Acima Credit

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:dining set is damaged (2 chairs).  Acima wants me to pay for leasing furniture.  If I am to return all furniture including beds, I must start over and spend more money to replace this furniture.  I owe Acima nothing for so called leasing defected furniture.  I will like this to go to arbitration.  In the meantime I am requesting arbitration.  I am also requesting pick up of all furniture.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I payed on 4-16-2017 a dwn payment of $750.00 which included taxes on my purchases. I agree 3 mths 90 day Early payout amount of $1,459 (lease #[redacted]),an $246.33 to be taken out my account for 3mths.Remaining balance will be $720.01. Acima Credit withdraw for 3mths $263.57 out of my acount.I still tried to pay out the balance I owed $668.29 before my 90 day pay out Acima wouldn't accept my payment because I didnt want to pay extra taxes added each time they withdraw from my account and also extra taxes they added on my remaining balance.My Bank was able to dispute 2 mths of the payments that Acima wthdraw from my account,due to BREACH OF CONTRACT! This is a Legal cause of Action and a type of civil Wrong in which a binding agreement for Exchange in NOT HONORED. Sincerely,
[redacted]

On August 29, 2016, Simple RTO, LLC (d/b/a: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com. On August 3, 2016, Mr. [redacted] entered Katy Furniture (the “Merchant”), an independent third-party located in Katy,...

Texas, and conducted a transaction that required the leasing services of Simple. Mr. [redacted] signed a “Lease-Purchase Agreement” (the “Agreement”), which allowed him to possess tangible personal property owned by Simple, by paying periodic lease renewal payments. The nature of the lease is explained within the Agreement and will be described in further detail below. Simple is a virtual rent-to-own organization that provides alternative leasing options to those who do not qualify for traditional financing options. We purchase household goods and independent third-party merchants and then offer a 12-month lease of our purchased property to consumers who are approved for our services. If a customer pays all of the lease renewal payments, or exercises an Early Purchase Option (“EPO”) (described below), they may acquire ownership of the property. Mr. [redacted] applied for this leasing services from Simple on August 3, 2016 and was approved on August 4, 2016. Simple purchased a Lawson Godiva Sectional (the “Property”) from the Merchant and leased the Property to Mr. [redacted] through a 12-month Agreement wherein Mr. [redacted] agreed to pay $4072.12 for ownership of the Property through monthly payments of $339.34 over the course of 12 months. The Agreement identifies the total of payments and EPOs. “The total of your payments will be $4072.12 (“Total of Payments”). The Total of Payments is the amount you must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless you exercise an early purchase option as outlined herein.” The two (2) EPOs available are; first, the 90-Day Option: “You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying $1049 (“90-Day Option”).;” and the second EPO, “After ninety (90) days of this Agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.” Mr. [redacted] stated in his complaint, “I was told that to verify my bank information that they needed my routing and account number.” It is Simple’s policy to call customers who have submitted an application for our leasing services to verify all the information provided to us in an effort to protect the identity and financial privacy of each consumer as well as to confirm the payment frequency of the lease renewal payments. Simple spoke with Mr. [redacted] on August 3, 2016 to verify his personally identifiable information, employment information, and financial information that he provided on the application. Mr. [redacted] confirmed during that telephone conversation, that he was paid monthly and not bi-weekly as reported on the application and stated in the Agreement. Therefore, the lease renewal payment frequency was changed from bi-weekly payments of $156.62, to monthly payments of $339.34. Pursuant to the Agreement, the lease renewal payments commence, “… no sooner than 7 days from the delivery date. Mr. [redacted]’s first payment was due on August 16, 2016. Mr. [redacted] said, “Two weeks later I got a call from Simple Finance telling me my ‘lease’ payment was overdue…” The next occasion that Simple contacted Mr. [redacted] was on August 22, 2016. The lease renewal payment of $339.34 due on the 16th had been processed and was later returned unpaid due to Mr. [redacted] requesting a “Stop Payment” through his financial institution, incurring a $25 returned check fee with Simple. Simple contacted Mr. [redacted] to notify him the payment was returned unpaid, and he had incurred a $25 returned check fee. Simple attempted to create a “Catch-Up Plan” with Mr. [redacted] to bring his account current as to avoid further late fees. Mr. [redacted] claimed, “I purchased a sofa, I didn’t lease one.” Mr. [redacted] electronically signed the “Lease-Purchase Agreement” which allowed him to be in possession of the property that Simple purchased from the Merchant. According to the Agreement it states in twelve (12) point, bold-faced type, “WE OWN THE PROPERTY. This Agreement is a lease; a lease is a legal arrangement whereby the lessee/renter (you) agrees to pay the lessor/owner of the property (us) for use of the property for a specified period of time. You make lease renewal payments for the use of the Property for each lease renewal period only. You do not obtain any ownership rights unless you pay the Total of Payments, above, or exercise an early purchase option. You do not have the right to keep the Property if you do not make timely lease renewal payments. If you do not want to lease the Property but would rather purchase the Property now, you should consider cash or credit terms that may be available to you.” The Agreement clearly and explicitly states, in language easily understood, the nature of the Lease Agreement, the provisions of ownership, and the payments owed. Simple has complied with every required statutory provision provided in the Texas Rental-Purchase Agreement (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 92.052) and has not been deceptive in any practice or manner. The complaint also states, “my ‘lease’ payment was $334 every two weeks that’s $668 a month or $4400 for the same sofa that was $1699. Or 125% on a ‘lease’ I didn’t sign or have knowledge of. I plan to pay off the sofa as agreed in 90 days.” As previously explained, the Mr. [redacted]’s lease renewal payments are $334.12 every month. To date, he has been in the possession of the property for over 30 days and has not made a lease renewal payment towards his lease. The 90-Day Option will expire on November 2, 2016. If Mr. [redacted] has not paid $2066.74 by November 2, 2016, he will continue making his periodic renewal payments of $334.12 every month, for 12-months, for a total of $4072.12. If Mr. [redacted] wishes to keep our Property, he is obligated to make his lease renewal payments, and call Simple to make additional advanced payments on or before November 2, 2016. Mr. [redacted] claimed, “but now they have this ‘DocuSign’ contract that I didn’t sign AT ALL and are telling me that I am ‘past due’ on something that I had no knowledge of or signed.” Upon approving Mr. [redacted]’s application, Simple initiated an SMS text message to Mr. [redacted] containing a four-digit personal identification number (the “PIN”) to be used as Mr. [redacted]’s electronic authorization of the Agreement. The SMS text message said, “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Simple’s lease-to-own contract.” When the PIN was returned to Simple, a pre-designed signature identifying the name of Mr. [redacted] was populated on the Agreement to indicate that the Agreement had been authorized electronically¹. If Mr. [redacted] wishes to Purchase the property for $2066.74, he will be required to exercise his 90-Day Option on or before November 2, 2016. As of the date of this response, Mr. [redacted] has an delinquent balance of $356.31 (including late fees) which will need to be resolved immediately. Simple is willing to work with Mr. [redacted] to arrange a repayment plan that will be less burdensome than making a double payment of $695.65 when his next payment is due on September 16, 2016. If Mr. [redacted] is unable to make his lease renewal payments, he may terminate his lease at any time by returning the Property and paying the minimum lease amount of $677.40, plus other charges due. Simple will cease all the telephone and email communication efforts to contact Mr. [redacted] as he desires. However, it will be the responsibility of Mr. [redacted] to call Simple to resolve his past due status, and to make additional payments to exercise the 90-Day Option by November 2, 2016.

