Acima Credit

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on June 16, 2016. We have spent much time reviewing the complaint and the allegations made therein in an effort to verify all...

the facts surrounding the situation, and provide insight into how Simple has attempted to find a resolution that satisfies both parties. Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for the leasing services of Simple Finance through an independent third-party, Car Stereo of Texas (the “Merchant”), located in Westheimer, TX, on March 12, 2016. On that same day, Ms. [redacted] entered into a Lease-Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Simple, to lease four (4) new car tires (the “Property”). Pursuant to the Agreement, Ms. [redacted] is to make her lease renewal payment every-other-week, beginning March 31, 2016, by automatic draft from the checking account she provided to us. The first two lease renewal payments, due on March 31st and April 6th, were both processed and later returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Simple has a return payment fee of $25.00 for returned payments and other late fees for any failure to make a payment within three (3) business days of the due date (if pay frequency is bi-weekly). These two returned payments left Ms. [redacted]’s account with Simple, delinquent with $28.82 in fees. It is Simple’s policy that when an account has become delinquent, we will offer catch-up plans to help the customer become current on their account within a reasonable and non-burdensome time period. When setting up a catch-up plan, Simple representatives are encouraged to obtain alternate billing methods (other than new checking account information) to be used with a catch-up plan, as credit cards provide immediate payment confirmation and ACH transactions have a pending status of 3-5 business days. Ms. [redacted] called Simple on April 12, 2016, to update her billing information. At that time, her account was in a ‘past due’ status. According to Simple’s policy, her credit card information was obtained for purposes of setting up a catch-up plan to bring her account current by April 15, 2016. Ms. [redacted] provided us her credit card information and authorization to run the catch-up plan payment and all future automated payments. The catch-up plan payment was processed and approved on the credit card on April 15, 2016. Bringing her account current and maintaining her on the automated payment system agreed upon in the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] claimed that she requested that her checking account information be deleted, and verified with us that it had been deleted; however, Simple has no record in our notes that Ms. [redacted] ever requested her checking information be deleted, only updated to a credit card. Ms. [redacted] also claimed, “The manager admitted that they was aware I requested to cancel the wellsfargo info and they still continue to bill the account.” Simple has no record of notes indicating that a Customer Service manager was aware of such notification and chose to ignore the request by billing the same account that had been closed. Ms. [redacted] also claimed that the manager would not listen to the recording of the phone call and was only willing to rely upon notes. Simple does not have a recording of the phone conversation and therefore could not review it to verify what was said during the call. However, Simple takes pride in the quality of our customer service by making it a priority to adhere to reasonable requests by customers, according to approved company policy, to provide them with a satisfactory customer service experience. As of May 10, 2016, Simple had processed a total of four (4) payments for Ms. [redacted]. Those four (4) payments were processed on the following dates; (i) March 31, 2016, as ACH; (ii) April 6, 2016, also processed as ACH; (iii) April 15, 2016, which was the one-time catch-up plan payment; and, (iv) April 29, 2016, on the automatic payment system. Ms. [redacted] called Simple on May 10, 2016, alleging we had processed a payment on the wrong account which incurred NSF fees from her bank. She requested that all NSF fees be refunded to her. Our representative explained to Ms. [redacted] that we would not guarantee any refund but she may submit a bank statement for us to review. In the event that we had processed an unauthorized payment that resulted in an NSF fee, we would honor our error and refund money to the customer. However, upon receipt and review of Ms. [redacted]’s bank statement, we found that the two NSF fees she desired to be refunded to her, were not eligible for a refund. The first NSF fee was incurred from a transaction that was not with Simple and the second fee was incurred by a Simple transaction that was authorized at the time is was processed. Ms. [redacted] called Simple on June 13, 2016 to notify us that her payment on June 10, 2016, would return unpaid. Upon this notification, our representative attempted to create another catch-up plan for Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] refused. She said that until Simple approved a refund of money to cover her NSF fees from her bank, she would refuse to continue making payments on her account. Our representative explained that failure to make timely payments on her account would result in delinquency, and may incur more fees. Ms. [redacted] stated that she did not care if she went to collections or incurred more fees because she would refuse to pay them. She became abrasive and used inappropriate language with our representatives while they were attempting to assist her, and later she ended the phone conversation abruptly. Ms. [redacted] also claimed, “They won’t assist me. They won’t allow or provide me with corperate office information to make a complaint. When you request a mailing or email address they state they don’t have anything.” On June 16, 2016, Ms. [redacted] called Simple and requested corporate contact information. The representative that answered her call, gave her the customer service email which is the main receptacle that Simple utilizes to receive any customer complaint. Simple has made various attempted to explain to Ms. [redacted] the nature of any transactions that may have caused NSF fees and the terms of the Agreement, specifically in regards to authorization of payments. We affirm that at the time of every payment transaction with Simple, Ms. [redacted] authorized each processed payment. Ms. [redacted] is still bound by the Agreement to make her lease renewal payments as she is still in possession of our Property. If she does not wish to continue making lease renewal payments, we can arrange a time to pick-up our property and terminate the Agreement after the requirements of Daily Rent, as described in the Agreement, have been satisfied. We will not be responsible for any fees incurred from any other institution, or from previously authorized transactions. Simple remains willing to work with Ms. [redacted] to help bring her account.

