Acima Credit

On September 28, 2015, [redacted] entered JMD Furniture-Laurel, an independent merchant of Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”), and filled out an application to lease various furniture items through Simple. On October 8, 2015 [redacted]...

electronically signed the “Lease Agreement with Right To Purchase” which describes therein the terms of damaged or loss of property and payment method authorization.Ms. [redacted] claimed, “Simple Finance has an active and open account for me,...which I did not authorize them to fund or begin.” On September 28, 2015, Ms. [redacted] applied for financing from Simple Finance in the merchant store JMD Furniture and was approved the same day. She electronically signed her Lease Agreement which did authorize the commencement of our agreement with her, opening an account. The lease was not funded until her items had been delivered, which was confirmed with the merchant store. Upon delivery and funding, her payment due dates were scheduled for her next pay date, but “no sooner than 7 days from the delivery date,” as stated in the Agreement.She also claimed, “I did not receive all the items I requested from my merchant, and second, the items that were delivered were damaged or missing pieces.” Ms. [redacted] did in fact receive her items from the merchant store, which the merchant confirmed with us the same day she called Simple Finance. She electronically signed the “Acknowledgement of Receipt of Leased Property and Satisfaction Receipt”, which states, in bold lettering, above the signature line, “BY SIGNING THIS RECEIPT: (1) YOU DECLARE YOU HAVE RECEIVED ALL LEASED PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT;...(3) YOU DECLARE THAT YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY;” In section 7, titled “Damage or Loss of Property”, it states, “If you notice any damages to the Property, other than those disclosed by us, you agree to inform us of the damages before signing and we will amend the agreement accordingly. By signing this lease, you agree that you are satisfied with the condition of the Property and that no other damages exist other than those disclosed by us.” Ms. [redacted] reported that she was given the incorrect pillow, so it was reordered and replaced promptly. Upon delivery and receipt of her merchandise there was no mention or complaint of any other missing or damaged items, nor in her first several phone conversations with us. There were multiple occasions in which Simple Finance was in communication with Ms. [redacted] and she never made any reference to a bed frame or desk drawer being damaged or missing until thirty-nine (39) days after delivery. When she did finally notify Simple Finance of “broken items” we requested pictures of her furniture. She sent pictures showing her purchased bed frame broken into eight (8) pieces. We do not believe it is reasonable to expect that a customer would sign for furniture being delivered to her house as being “satisfied with the condition of the property”, if it were delivered snapped into pieces. We believe that this damage was done intentionally in an attempt to avoid the contractual obligation to pay for her merchandise after having it in her possession, as of now, for over 90 days.Ms. [redacted] also said, that she never gave Simple Finance authorization to draft her minimum payments and “had to block [us] from [her] account.” In the ‘Lease Agreement” under section 8, titled “Payment Method/Payment Change, EFT Authorization”, it states, “You authorize us to initiate an electronic fund transfer (“EFT”) over the ACH network for any scheduled payment you owe under this Agreement…” Also, it is stated “You certify that you are an authorized user of the Bank Account and Card and will not dispute these scheduled transactions with your bank or credit card company; so long as the transactions correspond to the terms indicated in this authorization form. Simple Finance did have authorization to draft payments on their due date, according to the Lease Agreement which says payments are “due twice-monthly thereafter...commencing no sooner than 7 days from the delivery date.” The transactions did correspond to the terms indicated in the authorization form, Ms. [redacted] did violate the terms of her agreement by disputing and stopping payments from being taken from her account which caused her account to become delinquent and incur late fees. Our recovery team contacted Ms. [redacted] to discuss her options to get caught up on her payments in a reasonable and affordable manner. She had already had possession of the property for over 30 days at the time a payment plan was offered to her, as she had not yet made any payment towards her property.Ms. [redacted] also said, “I have taken off work numerous times to have these items delivered by the merchant who never showed up. I even called the merchant in November and asked to return the few items I did have and they informed me they will not take the items back.  This is unreasonable.”Although several items were not reported as damaged until a month after delivery, the merchant store was still willing to deliver new items according to the customer’s satisfaction. This delivery was confirmed with both the merchant store and customer on a three-way call with Simple Finance. On the scheduled delivery date, the customer did not answer her phone, nor return a call to the merchant and was not home when they attempted to deliver her items. We have email confirmation that she rescheduled the delivery herself. The merchant store has made three (3) attempted deliveries at their own expense (of $100 each delivery) on behalf of Ms. [redacted] and she has never been home to receive her items. This is not a legitimate business complaint. Ms. [redacted] is able to pick up her items at any time or schedule another delivery at her own expense as the merchant has already gone above and beyond in it’s efforts to satisfy her. Simple Finance has been compliant to the Lease Agreement which was entered into willingly by Ms. [redacted]. As the property has been in her possession for over 90 days, and she has not yet paid any amount towards her balance, Simple Finance will not close her account and she will be expected to pay for the merchandise she does have in her possession. Attached below is a copy of the signed Lease Agreement and corresponding pictures to the "damaged" merchandise.