On January 22, 2018, Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com. We have investigated the allegations and have prepared a response to explain the nature of the Lease-Purchase Agreement (the...

“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted].  Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing.  Acima offers only one lease model, which is a 12-month lease. Under the Acima lease program, a customer selects property from an independent third-party merchant, and Acima purchases that property from the merchant. The customer takes the property and leases it from Acima until all of the scheduled payments have been made. After all the payments have been made, the Agreement has been satisfied and the customer owns the property.  As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and satisfies the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement.  On January 31, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered the Agreement to rent a king sized bed set (the “Property”) from Acima.  Ms. [redacted] was scheduled for bi-weekly payments of $86.99 for a term of 12 months.  Ms. [redacted] alleges that Acima reported her payments as late incorrectly on her credit report.  This is not true.  Ms. [redacted], upon the beginning of her repayment schedule, made two consecutive, on-time payments on February 17 and March 3, 2017.  On March 17, Ms. [redacted]’s regular renewal payment failed due to insufficient funds in her checking account. Acima allows a 3-day grace period after a failed payment for the customer to call in and correct the failed payment before the payment is marked late and a late fee is assessed on the account.  Ms. [redacted] did not call Acima to correct this payment and her regular lease renewal payments continued according to the payment schedule.  Because the March 17 payment was not paid on time or made up after it’s failure, Ms. [redacted]’s payments following the failed March 17 payment were applied to her past due balance.   Ms. [redacted] missed more payments following the initial failed payment.  An Acima agent sent Ms. [redacted] her payment history via email on September 1, 2017.  Acima arranged multiple catch-up plans in order to help Ms. [redacted] get her account back on track. Acima agreed to reduce the amount of fees outstanding on her account by $75.00, and Ms. [redacted] paid off her account on January 22, 2018. Acima has worked with Ms. [redacted] in good faith and has charged fees in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.  Any errors in fees charged have been corrected with Ms. [redacted].  Acima has not reported incorrect information on Ms. [redacted]’s credit report and her late payment posting is valid.  If Ms. [redacted] has further questions or concerns, we encourage her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on March 3, 2018. Ms. [redacted]’s complaint states that Acima would not respond to her complaint regarding paying off her lease.   Acima is a virtual rent-to-own (RTO) organization...

offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing.  Acima offers only one lease model.  Our lease model constitutes a 12-month lease of the property to the customer wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of 12 months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal payments.  As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the lease.   The first option is a 90-Day EPO.  This option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $40.00 initial lease payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement.  The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the Agreement at any time after the first 90 days of the Agreement by paying a lump sum equivalent to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments.  To exercise either EPO, a customer must call Acima’s Customer Service Department and initiate the payoff process.  Acima will not initiate the EPO payoff without appropriate consent from the customer because such action would necessarily require Acima to violate the terms of the Agreement by withdrawing more than the regularly scheduled payment from the customer’s preferred payment method.   On November 25, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered into a lease-purchase Agreement with Acima wherein she agreed to rent a refrigerator for 12 months through twice-monthly payments of $42.88 for a total of $1068.96 (the “Total of Payments”) to acquire ownership of the property. If Ms. [redacted] were to exercise her 90-Day Option, she would be required to pay a total of $534.00 by no later than February 25, 2018 (90-Days after the commencement of the Agreement). Ms. [redacted] called Acima on March 1, 2018 requesting to exercise her 90-Day Option. Ms. [redacted] was informed by our representative that the 90-Day Option had expired, and she would be required to either exercise the second Option or pay the Total of Payments to obtain ownership of the property and terminate her lease.   Ms. [redacted] informed Acima that her property was delivered on November 27th, but later was returned and replaced with new property. After Acima verified the return and replacement of the property with the merchant, we adjusted the expiration date of her 90-Day Option. The deadline was adjusted to March 5, 2018.   On March 5, 2018, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to initiate a final payment under the 90-Day Option to terminate her account as paid in full. Pending that her payment is not returned to us unpaid, and is not charged back, Ms. [redacted] will obtain ownership of the property.   At this time and according to our understanding, Ms. [redacted] feels her complaint has been resolved.