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received a complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on September 8, 2017. We have investigated the allegations in the complaint and have prepared a response below to the complaint.   In Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, he states that his wife...

attempted to access information on his account with Acima and was not granted access by a representative of Acima because his wife was not an authorized user. On September 8, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Mrs. [redacted] called Acima asking to know the balance of her husband’s account. Our representative informed her that we could not give her that information as she was not an authorized user on her husband’s account. She was informed that Mr. [redacted] would have to call Acima personally and authorize us to speak with his wife.   On that same day, and less than an hour after the first phone call, at 8:52 AM, Mrs. [redacted] called Acima again and spoke with the same representative that had taken her call the first time. During this second phone call, Mrs. [redacted] claimed to be Mr. [redacted]. However, Mrs. [redacted] spoke with the same Acima representative during both phone calls she placed that day, and the representative immediately recognized her voice as Mr. [redacted]’s wife, and not Mr. [redacted] himself. The representative denied Mrs. [redacted] access to the account. Mrs. [redacted] was very upset that we did not believe her to be Mr. [redacted]. During the investigation of Mr. [redacted]’s complaint, we reviewed both phone calls placed by Mrs. [redacted] on September 8th and confirmed it was her same voice claiming to be Mr. [redacted].   Acima values the privacy of each customer with whom we do business. We expect Mr. [redacted] can understand and appreciate our level of security measures to secure his private information. On September 11, 2017, Mr. [redacted] called Acima and authorized his wife to speak on his behalf. Once Mr. [redacted] had authorized his wife on his account we were more than happy to discuss the account in detail with her. She paid off the account on September 11, 2017 and the account was closed.   Acima never violated any law or regulation by denying Mrs. [redacted] access to her husband’s account prior to being authorized on the account.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The representitive Sade T[redacted] confirmed verbally with me that no payment would be deducted on the specified date.  The payment came out anyway and when I spoke with Ms. T[redacted] she denied that she had not confirmed that I could call in and pay the past due ount and the current amount due.  THIS SHOWS HOW WELL THIS BUSINESS COMMUNICATES OR CONFIRM FACTS.  I have spoke with the first person to have understanding of what has happened.  I have made a payment since this complaint was filed and proper arrangements are left for the $112 that I was past due.  The bottom line is this company has access to withdraw funds from my account at there will and they excercised that right regardless to me communicating with them for more time I was promised and the payment still came out.  I still have not recovered financially and only needed a week to settle my debt with this awful company.  Again I HAVE MADE PROPER ARRANGEMENTS AND ONCE I PAY THIS OFF IN DECEMBER I WILL SPEAK WITH THE OWNER OF ATL CUSTOMS AND LET HIM KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS COMPANY DOES CUSTOMERS THAT HE SENDS THEM.  I have used another company with ATL customs and I will return to ACIMA's competitor for my business next time.
Sincerely,
And 
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Acima Credit ("Acima") received Mr. [redacted]'s rejection of our response.  We have provided Mr. [redacted] with an explanation of his Agreement with Acima and the applicable state sales taxes for which he is still liable.  If Mr. [redacted] requires further information, we encourage him to contact our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