The warranty Ms. [redacted] is referring to in her complaint, whether or not she called it a manufacturer’s warranty, is in fact, a manufacturer’s warranty. The Merchant did not go out of business. They have relocated to a new address. The address of the Merchant is [redacted] [redacted]. We encourage Ms. [redacted] to go to the new address and speak with the Merchant regarding the warranty process.   We have made note of Ms. [redacted]’s refusal to pay her contractual obligations. We have also ceased all communication with Ms. [redacted] via email and phone. Ms. [redacted]’s payment obligations will continue while she remains in possession of the property. Should Ms. [redacted] wish to honor the terms of her Agreement, she may contact us at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Mrs. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on March 22nd, 2017. 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 Mrs. [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 July 30th, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] applied and were approved for our leasing services through an independent third-party, East Coast Appliance (the “Merchant”), located in Chesapeake, Virginia.  On this day, Acima purchased a washer and dryer (the “Property”) on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] for $1,453.05.  The Agreement is a 12-month lease of the Property to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] at the cost of $119.88 semi-monthly.  The Agreement states the total of payments Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] would pay if they hold the lease for the entire lease term is $2,927.12.  The Agreement contains two (2) early purchase options (EPOs) available to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] as a courtesy to terminate the lease prior to maturity to save some money.  The first EPO, the 90-Day EPO, states that Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] can pay a total of $1,513.05 including the retail price of the Property, a $50.00 initial payment, and a $10.00 account closure fee to terminate the account within the first 90 days of the lease.  Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]’s 90-Day EPO expired on November 16th, 2016.  The second EPO stipulates the lease can be terminated at any time following the 90-Day EPO expiration date by paying 75% of the remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.  In her complaint, Mrs. [redacted] complains about the “interest rate” associated with the Agreement.  Acima does not charge an interest rate because the Agreement is a 12-month lease of the Property.  Leases require a cost for using the Property and the cost is reflected in the total of payments Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] would pay by holding the lease to term.  Acima imposes a one-time financing charge in our Agreements at the time the Agreement is generated for our customers.  By signing the Agreement, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] assumed the finance charge associated with renting the Property.  If Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] wish to avoid a percentage of the financing charge, they must exercise the second EPO discount available to them.  Mrs. [redacted] alleges she was not given a copy of the Agreement at the time she signed the Agreement.  Acima was not present at the time of signing and can neither confirm nor deny this claim.  The Agreement was signed electronically through our Merchant Portal using a code sent to her via email and text message.  Mrs. [redacted] was notified within these messages that using the code is equivalent to physically signing the Agreement.  The Merchant Portal contains the Agreement in its entirety available for viewing and printing prior to signing.  Mrs. [redacted] must request a physical copy of the Agreement at the time of signing if she wanted to have a copy for her records.  Additionally, we have record of sending the Agreement and a Welcome Letter to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]’s residence by USPS on August 25th, 2016.  Because the documents were not returned to us by the USPS, we had no reason to believe Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] did not receive the Agreement and Welcome Letter.  Mrs. [redacted] claims in her complaint that regular lease renewal payments can “only… be paid through bank drafts.”  Acima initially establishes automatic ACH payments to be drafted from our customer’s checking accounts according to their paycheck schedule.  We also allow our customers to authorize a credit or debit card as their primary payment method in lieu of ACH payments.  If Mrs. [redacted] wishes to change her primary payment method, she may do so at any time by calling our Customer Service Department. Mrs. [redacted] has issued a stop payment on her bank account without providing an alternative payment method to make her regular lease renewal payments.  As stated on Section 3 of the Agreement, Acima owns the Property.  Mrs. [redacted] is not permitted to keep the Property without making her regular lease renewal payments.  Mrs. [redacted] must call our Customer Service Department to establish a regular payment schedule or exercise the second EPO.  If Mrs. [redacted] no longer finds the terms of the Agreement desireable, she maintains the right to terminate the Agreement by returning the Property to us and paying any applicable outstanding balances.  We hope Mrs. [redacted] finds our explanation satisfactory, and we hope to continue doing business with her.  If Mrs. [redacted] requires further information or wishes to resolve her account issues, we encourage her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

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]

Simple RTO received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on October 20, 2016. We have investigated the complaint and discovered that Ms. [redacted] was denied from out program. Therefore, she is not one of our customers. Since Ms. [redacted] is not our customer, we...

are unable to disclose any information pertaining to the specific reasons for her denial. Our processes in ascertaining whether an individual will qualify for our program are trade secrets within the industry, so you will understand our inability to disclose such information.             Ms. [redacted] alleges, “I was shortly advised that I was denied due to bank accounts recently closed in fraud-which is 100 percent incorrect, and that there were too many credit inquired.” “Simple Finance did false advertising to well qualified customers.” We discovered through a third-party database that the Ms. [redacted] did in fact have 2 bank account closures within the last 3 years, and that she had inquired within the last 30 days about opening a new bank account. These factors significantly increase the risk of potentially doing business with Ms. [redacted], and therefore contributed to her denial. The database we obtained this information from merely suggested that the account closures were related to fraud, and the “credit inquiry” was the inquiry for a new bank account – it is not disclosed whether it was for credit or otherwise. Additionally, Ms. [redacted] had submitted two applications with inconsistent information, one of which was cancelled before a final decision was made. This also contributed to the risk factor related to Ms. [redacted]’s consumer history. Our approvals and denials are based on more than simply having the qualified income, employment, and a bank account. Once again, our processes in approving or denying a customer are proprietary information and cannot be disclosed. Ms. [redacted] is more than welcome to reapply for our program in 30-90 days.