I have tried to explain several times to this company the situation & how they are in the wrong. I have also submitted documents proving this. They do not read their emails, all they do is send automated, generic messages. Because of this the matter will never be resolved with them.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on June 29, 2017. We have investigated the allegations and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to fully...

explain the nature of the Rental-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Mr. [redacted].Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing.  On June 7, 2017, Acima purchased a new queen mattress and box spring (the “Property”) from Mattress Clearance Center (the “Merchant”), located in Terre Haute, Indiana, for $550.00.  Mr. [redacted] subsequently entered into a Rental-Purchase Agreement with Acima to rent the Property through weekly payments of $21.58 plus sales tax for a term of twelve (12) months. Mr. [redacted] complains that he was misinformed, claiming the payment amounts given to him included sales tax.  The Agreement clearly states in Section 2, titled Sales Tax, that “the amounts reflected in this Agreement do not include sales tax.  Acima charges sales tax with each Renewal Payment when required to do so by your state.  Your payment amount may change to the extent the rate of sales tax changes after the date of this Agreement.”  The Agreement is a legal-binding contract between Acima and Mr. [redacted].  Further, the State of Indiana requires sales tax be paid on every renewal payment as each payment applies to the eventual purchase of the Property.  Sales taxes are levied on merchandise or service purchases.  Mr. [redacted]’s weekly renewal payment amount is $21.58.  The total amount of sales tax Mr. [redacted] is required to pay per payment is $1.51.   Therefore, his weekly renewal payment total is $23.09.  We are unsure what Mr. [redacted] is asking for in his requested solution.  However, Acima owns the Property.  Mr. [redacted] does not obtain ownership rights to the Property until he fulfills the total of payments to ownership or exercises an early purchase option (EPO).  Until he makes the total of payments, or exercises an EPO, Mr. [redacted] is required to continue his renewal payments on the Property.  We hope this explanation helps Mr. [redacted] understand his Agreement and tax obligations to the State of Indiana.  We appreciate his business and patronage with Acima.  If Mr. [redacted] requires or desires further information, we invite him to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by [redacted] via the Revdex.com on October 20, 2017, regarding her Lease-Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Acima. We have prepared a response below to address the facts related to the Agreement and Ms. [redacted]’s contractual...

obligations contained therein.   Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that offers alternative financing to consumers who may not qualify for traditional financing. Acima offers only one lease model. Our lease model constitutes a 12-month lease of the property to the customers wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of 12-months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal payments. As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (“EPOs”); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the lease.   Our first EPO is our 90-Day EPO. This option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $50.00 initial lease payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement. The 90-Day EPO is our most affordable option. In this case, the second EPO stipulates that Ms. [redacted] may terminate the agreement at any time after the first 90 days by paying a lump sum equivalent to 52% of the remaining lease renewal payments.   On June 27, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered an independent third-party retailer – Dream Décor (the “Merchant”) – located in Springfield, MA. Ms. [redacted] voluntarily provided her personal information to the Merchant so as to initiate an application for our leasing services. We received Ms. [redacted]’s application, underwrote the application and responded offering our services. After approving Ms. [redacted]’s application, Acima sent her an SMS text message to her personal cell phone number provided to us on her application. The text message said, “Congratulations, Your Acima Credit Lease Application has been approved. – Lease #[redacted] – Approval Amount: $1750.00 Additional Documentation may be required. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact our processing team at: ###-###-####.”   The next step on the lease formation process is to view and sign the lease agreement. Acima uses an advanced authentication method in which most leases are entered into electronically. We initiate an SMS text message to our customers’ cellular phone containing a unique identification code to be used as the customers’ electronic signature and official authorization of the Agreement. On June 24, 2017, at 3:22 PM MDT, Acima initiated a text message to the cell phone number submitted to us by Ms. [redacted] on her application, as ###-###-####. The message said, “Visit [HYPERLINK] to review and sign your lease. Or give the 4 digit code to the merchant. Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Acima’s lease-to-own contract. Code: [redacted].” The code was then used as the electronic signature to authorize the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] electronically entered into the Agreement wherein she agreed to make 12 monthly payments of $327.25 for a total of $3977.00 to acquire ownership of the property. The 90-Day EPO expired on September 27, 2017. After successfully entering the code, a confirmation text message was sent to Ms. [redacted]’s cell phone to summarize the Agreement with Acima. The confirmation text message said, “Congratulations, you signed your Acima Lease: Lease #: [redacted] – 90D Buyout Amt: $1985.00 – Pay Freq: monthly – Pay Amt: $327.25 – Est. 1st Payment: $327.25 – 12 Mo. Payment Total: $3977.00 Call Acima at ###-###-#### with any questions.”   In Ms. [redacted]’s complaint, she references “17% interest” charged in addition to her “leasing charge.” She also claims that the Agreement was misleading in that she did not understand the total of payments. However, as previously explained, the Agreement is a 12-month lease of property through monthly payments of $327.25 for a total of $3977.00. Ms. [redacted] had the option to review a copy of the Agreement prior to signing it. She also received a confirmation text message and email after signing the Agreement that explained her contractual obligations.   Ms. [redacted] claims that she spoke with a government contracted financial advisor he advised her our business operates as a predatory lender. This is untrue. Acima is a lease-to-own business that engages in leasing services, and not lending services. Acima’s Agreement and procedure was developed under and abides by the law set forth in M.G.L.A. 93 § 90 regarding consumer leases.   Acima aims to provided quality service through a simple and easy-to-use process. We find this situation unfortunate given the multiple communications we have had with Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] admits in her complaint to refusing to pay for renewal payments. Ms. [redacted] is contractually obligated to make her lease renewal payments and is currently in breach of the Agreement. She must be aware that her payment history will be reported to Experian and may be negatively reflected on her credit report. Ms. [redacted] must contact our Collections & Recovery Department immediately at ###-###-#### to resolve her debt.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Is not fair that I was charge $75 in order for me to pay the remaining balance of the tires.That extra fee created a financial hardship on my finances. In addition I don't understand a fair justification but Acima to make money. Thank you, [redacted]
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on February 8, 2017.  In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] claims she did not sign a lease-purchase agreement with Acima. In our response, we have explained the nature of our lease...

