Acima Credit

Acima Credit, LLC received Ms. [redacted]’s second rejection of our response on May 1, 2018. Ms. [redacted] has not presented any additional issues in her rejection response.  We have fully addressed the issues listed in her original complaint and subsequent rejections. We offered Ms. [redacted] resolutions for her complaints and explanations of her situation.  If Ms. [redacted] has further questions, she may call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-1983.

Ms. [redacted]’s rejection of our offered resolution is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant.  We have established certain bare minimum qualification requirements.  Ms. [redacted] did not meet those requirements due to recent banking activity which she has acknowledged in her rejection.  She is welcome to reapply 90 days from the date of her initial application if she has been unable to locate alternative financing in the interim period.  We wish herthe best of luck and hope to do business with her in the future.

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 have spoken with Acima and they have resolved my issue to my satisfaction and I am pleased. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC received Ms. [redacted]’ rejection of our response on May 2, 2018.  Ms. [redacted] alleges she agreed to a contract other than the Agreement she signed with Acima.  If Ms. [redacted] would like to provide a copy of this Agreement showing terms other than the terms in our Agreement, we will investigate this issue further.  Until presented with evidence to the contrary, the Agreement signed between Acima and Ms. [redacted] is binding and legal. Ms. [redacted] alleges there were additional charges on her account for sales tax.  The state of Indiana in which Ms. [redacted] resides requires all consumers to pay sales tax on purchases.  Had Ms. [redacted] opted to pay for the Property in cash at the time of purchase, she would have paid the same amount in taxes as she paid with Acima.  Indiana requires Acima to charge sales tax on each lease renewal payment paid by our customers. The difference between her rental payment ($56.53) and the amount drafted from her checking account ($60.49) is the state sales tax required by Indiana.  Ms. [redacted] alleges sales tax is not contained in the Agreement, however it is contained under Paragraph 2. Ms. [redacted] may reference her Agreement for clarification. Ms. [redacted] claims Acima has committed a breach of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  We do not collect private customer medical information. Our Agreements are not subject to medical information protection laws because they do not contain any information subject to HIPAA.  As explained in our previous response, no customer private information was breached. Ms. [redacted] has paid off her account with us and has no further financial obligations with Acima.  If Ms. [redacted] has further questions about her Agreement of Acima’s procedure, she may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on November 13, 2017 regarding her Lease-Purchase Agreement. We have prepared our response below.   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 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments (which would be a 25% discount).   In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] claims that Acima has been discriminatory because we will not extend the 90-Day deadline, which expired on November 7, 2017. Acima offered to extend the deadline by 10 days for a small fee. Ms. [redacted] was unable to exercise her 90-Day EPO within that 10-day extension. Acima is under no legal obligation to extend the 90-Day deadline at all, and offering to extend it by 10 days was done as a courtesy to Ms. [redacted]. Acima has not violated UDAAP.   Ms. [redacted] claims that Acima needs to change the wording in our Agreements. The Agreement states, “An initial payment of $50.00, plus sales tax of $3.50, totaling $159.47, every-other-week you will own the Property.” The Agreement also states, “The total of your payments will be $3924.96 (“Total of Payments”). The Total of Payments is the Initial Payment plus the total of all Renewal Payments you must pay in order to acquire ownership of the Property, unless you exercise an Early Purchase Option (defined below).” Regarding the Early Purchase Options, the Agreement explains, “Early Purchase Options: 90-Day Buyout: You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first 90 days of this Agreement by paying the Acima Lease Amount, plus the 90-Day Buyout Fee of $10.00, plus Other Charges due as of the date of payoff. Early Payoff: After 90 days, you may purchase the Property by paying 75% of the total remaining Renewal Payments, plus Other Charges due.” The Agreement is clear to understand and explains plainly the purchase terms.   Ms. [redacted] claims that in a phone conversation with Acima she was given different payoff amounts. Ms. [redacted] was given the remaining Total of Payments on her account and also the total payoff amount if she were to exercise her second EPO by purchasing the Property by paying 75% of the remaining Total of Payments in one lump sum. A   As stipulated in the Agreement, the Total of Payments is $3,924.96. Ms. [redacted] has paid a total of $944.24 towards the Total of Payments, making her remaining Total of Payments to be $2,980.72. If Ms. [redacted] exercises her second EPO today, the total payoff amount would total $1,974.72, which is a 25% discount from the remaining Total of Payments (this is the 25% discount that Ms. [redacted] referred to in her complaint as a “settlement”).   We encourage Ms. [redacted] to read her Agreement more closely to understand the payment and purchase terms contained therein. Acima’s Agreements are complaint with the state of Indiana’s statutory requirements. Ms. [redacted] may purchase the property by exercising her second EPO, or she may continue making timely renewal payments to obtain ownership of the Property. If Ms. [redacted] wishes, she may terminate the Agreement by returning our Property to us. Ms. [redacted] may contact our Customer Service Department for further questions regarding her account at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on November 18, 2017.   Ms. [redacted] claims in her complaint that the leased appliance stopped working and that she has a manufacturers warranty on it. We request that Ms. [redacted] send Acima a...