The Lease-Purchase Agreement was available for Ms. [redacted] to review prior to signing the Agreement. If she did not understand the language, she was able to take the Agreement home and spend sufficient time reviewing the terms before entering into the Agreement. Ms. [redacted] may review the statutory requirements found in M.G.L.A. 93 § 90 et. seq. to see that Acima has written the Agreement in a language that is considered clear and conspicuous. With respect to the payment provisions, the Agreement states “An Initial Lease Payment of $50.00 is due when this Agreement is signed, and additional lease payments of $327.25 are due monthly thereafter…” The Agreement also states, “The total of your payments will be $3977.00 (“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.” This language is clear and easy to understand.  Above the body of the text, in bold-faced font that is larger than the body of the text, there is a table on the Agreement that contains 5 columns with sufficient spacing as to draw attention to it. The table provides a summary of the numerical amounts contained within the Agreement for quick reference. The table specifically provides the Invoice Amount, Number of Payments, Lease Payment Amount, Total of Payments for Ownership, and the 90-Day Buyout Amount with the corresponding numerical amounts. Ms. [redacted]’s claim that the terms of the Agreement are unclear and intentionally hidden are false.  If Ms. [redacted] would like to return the property, she may contact Acima’s Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982 for return instructions. We must be aware that in order to initiate a return of the property and terminate the agreement, Ms. [redacted] must be current on her payments. As of the date of this response, she has a past due balance of $1434.00Tell us why here...

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received Ms. [redacted]’s rejection of our complaint response on February 24, 2017.  Ms. [redacted] has rejected our response based on a misunderstanding between Acima, the Merchant, and Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] alleges in her rejection comments that she has “spoke with both an employee and a manager at the store [she] purchased the ‘Property’ and neither know of the 100% interest fee applied to the purchase price if the price was not paid off in 90 days.”  Ms. [redacted] claims the Merchants’ lack of knowledge is the reason she did not know about the “100% interest fee.”  We would like to first address the lack of knowledge regarding our Merchant.  The Agreement is a binding contract between Ms. [redacted] and Acima regarding our purchase of the Property from the Merchant.  The Merchant is a third party to the Agreement between Ms. [redacted] and Acima.  Therefore, the Merchant’s explanation of the Agreement terms is ultimately independent of the actual transaction and Agreement terms.  The Merchant acted as an agent on Ms. [redacted]’s behalf and provided information regarding the Agreement upon which Ms. [redacted] based her decision to initiate the Agreement.  If Ms. [redacted] feels the Merchant was untruthful or hid terms of the Agreement, she must seek relief with the Merchant.  Secondly, as thoroughly explained in our previous response, Acima does not charge interest on our lease agreements.  We offer one Agreement model.  This Agreement is a 12-month lease of the Property to the customer with regular lease renewal payments made over the course of the 12-month term.   The regular lease renewal payments reflect the total contracted rental price of the Property.  Acima encourages our customers to pay off leases early in order to save our customers some money.  The 90-Day early purchase option (EPO) is our most affordable option because customers have 90 days to pay off the retail price of the Property.  We also provide a secondary EPO that is useable at any time throughout the term of the Agreement.  Customers may use this EPO by paying 75% of the remaining Agreement balance.  Ms. [redacted] is invited to exercise this EPO at any time to terminate her Agreement with us.  Acima looks to enrich the lives of our merchants and customers by providing alternative financing and excellent service.  We hope Ms. [redacted] finds this information satisfactory.  If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further assistance with her Agreement, we encourage her to contact our Customer Service Department at (801)297-1982.