agreements, and the process used to enter into those agreements.   Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing. Acima offers only one lease model. Our lease model constitutes a 12-month lease of the property to the customer wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of 12 months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal payments. As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the lease.   The first option is a 90-Day EPO. This option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $40.00 initial lease payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement. The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the agreement at any time after the first 90 days of the agreement by paying a lump sum equivalent to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments.   On October 3, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered an independent third-party merchant – Appliance Wholesalers (the “Merchant”) – located in Saint Louis, MO. Ms. [redacted] selected a new Whirlpool platinum washer and gas dryer (the “Property”). Upon presenting the invoice to Ms. [redacted], there was an exchange between Ms. [redacted] and the Merchant related to financing options. While we were not a part of this exchange, we can say that at some point Ms. [redacted] must have voluntarily provided her personal information so as to initiate an application for our services. We received Ms. [redacted]’s application, underwrote the application, and responded offering our services to purchase the Property and lease it to her. Ms. [redacted]’s application was approved for our leasing services up to $2,950.00. Ms. [redacted] received an email notifying her of her approval amount. The approval notice emailed to Ms. [redacted] stipulated that her approval amount would be conditional upon the verbal verification of Ms. [redacted]’s information that she had provided to Acima on her application. Ms. [redacted] later verbally confirmed the information she provided to us on her application with a representative of Acima.   After approving Ms. [redacted]’s application, Acima sent her several SMS text messages to her cell phone number, [redacted]. The first text message said, “Congratulations, Your Acima Credit Lease Application has been approved. -Lease #: [redacted] – Approval Amount: $2950.00 Additional documentation may be required. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact our processing team at: (801) 297-1980.”   The next step on the lease formation process is to view and sign the lease agreement. Acima uses an advanced authentication method in which most leases are entered into electronically. We initiate an SMS text message to our customers’ cell phone containing a unique identification code to be used as the customers’ electronic signature and official authorization of the Agreement.   On October 3, 2017, at 3:38 PM (MST), Acima initiated a text message to Ms. [redacted]’s cell phone. The message said, “Give the 4 digit code to the merchant. Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Acima’s lease-to-own contract. Code:[redacted].” The code was then used as the electronic signature to authorize the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] electronically entered into the Agreement wherein she agreed to rent the Property through 52 weekly payments of $59.82 for a total of $3,150.56 (the “Total of Payments”) to acquire ownership of the Property. After successfully entering the code, Acima sent Ms. [redacted] a confirmation text message to summarize her Agreement with Acima. The text message was delivered to her cell phone on October 3, 2017 at 3:39 PM (MST). The confirmation text said, “Congratulations, you signed your Acima Lease: - Lease #: 65298 – 90D Buyout Amt: $1554.39 – Pay Freq: weekly – Payment Amt: $59.82 – Est. 1st Payment: $59.82 – 12 Mo. Payment Total: $3150.56 Call Acima at (800) 742-1789 x2 with any questions.” All the text messages Acima sent to Ms. [redacted]’s cell phone have been confirmed as delivered.   After the confirmation text message was delivered, Acima sent Ms. [redacted] another text message to confirm her receipt of the Property. This text was delivered at 6:38 PM (MST) on October 3, 2017. The message said, “[redacted] this is Angela with Acima, we are financing your purchase with Appliance Wholesalers. We need to verify some customer information. Please return our call at 801-297-1980. Thank you.” At 6:43 PM (MST) on that same day, Acima verbally confirmed with Ms. [redacted] the customer information provided on the application, and the expected delivery date.   In Ms. [redacted]’s complaint to Acima, she claims she never signed the Agreement. However, in the aforementioned explanation detailing text message deliveries, Ms. [redacted] electronically signed the Agreement using the code sent to her cell phone. Ms. [redacted] had the opportunity to review the Agreement prior to signing it and to take a copy of the Agreement home with her from the Merchant. Additionally, Acima mailed a copy of the Agreement to Ms. [redacted] after she signed it.   In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] claims the total payoff amount should be approximately $1500, due to the total amount stated on the Merchant’s invoice. However, the Merchant invoice is not a receipt of money paid to the Merchant by Ms. [redacted]; it is an itemized list of the Property Acima purchased from the Merchant. It is the document used to verify the cost of the property, which enable Acima to create the Agreement.  We believe the payoff amount Ms. [redacted] is referring to is the 90-Day Buyout Amount of $1,554.39. This amount was due no later than January 3, 2018. As the 90-Day Option has since expired, Ms. [redacted] must pay the Total of Payments or exercise the second EPO in order to acquire ownership of the Property and terminate her Agreement. Should Ms. [redacted] wish to exercise her second EPO, she must call Acima’s Customer Service Department to initiate a payment equal to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments in one lump sum. If she does not wish to exercise her second EPO, Ms. [redacted] may continue making her regularly scheduled lease renewal payments. As of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] owes $2,093.62 and has a past due balance of $84.82.   If Ms. [redacted] does not wish to acquire ownership of the Property, she may terminate the Agreement without penalty by paying any past due balance and returning our Property to us. To initiate a pick-up of the Property and to terminate her Agreement, she must contact our Resolutions Department at (801) 297-1980. We look forward to resolving this issue with Ms. [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. I appreciate that they realized their error as I have been a great customer always paying on time. I appreciate the quick response.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