copy of the warranty so that we might assist her. She may email the warranty to [email protected] or fax it to (801) 831-2018.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This is absolute rubbish. A con if there's ever been one. I was duped at the "third party" Crazy deals. I was informed this was a once monthly payment. I was informed you'd have the option at anytime to pay it off, within the 90 days. I was told the first payment would be due on December 18th, not 8 days after having the merchandise delivered. WHICH ACIMA STOLE $78+ from me. Then when speaking with a supervisor they told me to dispute through my bank. Which I did. Manager told me then it would be setup for once a month payments and I could pay it off at anytime. I told the lady I wanted to cancel right then and there, she told me I had to send that request in by email. Thats how upset I was. You don't steal money, unexpectedly against an agreement.. then try and con a customer into 2x a month payment when he's told at the store 1x a month on the 18th of the month. The manager I spoke to from Acima, apologized. Promised that it was setup for a payment on December the 18th. On December 20th, no payment was still taken. I called in asking why, was told.. its because I called my bank and disputed the $78 payment from earlier in the month. I did this per an Acima's supervisors request. She stated it be quicker for me to get my money back if I disputed it then if she processed a refund. You can't tell me to do something, then when I do it, hold it against me. Because of this cancelled payment, Acima collections told me they no longer had my bank information and that I'd have to set it all up.I was furious with this.. demanded to speak to a higher up, was told.. "I'm the highest person at this company that you're going to speak to" I demanded a supervisor's supervisor give me a call back. ASAP! If not I want to cancel immediately. NO PHONE CALLS every happened from ACIMA to me. As a response to this request. To say to the Revdex.com that you all have worked hard with me to get this resolved is bull crap. No one called the rest of the year. No one called into January. Then on January 25 I contacted Experian and opened an account. On February 3rd I got a reaction because of this from Acima. And on February 5th responded for the 26th time to one of their emails.. Stating the following. "I'm not paying a dime. I've consistently asked, since December 9th for this to be cancelled out. So pick up the Damn couches. "On February 8th 2 gentlemen with paperwork came to pickup the couches and I haven't heard anything again until March 15th when I get another LAST ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT email. I'm sorry but you all screwed up. You all prevented me from cancelling this. Then even when the couches are picked up and out of my possession for a month, want to lie and manipulate and report negatively to my credit.  GET REAL!  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: they overcharged me. I payed more then the price of the sectional   They did not provide with a contract. They did. It provide statements. They did not make the withdrawals on time like they agreed to. They did not mention anything g about the interest rate. I end up paying $1700 vs $900. I don't want a full refund. I want the extra money they took from me. And I want them to acknowledge that they were wrong and the fact they did not send me the contact. I want the difference back $800 back because they overcharged me. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on January 19, 2018. We will address the Ms. [redacted]’s concerns and explain the nature of the lease-purchase agreement (“Agreement”) and her contractual obligations.   Acima is a...