On January 19, 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 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.  On August 15, 2017, Mr. [redacted] entered the Agreement to rent 2 queen mattresses, bed frames, and box springs (the “Property”) from Acima.  Mr. [redacted] was scheduled for bi-weekly payments of $51.62 for the period of 12 months.  On September 5, 2017, Mr. [redacted] called and notified Acima that he had been a victim of the Hurricane Harvey disaster and needed to defer his regularly scheduled payments until September 20, 2017.  Acima was happy to accommodate this request and deferred Mr. [redacted]’s payments until automatic payments resumed on October 13, 2017.  We did not charge Mr. [redacted] late fees on payments during this time period.  Mr. [redacted] alleges that Acima has been monitoring his checking account and withdrawing payments upon any deposit into his checking account.  This is not true.  Acima only charges payments to our customers’ checking accounts as authorized under the regular lease renewal payment schedule authorized under Paragraph 3 of the Agreement. Mr. [redacted] contracted for bi-weekly payments due every-other Friday.  Acima attempted to take payments from Mr. [redacted] on October 13 and 27, November 10 and 24, December 8 and 22, and January 5 and January 19 according to the payment schedule authorized in the Agreement.  Mr. [redacted] called Acima to arrange catch-up and one-time payments to begin paying off his past due balance.  Mr. [redacted] alleges that Acima has threatened legal action against him. Acima presently has no intentions of pursuing legal action or relief against Mr. [redacted] and has not made any threats to this effect.  Mr. [redacted] alleges Acima is calling him six times per day.  Acima operates the collection calls on an automatic dialer.  The dialer is programmed to call a customer not more than three times per day.  Acima keeps detailed call records.  Our records show we have not called Mr. [redacted]s more than three times in one day.   Acima has demonstrated flexibility and understanding with Mr. [redacted].  We understand that the natural disaster has placed financial stress on our customers located in affected areas.  Acima accommodated Mr. [redacted]’s request to defer payments until September 20, 2017 and have attempted to arrange catch-up plans to help Mr. [redacted] get his payment schedule back on track. If Mr. [redacted] would like to change his payment frequency, or has further questions or concerns, we encourage him to call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-1983 to receive further assistance.

Ms. [redacted], please refer to your Agreement for the following calculation of the lease. The Total of Payments ($441.66) minus the Initial Payment ($50.00) is $391.66, divided by the number of renewal payments (26), and the result is $15.07, which is your renewal payment amount. The $50.00 initial payment was applied to your Total of Payments. The Initial payment is a rent payment, not a “principle” reduction payment like you may be used to seeing in a traditional loan arrangement.

On January 26, 2018, Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com. We have investigated her 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 October 19, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered into a lease-purchase agreement with Acima to rent a throttle body unit and accelerator pedal position sensor (the “Property”) through 26 bi-weekly renewal payments of $47.34 for a total of $1,270.63 (“Total of Payments”) throughout the course of the 12-month lease. Ms. [redacted] would not be able to obtain ownership of the Property without making all 26 renewal payments to pay the Total of Payments. Ms. [redacted] failed to make 3 consecutive payments December 28, 2017, and January 11 and 25 of 2018. Due to the failed payment, Ms. [redacted] was assessed a $25.00 returned payment fee for each of the 3 failed payments. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, Acima is authorized to charge $30.00 returned payment fee. The fees assessed on Ms. [redacted]’s account are valid and contracted for under the Agreement. Acima was not notified of Ms. [redacted]’s changed bank account information until after she had failed to make 3 payments.  Ms. [redacted] was aware of her responsibility to make bi-weekly payments through automatic drafts from her checking account.  Acima is not responsible for any fees assessed against Ms. [redacted] by any banking institution and will not waive any fees assessed. Ms. [redacted] as refused to provide a valid payment method to make her regular lease renewal payments.  Her account is presently past due and requires attention immediately.  We encourage Ms. [redacted] to call our Collections and Recovery Department at (801) 297-1983 to provide a valid payment method and cure her delinquency.

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.