We, Simple Finance, and our retail merchant have been very accommodating to [redacted] (the "Consumer").  1. The Consumer claims that we made "incorrect statements" in our response to Consumer's complaint, without stating which statements were incorrect.  We hereby reassert that our response is true and correct.  2. The Consumer claims that she did not see an "attached signed copy of the lease agreement."  This also is untrue.  Not only did the Consumer electronically sign the lease agreement in the store (as the Consumer acknowledges "as part of the (her) application process," but she also received a copy of the electronically-signed agreement from us, and as attached to our response to this complaint.   3. The Consumer misunderstands the lease-purchase agreement she entered into.  We, Simple Finance, fund the lease to our merchant upon 1) the consumer signing the lease and 2) the merchant delivering the property to the consumer.  The fact is, this lease was effective upon her signing and the merchant's delivery.  In addition, the $40 payment she made in the store, was not a processing fee, but rather the Consumer's "Initial Lease Payment," consummating the lease agreement.  Furthermore, the Consumer is leaving out very important information:  Our merchant has bent over backwards trying to please the Consumer.  The merchant sent his delivery guys three-times to pick-up and/or replace the furniture which the Consumer alleges is "incomplete" or broken (although Consumer initially claimed that the property was never even delivered, but later admitted was just flawed or incomplete - which we believe goes to the Consumer's credibility and trust-worthiness).  Each time the merchant attempted to pick-up or replace the furniture, it cost him $100 for the use of a moving truck and movers.  She failed to be at her home at the scheduled time or refused to open the door to the movers.  She also has not made herself available to the merchant who has done everything he can to make the Consumer happy with her lease-purchase.  What is more, we have reason to believe that she has intentionally broken the furniture, as her pictures may indicate.  Although our merchant is still willing to replace and pick-up the property, he is also willing to testify that the furniture was not delivered in that condition.  The Consumer is not making herself available to us or our merchant to cure this problem by either re-delivering the property to our merchant nor allowing for the delivery of replacement property.  Please note that termination of the lease can only happen by 1) requesting a termination of the lease and 2) re-delivering the property back to the merchant.  So long as the property is not re-delivered to the merchant's location, the "Daily Lease Rate" will continue to accumulate.  We care not that the Consumer "rejects" our response.  She is in the wrong, and we will continue to accumulate past rent due (based on Daily Lease Rate) so long as she refuses to re-deliver the property to our Merchant or makes herself available for our pick-up of the property items.  Sincerely, Jesse *. S[redacted]VP of Compliance

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on February 13th, 2017. Ms. [redacted] has disputed the validity of the lease-purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) in its electronic...