virtual rent-to-own organization that offers an alternative financing solution to consumers who apply and are approved for our 12-months leasing program. Acima purchases property, selected by the customer, from independent third-party merchants. The customer takes the property and leases it from Acima for 12-months, paying the total contract price through scheduled renewal payments, or until the customer exercises an Early Purchase Option (EPO). Once the customer has paid the amount required to terminate the Agreement, the customer obtains ownership of the property. As a courtesy to our customers, Acima offers two EPO’s; each of which reduces the cost of ownership to the customer and satisfies the Agreement earlier than the 12-month term contained within the Agreement. Both EPO’s are discussed in the Agreement.   The first EPO is the “90-Day Option.” This option allows our customers to purchase the property in the first 90 days of the 12-month term, at the invoice price, plus a $50.00 initial payment (made at the merchant’s store), and a $10.00 account closure fee. The 90-Day Option is not available to any customer after the 90th day of the lease term. The second EPO stipulates that a customer may satisfy the Agreement at any time after the first 90 days of the term by paying 75% of the remaining lease renewal payments in one lump sum. In this case, Ms. [redacted] did not exercise either of these options.   Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreement with Acima while at a merchant store – Box Drop Mattress – located in Elmhurst, Illinois, on September 20, 2017. Ms. [redacted] claims that on December 19, 2017, she called Acima and set up a payment of $459.15 to be processed on her next due date of January 2, 2018 – which would have paid off her remaining balance and terminated the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] claims that although she set up this payment, Acima never processed the payment, and consequently the Agreement was not terminated using the 90-Day Option.   Acima has a recording of the phone call with Ms. [redacted] on December 19th. The call recording confirms that Ms. [redacted] did not set up a payment with Acima to exercise her 90-Day Option as she claimed. During the phone call, Ms. [redacted] was advised of the 90-Day Option expiration date (January 7, 2018), and the remaining balance required to exercise the 90-Day Option. She was also informed that the 7th was a Sunday and that we are closed on Sundays but that she still had the option to make a payment online.   Ms. [redacted] stated that “now they want me to pay three times the amount” of her lease. After the 90-Day Option expired, the total of payments required to obtain ownership of the property did not increase. From the commencement of the Agreement, Ms. [redacted] has been required to pay a total of $1,734.00 to obtain ownership of the property and terminate the Agreement earlier than the 12-month period.   We understand that Ms. [redacted] has endured several difficulties in her personal life and would like her to know that she still has two options available to her to acquire ownership of the property. She may continue making her timely affordable renewal payments until the end of the 12-month term or she may exercise her second EPO which would allow her to purchase the property by paying 75% of the remaining renewal payments owed, in one lump sum. If Ms. [redacted] is unable to exercise an early payoff or continue the Agreement to the full 12-month term, she may terminate her Agreement at no cost, by returning the property to us. To initiate an early payoff or an early termination of the Agreement, Ms. [redacted] may contact our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

On December 23, 2015, [redacted] entered [redacted], an independent third-party located in St. Peters, MO. The resulting transaction between Mrs. [redacted] and [redacted] required the leasing services of Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”)....

