I can't pay off my car and
| you disable it. It'll make it an order of magnitude more
| difficult to now pay for the car. People don't miss payments
| because they have the money but choose not to pay. They miss
| payments because they can't afford them. Preventing job
| access is a quick ticket to poverty town.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That's all the more reason these devices are effective. If
| the electric company, gas company, and landlord will take
| _months_ to take action if you don't pay them, but the car
| lender will take action on the 15th of the month, the car
| lender gets first crack at the money you do have.
|
| It's harsh, but I suspect that's the actual calculated
| business model here.
| goldcd wrote:
| Sorry, how is their provoking of delinquency in any way more
| profitable than getting that 29% APR on an overpriced piece
| of junk, hitting their bank account each month?
| modularform123 wrote:
| I assure you there are many liberals who won't pay despite
| having money in the bank, unless they are forced to do so. It
| is literally a human right to them.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| The lender's risk is significantly reduced by having constant GPS
| access and the ability to disable the vehicle. I'm sure they've
| reduced the super high interest rates they were charging these
| borrowers with subprime credit scores, correct? Nope. Same high
| interest rates.
| SilasX wrote:
| If someone else charged the same interest rates but didn't have
| these provisions, they would go there.
|
| These loans are taken out by people that would have to pay
| still-higher rates.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| At least there are documented ways to disable these devices. A
| lender with a lien on a 16yo mini-van is just so wrong. Putting a
| snooping device and starter disabler on it are criminal.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Don't forget that these customers don't have a better option,
| because of credit, down payment, or other factors.
|
| Taking away someone's best option doesn't help them. Giving
| them a better option does, but I never see people who are
| arguing against these practices rushing out to make these loans
| on favorable terms.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/uzKTp
| dang wrote:
| Discussed at the time:
|
| _Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That Car_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365129 - Sept 2014 (80
| comments)
| nja wrote:
| > In Austin, Tex., a large subprime lender used a device to track
| down and repossess the car of a woman who had fled to a shelter
| to escape her abusive husband [ ... ] The move to the shelter
| violated a clause in her auto loan contract that restricted her
| from driving outside a four-county radius, and that prompted the
| lender to send a tow truck to take back the vehicle. If the
| lender could so easily locate the client, Ms. Kleinpeter said,
| what was stopping her husband?
|
| I can't stop re-reading "a clause in her auto loan contract that
| restricted her from driving outside a four-county radius". Is
| that a normal thing in auto loans? Restricting free movement? How
| is that even legal?
| globular-toast wrote:
| Why would it be illegal? It's their car. They set the rules.
| lmilcin wrote:
| It is not their car. The car is a collateral. There is a
| difference.
|
| Also, they don't "set" the rules. The rules are set in a
| contract and contract is bilateral.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't understand why you are downvoted.
|
| The options were for this lender to not lend this person a
| car, or lend this person a car with certain conditions
| reducing the lender's risk to acceptable levels. Car sales
| aren't a monopolized business, and there's plenty of
| competition, so I also don't see any evidence of collusion on
| the side of the sellers.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| Hi! I work for a large auto loan lender. I have NEVER heard of
| a practice limiting where you can drive your car. I would
| imagine it would be bad for business (e.g., here's a car, you
| can't use it that much, have fun!).
|
| Personally, I would protest VERY loud if I found my company was
| doing this.
|
| Also, I'm mostly certain we do have trackers on many of our
| cars, and I would imagine the data is transmitted securely so
| husbands can't use that signal.
| TomK32 wrote:
| > ... I would imagine the data is transmitted securely so
| husbands can't use that signal.
|
| It won't matter if the data is transmitted (and stored)
| securely, a husband concerned about his wife will have enough
| data about the auto contract to use some social engineering
| and get the car's location from the lender.
| TylerE wrote:
| Normal?
|
| No.
|
| But the kind of "buy here pay here" places that use these
| devices are sellers of last resort. Basically the vehicle
| lending equivalent of a payday lender.
| dfadsadsf wrote:
| My guess would be that it limits where you can live (park car
| overnight) but not where you can drive. For example car
| insurance price is different for different cities - the same
| could be the case for subprime loan.
| bbarnett wrote:
| I believe so.
|
| I had the same thing, with a rent to own furniture place, 27
| years ago.
|
| I moved from one side of the country to the other, to open a
| new corporate office, but the move was hasty. 2 weeks from
| decision to hitting the road.
|
| I just packed up everything, not thinking about the TV I
| rented-to-own. When it came time to pay, I had also switched
| banks, so I called them.
|
| After I explained that I moved, and wanted to setup a new
| debit-from-account, the woman on the other end lambasted me,
| on and on, explaining breach of contract, that I stole the
| TV, I'm a thief, this sort of thing. Obviously my mistake for
| not reading the contract, and they were local only, so they
| had the same sort of geo-only clause, but at the same time I
| called them! No late payments, completely current, yet they
| unloaded on me like I was 6 months late and had planned some
| sort of elaborate theft.
|
| Fed up with the abuse, I asked her to just get over it, and
| tell me where to send new payments. Nope, I was apparently a
| thief, an ass, a liar, on and on again.
|
| I cut that short, asked again how to send payment, or do they
| not want anything? Again the yelling. I shouted goodbye and
| hung up.
|
| I had given her my new address and phone number yet never
| heard from them again.
|
| With these sorts in this industry, I am not surprised they
| just towed.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| > The move to the shelter violated a clause in her auto loan
| contract that restricted her from driving outside a four-county
| radius, and that prompted the lender to send a tow truck to
| take back the vehicle.
|
| The lender should have spoken to her and adjusted the allowed
| region rather than escalating immediately to a towtruck.
| Ideally she would have had the presence of mind to call her
| lender, but some understanding should be shown.
|
| > If the lender could so easily locate the client, Ms.
| Kleinpeter said, what was stopping her husband?
|
| This makes no sense. Her husband doesn't work for the auto
| lender. Why would he have access to that? It feels
| dishonest/manipulative to use this argument.
| paxys wrote:
| The woman escaped an abusive relationship and found safety in
| a shelter. It isn't a question of "presence of mind", calling
| your auto loan agent would be the absolute last priority for
| everyone in her shoes.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| I can easily see a scenario where an abusive husband leans on
| some guy/gal working in a car dealership to get information.
| In theory the information _shouldn't_ flow across that border
| but in practice it does.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-03 23:01 UTC)