format, the failure to disclose properly the terms of the Agreement, and the total amount owed. We intend to explain the nature of the transaction, the facts surrounding the situation, and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted].Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. We purchase household goods from independent third-party merchants and offer a 12-month lease of our purchased property to consumers who are approved for our services. If a customer pays all lease renewal payments, or exercises an Early Purchase Option (“EPO”) (described below), they may acquire ownership of the property. On October 2, 2016, Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for our leasing services through an independent third-party - Wholesale Design Warehouse (the “Merchant”) - located in Ventura, California.  Acima Purchased a three-piece leather sectional (the “Property”) from the Merchant and leased the property to Ms. [redacted] for a rental period of 12 months wherein Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay $6264.63 for ownership of the Property through twice-monthly payments of $231.00.  There was never a 90-day plan established with Ms. [redacted].  The Agreement identifies the total of payments owed to acquire ownership of the Property and Early Purchase Options (“EPO”) available to Ms. [redacted] if she wished to purchase the Property before the end of the 12-month rental term.  The Agreement states, “[t]he total of your payments will be $6264.63 (“Total of Payments”). The Total of Payments is the amount you must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless you exercise an early purchase option as outlined herein.” The first EPO available is the 90-Day Option which allowed Ms. [redacted] to purchase the Property within the first 90 days of the Agreement by paying $3530.63.  Ms. [redacted] made an initial lease payment (or down payment) of $720.63 resulting in a remaining balance on her 90-Day EPO price of $2850.00. The second EPO allows her to purchase the Property after the first 90 days by paying 50% of the total remaining periodic lease payments.  In Ms. [redacted]’s complaint, she alleges that she never saw or signed the Agreement.  Acima uses an advanced authentication process whereby most lease-purchase agreements are entered into electronically. This authentication process requires customers to enter a one-time verification code that is delivered to the customer’s phone via text message, into the Merchant’s computer to electronically sign the Agreement. On October 2, 2016, Ms. [redacted] received a text message on her personal cellular phone reading, “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing Simple’s lease-to-own contract. Call (801) 297-1980 or toll-free at (800) 742-1789 x1 with any questions. Code 4193.” Ms. [redacted] used this code.  Upon entering the code, a signature was populated on the lease agreement classifying it as a legally signed document.  We have this document in our possession.Acima was not present during the transaction at the Merchant with Ms. [redacted] and as such cannot attest to Ms. [redacted]’s claim that she did not see the Agreement prior to signing it. Notwithstanding, the Portal through which all Agreements are signed and returned to Acima provides a copy of the Agreement to be viewed electronically or printed on paper prior to signing. Ms. [redacted] had the opportunity to review the Agreement, whether she requested this option or not.  Ms. [redacted] says in her complaint, “The only email I received was a welcome email. No statements got emailed or mailed out.”  The Welcome Letter contained in the email Ms. [redacted] received, dated October 12, 2016, explained “In an effort to conserve paper, monthly statements are sent by request only.”  Ms. [redacted] alleges in her complaint, “When I set up auto pay [Acima] did not take the money out on time.”  Acima drafts automatic lease renewal payments from our customer’s bank account as listed on their application according to the customer’s paycheck schedule.  We initiate a payment draft on the day it is due through an ACH network.  However, payment processing can take up to three (3) business days to post on a customer’s account depending on the customer’s financial institution’s processing procedures.  Ms. [redacted] only had one payment automatically withdrawn from her account on October 31, 2016 in the amount of $231.00.We have record of Ms. [redacted] calling us on five occasions.  During these conversations, our agents advised Ms. [redacted] of her Agreement terms, her 90-Day expiration date of January 15, 2017, and the outstanding balances on her account.  Ms. [redacted] made two additional payments of $800.00 during these conversations.  Given this information, she seemed well aware of her Agreement terms and EPO expiration dates.   On February 3, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called us to check her account balance. Despite having missed her 90-Day expiration date, we honored her 90-Day EPO price and allowed her to pay off her Agreement for $1749.50 with a credit card. Ms. [redacted] has asked in her desired settlement to receive a refund.  The retail price of the Property is $3530.63.  Ms. [redacted] has paid this amount for the Property.  Acima allowed Ms. [redacted] to exercise her 90-Day EPO after it has expired even though we had no contractual obligation to do so.  Therefore, Ms. [redacted] has paid for the Property without paying Acima’s finance charge.  We provided a service to Ms. [redacted], she used our service, and both sides of the Agreement were fulfilled. The business transaction is closed and Ms. [redacted] acquired ownership of the Property.  Ms. [redacted] has been a good customer and we hope to do business with her again.  If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further explanation, she can call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
It is
unfortunate that you have chosen this pathIt was my intention to resolve this
issue amicably but since you and the organization you represent "simple RTO"
has decided to make a simple customer service issue a legal battle, as a matter
of principle and hopefully to prevent other customers from falling victim to the
blatant violations of their consumer protection rights I will be filing a
complaint with the attorney generals office shortly
I'd like to point out some factual inconsistence
on the attached document "simple RTO" provided
INCONSISTENCES
·
The
application you furnished is an incomplete applicationIt is missing the
following documents:
1.
The
reference page
2.
A
copy of my Driver's license/ID
3.
A
payment receipt for the $down payment
4.
The individual
whose identification card and information is attached as part of my application
on Pis NOT IIt is obvious that the primary focus of "simple RTO" is not to
comply with every state and federal regulation as it is claiming, but to
fraudulently enrich themself by preying on those they deem less educated and economically
challengedAlthough my ID was requested and a copy was made it is not on the
document "Simple RTO" provided as evidence
Regarding the
number of references, to the best of my knowledge five (5) references were
provided as a requirement for financing, so for the company to claim that only two
(2) was furnish is a blatant attempt to hide material factAlleging that my
fiancés phone was disconnected is inaccurate because records with Verizon with
whom we have a family plan (my phone and hers) will show that in the more than
years we have been with the company never has that line been disconnected
The only number that has changed is my mother's and she is one of the
referencesSo that's a total of three (3) not two (2) as allegedI will like
the reference page to be made available
The second string
of inconsistences is based on the assertion that a clerical error was to blame
for no payments being processed over consecutive pay periodsAccording to
the respondent
Upon receiving the payment information, the customer
service representative made a clerical error when she scheduled the next
payment due date. The agent erroneously selected December 4,
instead of December 4, This error was not discovered until January
21, 2016, at which time the due date was properly adjusted to December 4,
However, because of the mistake, the account of Mr[redacted] showed as
"past due", due to our failure to withdraw the payment scheduled for
December 4,
·
However,
when advanced payments are made, Simple's computer system registers the
advanced payment as having made the regular minimum payment in advance and
automatically pushes the next payment due date farther into the future, as the
minimum payments have been payed
Mr[redacted]‘s lease required bi-weekly minimum payments
of $to rent the queen-sized mattress and box spring leased from
Furniture & Mattress Discounters (the "Property")These regularly
scheduled payments are drafted automatically on their due date,
Pursuant to the Lease Agreement, which states in
section ten (10), titled "Payment Method/Payment Change, EFT
Authorization", "You authorize us to initiate an electronic fund transfer
("EFT") over the ACH network
for any scheduled payment you owe under this
Agreement."
During a conversation with Simple on February 4, 2016,
Mr[redacted] was told that he would still be able to pay the Simple Cash
Price if he paid the 10% fee of $As of that day, Mr[redacted] had
paid $of his remaining balance of the Total of Payments of
$1,131.22, still owing $on his leaseThis is false
The
company claims that "Simple did make a clerical mistake in the due date of the
automatic payment schedule, resulting in three unpaid payments over the course
of six (6) weeks" this assertion is wrong, first I do not believe their action
was an error, and it didn't not result in as they are claiming but missed
paymentBelow is a schedule of the amortized payment and the payments they
processed
10/23/----- $11/06/-----$11/20/15-----$11/23/----$this was
additional payment made on the account12/04/---- $12/18/15-----$01/01/16----$01/15/16----$01/22/16----$02/08/16----$this was the
final payment made(after a week of back and forth)
04/26/---$
Although it may
be hard to prove intent, I believe my actions have been consistent with my
intent to pay off the account by the 6th of January but since it
doesn't seems like a meaningful resolution will become of this exchange I will
be filing a complaint with the attorney generals officeOur interaction thus
far will be submitted along with the complaint and further legal action will
follow based on the outcome
Sincerely,
[redacted]

On March 21, 2018, Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com. We have investigated the allegations and have prepared a response to explain the nature of the Lease-Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”)...

and the contractual obligations for Mr. [redacted].  Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing.  Acima offers only one lease model, which is a 12-month lease. Under the Acima lease program, a customer selects property from an independent third-party merchant, and Acima purchases that property from the merchant. The customer takes the property and leases it from Acima until all of the scheduled payments have been made. After all the payments have been made, the Agreement has been satisfied and the customer owns the property.  As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and satisfies the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement.  The first option is a 90-Day EPO.  This option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $40.00 initial payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement.  The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the Agreement at any time after the first 90 days of the Agreement by paying a lump sum equivalent to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments.  Our customers may enroll in a 90-Day payment plan to automatically exercise their 90-Day EPO anytime after their first lease renewal payment is made. Mr. [redacted] enrolled in this plan twice and the plan has been terminated each time due to failed payments.   Mr. [redacted] alleges that we have not provided him with notice of the fee amounts and have not allowed him to plead his case.  Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Acima is authorized to charge up to a $30.00 returned payment fee and a $5.00 late payment fee.   Acima waived Mr. [redacted] first returned payment fee from his February 26, 2018 payment because we had incorrect banking information on file.  We corrected Mr. [redacted]’s banking information and re-enrolled him in the 90-Day EPO payment plan. Mr. [redacted] had a second failed payment incurring a $25.00 non-sufficient funds fee and a $5.00 late fee.  Our agent told Mr. [redacted] that he had incurred $30.00 of fees on his returned payment and if he provided a bank statement showing there were available funds in his account at the time the payment was drafted, we would waive the fees.  Mr. [redacted] has not provided Acima with this information, however, we will credit his account for the $30.00 in fees. This is a one-time courtesy to Mr. [redacted].  We appreciate our patrons and seek to offer the highest degree of customer service.   We hope Mr. [redacted] finds this solution satisfactory. If Mr. [redacted] had remaining questions, he may contact our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on September 28, 2016. We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction...