Mrs. [redacted] signed the “Lease Agreement with Right to Purchase”, which describes therein the terms of payments owed. 1.       Mrs. [redacted] stated, “I purchased furniture at the cost of 1200. I paid 800 in 90 days. 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 apply for our services. Mrs. [redacted] applied for, and was approved for, this leasing service from Simple on December 23, 2015. She claims that she purchased furniture at the cost of $1,200. However, Simple Finance purchased the property and is leasing that property to Mrs. [redacted] according to the terms laid out in the “Lease Agreement with Right to Purchase”. In the Lease Agreement it clearly explains both Early Purchase Options offered by Simple: the first is the 90-Day Option, and the second is the 75% Early Purchase Discount Option. In the Agreement is states, “The 90-Day Option amount equals the Simple Cash Price [$1306.11], plus a $10.00 payment processing fee, minus any periodic lease payments you have made…” The 90-Day Option amount required that Mrs. [redacted] pay $1316.11 by the deadline of March 23, 2016 (90 days from the commencement of the Lease Agreement). Mrs. [redacted] claims to have paid $800 by the 90-Day deadline, however by March 23, 2016, she had paid $674.87 of the $1316.11 90-Day Option amount. 2.       Mrs. [redacted] claims, “I was not told that the 90 day same as cash was over when I called to pay the 400.” Mrs. [redacted] has made a total of ten (10) pre-arranged regular minimum payments by automatic draft for a total of $964.10. Our records do not indicate that Mrs. [redacted] called Simple to make an extra payment of $400, nor that she ever called us to receive information regarding her remaining balance prior to May 18, 2016. 3.       Mrs. [redacted] stated, “They tell me I owe 1500.” The Lease Agreement states, “The total of your payments will be $2,546.66 (“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 outlined herein.” Mrs. [redacted] has paid $964.10 of $2,546.66 leaving her a remaining balance of $1,582.56. 4.       Mrs. [redacted] claimed, “I called 20 days after 90 day agreement was over and they are penalizing by telling me to pay an extra $1500.” The only time Mrs. [redacted] called Simple Finance was on May 18, 2016 at 6:36 PM (MST) to ask for her remaining balance. Mrs. [redacted] became upset at the remaining balance and requested to speak with a supervisor who explained to her the terms of the lease and that the 90-Day Option had expired on March 23, 2016. According to the notes made by the supervisor, Mrs. [redacted] said she “did not read the contract but she will not pay more or extra” for the leased property. Simple Finance is not penalizing Mrs. [redacted] by charging “extra”. We are simply following the terms of the Lease Agreement that we entered into with Mrs. [redacted]. The EPO is a contractual courtesy offered to our customers. Mrs. [redacted] is solely responsible for exercising the 90-Day Option. The Lease Agreement also states in paragraph three (3), “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.” 5.       Mrs. [redacted] stated, “This place is ripping innocent people off and this reminds me of unfair lending and sound like predatory loans.” Simple Finance is not a lender. Mrs. [redacted] did not receive a line of credit or a loan. She entered into an agreement to rent two (2) sectionals. It states in paragraph one (1) of the Lease Agreement, “…lease payments of $96.41 are due every-other-week thereafter while the Agreement remains in force…” These regular minimum payments renew the lease every other week for a term twelve (12) months. If Mrs. [redacted] is unable to exercise the 90-Day Option, she still has the opportunity to exercise her remaining Early Purchase Option by paying “seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.” Simple Finance adheres to, and complies with, the strict laws and regulations that govern the leasing industry and has not violated those restrictions. 6.       Mrs. [redacted] stated that her desired settlement as, “Allow me to pay remaining balance for the actual furniture which is 400. Do not tell me to pay the 1500 or an early pay off of 25% which is 1100. I want to be treated fairly and I will pay what I truly owe 400.00” As stated previously, Mrs. [redacted] has not been penalized for allowing her 90-Day Option to expire, rather she is held responsible for the original terms of the Lease Agreement. If Mrs. [redacted] does not wish to honor her Lease Agreement and the terms found therein, Simple Finance will formally request that the property be returned to us. As stated in the Lease Agreement, “You do not have the right to keep the Property if you do not make timely lease renewal payments. If you would rather purchase the Property now, you should consider cash or credit terms that may be available to you.” Mrs. [redacted] claimed the 90-Day Option had expired within 20 days when she attempted to pay it off entirely; which is a false claim. From the time the 90-Day Option had expired on March 23, 2016 to the date that Mrs. [redacted] called Simple Finance to obtain her remaining balance, fifty-seven (57) days had passed. Simple attempts to treat all customers fairly by offering two (2) Early Purchase Options. Although Mrs. [redacted] has failed to execute her 90-Day Option she still has the 75% Early Purchase Discount Option available to her should she choose to payout and close her lease.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I never received a copy of any agreements. The furniture store gave me a receipt with the balance due and the female worker told me that it would be paid in full in 6 months, at $128. I did not receive an agreement in the mail nor did the store clerk give me one. I've done some research and this seems to be normal practice to deceive people into paying double for something. I am appalled at this business tactics and will never do business with them or Mecca again. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Acima stated that because they never received returned mail with the Lease Agreement that they "assumed" we received their correspondent. We, however, never received any correspondence from them. Assumptions should never be made when conducting business and the lease agreement should have been given to us at the time of purchase. I have spoken with both an employee and a manager at the store I purchased the "Property" and neither knew of the 100% interest fee applied to the purchase price if the price was not paid off in 90 days and therefore that information was never relayed to me. My signature was given to approve the purchase price of $1050 without the knowledge of the extra $1000 dollars due to the lease agreement not being available to me at the time of purchase nor the store employees relaying this fee to me due to their own ignorance of this policy. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by [redacted] through the Revdex.com on September 19, 2017.  We have prepared a response to the allegations in the complaint. Ms. [redacted] alleges that she repeatedly updated her banking information with Acima and that we...