to fully explain the nature of the Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted]. Simple is a virtual rent-to-own organization that provides alternative leasing options to those who do not qualify for traditional financing options. We purchase household goods from independent third-party merchants and then offer a 12-month lease of our purchased property to consumers who are approved for our services. Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for this leasing service on November 13, 2015. In Ms. [redacted]’s complaint she states, “Money was taken out of my bank account when they should have not.” The Agreement states, “…lease payments of $98.18 are due monthly” and that “You authorize us to initiate an electronic fund transfer (“EFT”) over the ACH network…for any scheduled payment you owe under this Agreement…” The original due date for each month was set on the 9th of each month. However, Ms. [redacted] called Simple and requested a change in her monthly due date to the 20th of each month. Ms. [redacted] called Simple again before her payment was due on the 20th and requested that her payment due date be changed to the 28th of each month.Simple processed the regular renewal payment on the 28th of each month; however, due to an error in our computer system, the regular payment due date was changed from the 28th of each month to the 26th of each month. Throughout the course of Ms. [redacted]’s lease, there have been a total of 11 payments processed that were returned to us unpaid due to insufficient funds, incurring a Returned Check Fee of $25.00 for each returned payment for a total of $250.00 in fees. When Ms. [redacted] notified Simple of the due date being on the 26th and not the 28th of each month, we corrected the error and waived $250.00 in Returned Check Fees.As of now, Ms. [redacted] has a remaining balance of $289.63 to be paid in 2 more individual payments of $98.18 and 1 payment of $93.27. If Ms. [redacted] chooses to exercise an Early Purchase Option, she may obtain ownership of the property early by paying $241.57 before October 4, 2016.Simple has answered all the questions of Ms. [redacted] to her satisfaction and she was notified us that she is satisfied with the status of her lease and pleased that we have waived the $250.00 in Returned Check Fees. We look forward to continuing our business relationship with Ms. [redacted] in the future. Chelsea A[redacted]| Compliance Officer | Simple Finance P: 801.297.1933 | F: 801.987.91049815 Monroe St. 4th Floor, Sandy UT, 84070[redacted] | www.simplefinance.com

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]I wanna say thank you simple finance for resolving the issue also we do have a credit card statement with 300 dollars being paid to cocos furniture  I you wish you we can give you a copy for your records . Thank you Revdex.com

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on October 21, 2016. We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to...

fully explain the nature of the Lease agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted]. Simple is a virtual rent-to-own organization that partners with retail merchants to provide alternative lease-purchase financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. On December 28, 2015, [redacted] applied and was approved for the leasing services of Simple through an independent third-party – American Furniture Warehouse (the “Merchant”) – located in Greensboro, NC. On this same day, Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement which describes therein the terms.             Ms. [redacted] claims, “I purchased a sectional at a furniture company back in March of   2016 for $999.99, after taxes, I think it was roughly $1100.00.” We cannot comment on the negotiations between the Merchant and Ms. [redacted] as we were not a present party to the transaction. The Agreement she electronically signed states, “WE OWN THE PROPERTY. This Agreement is a lease; a lease is a legal arrangement whereby the lessee/renter (you) agrees to pay the lessor/owner of the property (us) for use of the property for a specified period of time.” and, “If you do not want to lease the Property but would rather purchase the Property now, you should consider cash or credit terms that may be available to you.”             Ms. [redacted] stated, “…I would not pay all out of pocket and it would help build my credit” Simple furnishes positive and negative account information regarding every lease to DataX, a regional consumer reporting agency with whom we have a contractual obligation and responsibility to furnish consumer information. DataX is not part of the tri­-bureaus (Equifax, TransUnion, Experian). Though it is not one of the major consumer reporting agencies, DataX may have a contract with the tri-­bureaus – the terms of which, if any, are unknown to Simple. Additionally, the tri-­bureaus may have reserved the right to pull consumer information from DataX at their discretion. In the past, we have encountered situations in which consumers have claimed to have received information from the tri­-bureaus regarding their Simple account. As we did not provide that information to the tri­-bureaus, we can only presume that the information was shared by DataX. In response to those events, Simple opted to change the policy whereby we inform our consumers that the information regarding a Simple account may be reported to the tri-­bureaus. Our response is intentionally vague, as we have no contract with the tri-­bureaus and therefore no way to report information to them. This policy is designed to make sure that consumers are aware that the information could become part of the tri-­bureau report; which in our opinion is important because failing to disclose this possibility could be more damaging in certain circumstances. Ultimately, Simple only reports to DataX and cannot control what information the tri­-bureaus retrieve from them.             Ms. [redacted] states that, “I called on the 90 day buy out and was told I had to pay over    $1500!!!! I advised the agent that was incorrect, she argued with me over the phone,   basically calling me a lair!!. So I continued to pay $82 every two weeks.”   We do not have any record of this call. The 90-day option to purchase the property for the cash price of $1127.48 expired on April 3, 2016. As stated in the Agreement, “After ninety (90) days of this Agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.” We have no record of receiving any contact from Ms. [redacted] from January 02, 2016 to August 11, 2016. Simple attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] several times regarding returned payments on her account, but was unsuccessful in establishing contact. Ms. [redacted] called Simple and claimed that she did not know she was behind on payments and never received any returned check fees. The representative who received the call set up a catch-up plan for Ms. [redacted] to bring her account current by scheduling payments for 8/12/2016, 8/26/2016, 9/09/2016, and 9/23/2016.   The payment scheduled for 8/12/2016 successfully cleared, but the payment scheduled for 8/26/2016 was declined. The representative who set up Ms. [redacted]’ catch-up plan called her to resolve the failed catch-up plan. Ms. [redacted] said she would contact her bank and call us back. After not hearing back for about 4 hours, the representative tried calling Ms. [redacted] back and left a voicemail.   On August 31, 2016, a regularly scheduled renewal payment of $81.29 was drafted from Ms. [redacted]’ account. Ms. [redacted] called us on September 9, 2016 to make an additional payment of $135, but did not want to schedule any additional payments at that time.               Ms. [redacted] claims, “In August, they stop taking the money out of my account. I called   multiple times, never received a good reason why they stopped, I figured I was done           paying since the money had stopped. In September, I start receiving calls from the          collections department stating I owe over $400 past due amount. I had asked to speak           with a manager, never received a call back, I tried filing a complaint, no resolution.”   Simple had attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] multiple times, but she did not respond during the entire month of September. On September 9, 2016, a representative attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] again to set up additional payments, but had to leave a voicemail. On this same day, a scheduled payment in the amount of $135 was successfully drafted from Ms. [redacted] account. We do not have any record of any complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] before a complaint was filed with the Revdex.com on October 21, 2016.   On October 21, 2016, representative informed Ms. [redacted] that she must have a catch-up plan in place to avoid her regularly scheduled payments from being drafted.  The representative then scheduled payments for 11/03/2016 and 11/17/2016 and informed Ms. [redacted] that she will still be behind after those payments. Ms. [redacted] stated that is all she can do at this time, so the representative left a note in Ms. [redacted]’ file for her to be contacted again after November 17, 2016.   Ms. [redacted] desired settlement is to receive a refund for a payment made, and for Simple to adjust the amount of the leased Property. Simple has refunded Ms. [redacted] her payment; however, we cannot adjust the amount of the leased Property. Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement that clearly explained that payments of $81.29 are due bi-weekly for the duration of the 12-month lease, unless an Early Purchase Option is exercised. The deadline to exercise the 90-Day Early purchase option expired on 4/3/16. Ms. [redacted] has repeatedly breached her contract by failing to make timely lease renewal payments as agreed upon. Today, Ms. [redacted] account has a past due status. If Ms. [redacted] wishes to exercise her second Early Purchase Option, - which is a 25% discount of the remaining lease renewal payments- she may pay $774.95 to purchase the Property immediately. If Ms. [redacted] is unable to exercise her second Early Purchase Option, she will still owe Simple $873.41 for the use of the Property we leased to her. If Ms. [redacted] will contact Simple to resolve her past-due status, Simple will be willing to work with Ms. [redacted] to create catch-up plans to bring her account current.