continued to process renewal payments using her outdated banking information. Acima processes regularly scheduled renewal payments via the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) network. The ACH network can take 1-3 days to process a payment from the date it is initiated. Because of this, Acima processes ACH transactions the day before they are due. This way, the payment will be withdrawn from the checking account on the date the payment is due. On August 18th, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to notify us that she changed her banking information. We informed Ms. [redacted] that the payment due on August 18th had already been processed the day before. She told us the payment might return to us unpaid. We advised her that we would waive any fees associated with the returned payment if she could provide an alternative payment method to make the payment that day. Ms. [redacted] understood her option to avoid fees associated with the returned payment and told us she would call us back. She did not provide an alternative payment method to make the renewal payment that day. The renewal payment that was due on September 18th returned to us unpaid and incurred an NSF fee of $25 and late fee of $15. Ms. [redacted]’s next renewal payment was due on September 1st. Consistent with the previous payment and company policy, the payment that was due on September 1st was processed on August 31st at 3:09 AM. Ms. [redacted] called Acima to update her payment information at 9:03 AM, approximately 3 hours after her renewal payment had already been processed. Ms. [redacted] called Acima on September 1st at 9:03 AM to make a payment of $138.08 to make up her failed payment from August 18th and pay her renewal payment that was due on September 1st. However, her payment that was due on September 1st had already been processed using her old banking information. This ACH payment returned to us unpaid on September 5th, incurring an NSF fee of $40 and late fee of $3. When Ms. [redacted] called Acima on September 14th she was frustrated to learn she had a past due balance. This was not due to past due rent payments, rather the past due fees incurred from her late renewal payments and returned payment fees. She had incurred a total of $83 in late and returned payment fees. On September 14th, Ms. [redacted] called Acima and paid off her balance by making a payment of $860.39 via a credit card ending [redacted]. She then filed her complaint with the Revdex.com. Ms. [redacted] had two failed payments with both a late fee and NSF fee associated with each failed payment. She had the option to avoid fees for both payments by providing alternative payment methods earlier, but she waited 2 weeks before she called Acima with updated payment information. Ms. [redacted] was informed of the consequences of failed payments. We will not refund any late or returned payment fees.

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on April 18, 2018.  We have investigated the allegations and 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. The Acima lease program allows the customer to select property from an independent third-party merchant and Acima purchases the property from the merchant.  The customer takes possession of the property and leases it from Acima until all the scheduled payments have been made. After all payments have been made, the Agreement is 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 within the first 90 days of the Agreement at the invoice price, plus a $50.00 initial payment, and a $10.00 account closure fee (the “Acima Cash Price”).  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 to 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 violate the terms of the Agreement by withdrawing more than the regularly scheduled payment amount from the customer’s preferred payment method. Acima uses an advanced authentication method in which most Agreements are entered into electronically.  We initiate an SMS text message to our customers’ cell phones containing a unique identification code to be used as the customers’ electronic signature and official authorization of the Agreement.  Acima sent an SMS text message to Ms. [redacted]’s cell phone on January 27, 2018 at 1:37 PM MST. The message said, “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing your lease agreement with Acima. Code: [redacted] (Reply STOP to unsubscribe).”  Ms. [redacted] then used the code and entered into the Agreement to rent a full-size mattress and box spring (the “Property”) through 26 bi-weekly payments of $12.99 and a $50.00 initial payment for a total of $387.60 (the “Cost of Lease”). Ms. [redacted] alleges that she did not have the opportunity to see the Agreement prior to signing and that we did not send her a copy of the Agreement after signing.  The electronic signing process allows for the customer to view and print the Agreement prior to signing. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] could have called Acima at any time and requested a copy of the unsigned Agreement prior to or after signing.  Acima mailed a physical copy of the Agreement to Ms. [redacted] at the address listed on his application. Ms. [redacted] alleges we charged her extra fees.  The invoice price of the Property was $140.00. The Acima Cash Price for the 90-Day EPO is the invoice price ($140.00), plus the initial payment ($50.00), plus the $10.00 account closure fee.  These payment terms are detailed within Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Agreement. On January 30, 2018, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to go over the Agreement terms and payment schedule. Ms. [redacted] rejected Acima’s authorization to automatically draft payments from her checking account when the payment becomes due.  Because automatic payments were deactivated, Ms. [redacted] incurred two late fees of $3.00 each totaling $6.00. Ms. [redacted] paid a total of $16.00 in late fees and the EPO account closure fee. All fees were explained and authorized under Paragraph 4 of the Agreement. As of the date of this letter, Ms. [redacted] has exercised her 90-Day EPO for $226.00 in rent and sales tax.  So long as the final payment clears and is not cancelled, Ms. [redacted]’s account will remain closed as paid-in-full.  Ms. [redacted] has asked us to refund fees charged to her account. All fees charged on Ms. [redacted]’s account were valid fees contracted for under the Agreement.  We value our customers and appreciate Ms. [redacted]’s business.  We hope this response explains the Agreement and fees charged to Ms. [redacted]’s account.  If Ms. [redacted] has remaining questions, she may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:There are incorrect statements made by the business.  I do not see an attached signed copy of the lease agreement.   Please provide.  The only documents I acknowledge signing were done in the store, as was a part of my application process, and was then charged an application fee which I paid on my debit card.  I was then told by SImple and the merchant that my agreement would be effective once I received my items complete and in full working condition. They still are not.  I never said that I would not agree to pay Simple once my items are delivered and in full working condition. The statement about me simply missing pillows is also a lie.  The merchant's own delivery person acknowledged that complete parts were not in the boxes.  I have sent them photos of a portion of a sectional with pillows on it.  I am missing an entire half of a sectional sofa with the pillows. for example.The statement about me intentionally breaking a bed frame to avoid payments is a lie and inflammatory.  Again, I am not attempting to avoid payment,  My dispute is with the start date, and the face they have me delinquent.My dispute is the date that Simple started payments, which they agreed (and I have the text messages) they would not start my financing until my order was correct.  I want the current account closed as satisfied, and a new account opened once my items are in my receipt and in full working order.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I made 5 of 6 payments not 4 of 6.  Nothing in the response addresses the false and misleading contractual language that obscures the fact that the payments will exceed $6,000 for an original purchase of $3300.The contract on its face is fraudulent.  The terms should clearly state the consequences of missing the payment.  What's more the State of Emergency in Georgia prevented anyone from leaving the house which led to my making the last payment on time.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit, LLC (hereafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on August 28, 2017. We have investigated all the allegations in the complaint and have provided a response below to address the facts surrounding the...

transaction regarding the Lease-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) between Acima and Ms. [redacted], and to explain the contractual obligations contained therein. Acima is a virtual rent-to-own organization that offers alternative financing to those who may not qualify for traditional financing. On October 10, 2016, Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for our leasing services through an independent third-party retailer – Furnish 123 (the “Merchant”) – located in Davenport, IA. On this date, Acima purchased a loveseat (the “Property”) from the Merchant on behalf of Ms. [redacted] for $1,714.80 (the “Invoice Amount”). 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 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 lease earlier than the 12-month contractual term contained within the Agreement. Our first EPO is our 90-Day Option. This option allows our customer to purchase the Property by paying the Invoice Amount, plus a $10.00 closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement. The 90-Day Option 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 be currents on payments, and call Acima’s Customer Service Department to initiate the payoff process. On October 10, 2016, Ms. [redacted] entered into the Agreement with Acima wherein she agreed to rent the Property for the duration of the 12-month rental term by making 26 bi-weekly payments of $130.58 for a total of $3,429.60, unless she exercised an EPO. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] claims she called Acima 3 times in an effort to return the Property to us and terminate the lease. Acima keeps record of all outbound and inbound calls for each lease. Our records show that after the lease was funded, Ms. [redacted] never contacted Acima again. Acima’s representatives leave notes in the account for every correspondence received from customers. In Ms. [redacted]’s account, there are notes that reflect an Acima representative left a message for Ms. [redacted] on February 22, 2017, and again on May 9, 2017 when an Acima representative contacted Ms. [redacted] to inform her of her past due balance. During the call on May 9th, Ms. [redacted] informed Acima she may consider doing a return/pick-up of the Property but that she wanted to speak with her husband about a payment plan to catch up on her past due balance. She informed us she would call Acima back, but she never did. On May 9, 2017, Ms. [redacted] was sent pick-up instructions that would explain the process by which she may terminate her Agreement by returning the Property to us. Acima’s Resolutions Department handles all lease terminations and pick-ups. If Ms. [redacted] wishes to terminate her lease, our Resolutions Department will contact her with the instructions on how to do so. As stated previously, Ms. [redacted] never contacted Acima to notify us about a lease termination. Therefore, no termination was ever initiated. Ms. [redacted] currently is in possession of the Property and has a past due balance of $2,057.12. While Ms. [redacted]’s is delinquent, it will be reported as such to Experian. Ms. [redacted] claims in her complaint that she was unaware of certain obligations of the Agreement, and also claims that the Agreement doesn’t state the amount owed to acquire ownership of the Property. We encourage Ms. [redacted] to read her Agreement thoroughly. Upon doing so she will find the payments owed. Acima has not acted outside of the terms of the Agreement. If Ms. [redacted] requires a copy of her Agreement, she may contact the Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982 to request one. As of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] has paid a total of $1,084.64 towards the Total of Payments of $2,344.96. She has a past due rent balance of $1,828.12 plus fees past due of $229.00 for a total past due balance of $2,057.12. Ms. [redacted] requested as a desired outcome that Acima stop threatening to report to the credit bureaus her delinquent transaction history with Acima. Acima will only report accurate transaction history. In Ms. [redacted]’s case, we will report negatively as her account is delinquent. Once Ms. [redacted] has cured her default, we will happily report her account as current. If Ms. [redacted] has further questions regarding her lease, she may contact our Customer Service Department.