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on July 26, 2017. We have investigated the allegations and are prepared to provide the facts surrounding the transaction to fully explain the nature of the...

Lease-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) and the contractual obligations of Ms. [redacted].Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing. Acima offers only one lease model. Our lease model constitutes a 12-month lease of the property to the customer wherein the customer rents the property from Acima for a period of 12 months before acquiring ownership of the property through regularly scheduled lease renewal payments. As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two early purchase options (EPOs); each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer, and terminates the Agreement earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement.  On April 17, 2017, Acima purchased a new set of four tires (the “Property”) from Stacey’s Tires & Lube (the “Merchant”), located in Katy, Texas, for $414.00. Ms. [redacted] subsequently entered into a Lease-Purchase Agreement with Acima to rent the Property through twice-monthly payments of $35.19 plus sales tax for a term of twelve (12) months.  If Ms. [redacted] were to hold the Agreement for the full 12-month term, her total of payments would be $844.56. Our first EPO is our 90-Day EPO. The option allows our customers to purchase the property at the invoice price, plus a $40.00 initial lease payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement. The 90-Day EPO is our most affordable option. The second EPO stipulates that a customer may terminate the agreement at any time by paying a lump sum equivalent to 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments. In order to exercise either EPO, a customer must call Acima’s Customer Service Department and initiate the payoff process. Acima will not initiate an EPO payoff without appropriate consent from the customer because such action would necessarily require Acima to withdraw more than the regularly scheduled payment amount.  Ms. [redacted] complains that “Acima reported $1,950 [of debt] to [a] credit agency, when the total amount financed for the price of the tires is $464.”  Acima reports to the credit reporting agency Experian.  Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement containing the total of payment to be $844.56.  This is the amount we reported to Experian as the total debt amount.  At no time did Acima report the amount of $1,950.00 to Experian.  Ms. [redacted] has paid her account in full since our last reporting date.  Her account will reflect as paid in full by the end of the next monthly reporting cycle.  Ms. [redacted] desires a refund of the $75.00 extension fee Acima charged her to extend her 90 Day EPO for 10 days.  Ms. [redacted] called Acima twice before the expiration of her 90 Day EPO, once on April 24, and again on May 17.  During both of these phone calls, Ms. [redacted] was made aware of the 90 Day EPO expiration date on July 16 and that she must call Acima to make additional payments to exercise her 90 Day EPO.  On July 24, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to check her balance.  That day, she was told her outstanding balance was $633.42 because her 90 Day EPO had expired.  She was upset and escalated the call to one of our managing agents.  Our agent offered to extend the 90 Day EPO for Ms. [redacted] for a fee of $75.00.  On July 26, Ms. [redacted] accepted the extension offer and closed her account with one payment of $300.78.  Ms. [redacted] had discussed the Agreement terms and the 90 Day EPO balances and dates with two Acima agents prior to the 90 Day EPO expiration.  We can reasonably infer she understood the terms.  Therefore, Acima will not issue any refunds to Ms. [redacted], as her account is paid in full without outstanding obligation.  We value Ms. [redacted] as a customer and greatly appreciate her business.  We hope to do business with her again in the future.  If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further information, we encourage her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982 for assistance.

Acima Credit, LLC received Mr. [redacted]’s second rejection of our response on May 3, 2018. Mr. [redacted] has not presented any additional issues in his rejection response.  We have fully addressed the issues listed in his original complaint and subsequent rejections. If Mr. [redacted] has further questions, he may call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-1983.