We are sorry our response was not satisfactory to Ms. [redacted].

Acima received Ms. [redacted]’s second rejection on February 22, 2017.  We have provided all facts surrounding the dispute.  We regret Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with the information and resolution provided.  However, there is nothing more Acima is willing or capable of offering.  If Ms. [redacted] requires further information, we invite her to call our Customer Service Department at (801)297-1982.

On March 15, 2018, Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Mrs. [redacted] on behalf of her husband, 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 of 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 $50.00 initial payment and a $10.00 account closure fee, within the first 90 days of the Agreement.  The second EPO stipulated 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 June 2, 2017, Mr. [redacted] entered into the Agreement wherein he agreed to rent a TV stand, a queen split bed, and a futon (the “Property”) from Acima through monthly lease renewal payments of $96.28 for a total of $1,038.00 (the “Total of Payments”) to satisfy the Agreement.  The 90-Day EPO amount of $579.00 expired on September 4, 2017.   On August 17, 2017, Mr. [redacted] opened a chat conversation with one of our agents and was advised that his 90-Day EPO balance was $347.34 (plus sales tax) and would expire on September 4, 2017. If he did not exercise his 90-Day EPO by September 4th, the remaining balance on his Total of Payments was $806.34.   On Tuesday, September 5, 2017, Mr. [redacted] contacted Acima to get his balance. Our agent informed Mr. [redacted] that his 90-Day EPO had expired the day prior and the remaining balance of this Total of Payments was $806.34 (plus sales tax), not including a payment of $96.28 that was currently being processed. Mr. [redacted] was offered the opportunity to exercise his 90-Day EPO by paying an extension fee of $75.00 for a total payoff amount of $340.80.   After some debate and speaking with four different Acima agents, Mr. [redacted] accepted the 90-Day EPO extension offer. Mr. [redacted] subsequently made a payment of $340.80 to terminate his agreement and close his account. The 90-Day EPO amount was $579.00. After making his final payment, Mr. [redacted] had paid a total of $644.00 (the invoice price of $569 plus the $75.00 extension fee). Acima sent Mr. [redacted] a paid-in-full confirmation email. The paid-in-full status of the account is conditional upon Acima receiving all payments made indefinitely.   After Mr. [redacted] received his paid-in-full confirmation email, he charged back a payment of $96.28. Meaning his paid-in-full balanace was no longer paid in full and he had an outstanding balance of $96.28. Mr. [redacted]’s account was reopened after a payment was charged back because he no longer had exercised his 90-Day EPO and had an outstanding balance.   Mr. [redacted] called Acima to inquire why he was receiving calls regarding his past due balance. Mr. [redacted] was informed that because he had charged back his payment he still had a past due balance. He claimed that he did not owe Acima any more money. Mr. [redacted] was advised the status of his reopened account due to his chargeback payment. An Acima representative offered Mr. [redacted] the opportunity to close his account again by paying the charged back payment of $96.28, but he refused this offer. As such, Mr. [redacted] is not eligible to exercise his 90-Day EPO.   Mr. [redacted]’s desired resolution to his complaint is for Acima to stop contact him and to reflect his account as paid. We will order a do not contact status on his account and he will not be contact again. However, we will not report his account as paid-in-full until he has paid his account in full.   Acima has attempted to accommodate Mr. [redacted] and his account issues.  We have offered extensions for the 90-Day EPO and allowed a make-up payment to close the account for less than the total of payments.  Mr. [redacted] has not accepted these offers. As of the date of this response, Mr. [redacted] has a past due balance of $117.34.  His remaining total of payments is $269.71. If he wishes to terminate the Agreement, he may call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-1983 to make payment arrangements.