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on March 31, 2017. We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to...

fully explain the allegations in Ms. [redacted]’s complaint.Ms. [redacted]’s regular lease renewal payments were arranged to match her paycheck schedule.  Ms. [redacted] authorized Acima to draft payments from her bank account on file on the 15th and last day of every month.  On March 30, 2017, Acima’s payment system malfunctioned and drafted Ms. [redacted]’s regular lease renewal payment early.  This resulted in a $27.00 overdraft fee.  Since this event, we have contacted Ms. [redacted] and resolved the situation.  We will be issuing a refund of $27.00 today, April 7, 2017.  Refunds generally take up to 10 business days to post to our customer’s bank account based on the ACH network and the customer’s banking institution.  Ms. [redacted] has been an excellent customer to us and we hope she finds this solution satisfactory.  If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further information regarding her account, we welcome her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “we,” “us,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on April 17, 2018.  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. 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 the 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 finvoice price, plus a $40.00 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 or access our online customer portal to 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 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 Mr. [redacted]’s cell phone on January 8, 2018 at 3:43 PM MST. The message said, “Notice! Using this code is equal to physically signing you lease agreement with Acima. Code: [redacted] (Reply STOP to unsubscribe)”.  Mr. [redacted] then used the code and entered into the Agreement to rent a set of four tires (the “Property”) through 24 semi-monthly of $118.61 and a down payment of $125.33 for a total of $2,886.60 (the “Total of Payments”). Mr. [redacted] alleges that he did not have the opportunity to see the Agreement prior to signing and that we sent the signed Agreement to the wrong person.  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 Mr. [redacted] at the address listed on his application. Mr. [redacted] failed to exercise his 90-Day EPO within the designated time period or the extension period.  As Mr. [redacted] was told by our agent on April 17, he may exercise his second EPO to terminate the Agreement early.  As of the date of this response, Mr. [redacted]’s second EPO balance is $1,601.20. Mr. [redacted] alleges we have provided “false information” to him.  We have not misrepresented the Agreement or our services. Acima is a rent-to-own company, not a traditional financing company.  We have accurately and completely explained the Agreement, our terms, and the events behind the commencement of the Agreement. We hope this explanation of the Agreement and its terms have clarified Mr. [redacted]’s complaint.  We appreciate Mr. [redacted]’s business and look forward to working with him. If Mr. [redacted] has remaining questions, or wishes to exercise his second EPO, he may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com (Revdex.com) on May 15, 2018 regarding her lease-purchase agreement. We have reached out to Ms. [redacted] and are working with her to resolve the matter outside of the Revdex.com. It is our understanding...

that Ms. [redacted] is satisfied with our proposed resolution.

Acima Credit, LLC (hereafter “Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on September 8, 2017. We have prepared a response below to the complaint at hand and have proposed several resolutions that are fair to both parties.   On September 1,...

2017 Ms. [redacted] called Acima to notify us that her payment would return unpaid because she had changed her bank account information due to privacy issues. However, on this date, the regular payment of $98.56 had already been processed via ACH. We advised Ms. [redacted] to call us back in approximately 7 days, which is how long it can take the ACH network to return a payment to us. Ms. [redacted] was told that we could discuss late fees once the payment had returned and get another payment method to make up for the missed payment.   Ms. [redacted] contact Acima as instructed and was told that she would be charged a late fee for her missed payment. However, Ms. [redacted] had been proactive in notifying Acima about her missed payment and quickly updated her payment information. She paid the late renewal payment plus a late fee of $28.00. Ms. [redacted] was correct in notifying us via the Revdex.com of this incident so that we might correct it.   We are sorry for the miscommunication between Acima’s departments regarding the assessment of the late fees to Ms. [redacted]’s account. She has been an outstanding customer with a great payment history and we greatly appreciate her business. We have credited the $28.00 to Ms. [redacted]’s account which reduces the amount of her next renewal payment due on September 29th. Her next renewal payment amount will be $70.56 due on September 29th. After this payment date, her renewal payments will return to the amount of $98.56 due every-other-week.   In addition to crediting Ms. [redacted]’s account, we will not report her account as delinquent to any credit bureau. Her account will be reported correctly, and as of the date of this response, her account is current. We hope Ms. [redacted] is satisfied with our response and resolution. For any further questions regarding her account, Ms. [redacted] may contact the Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on July 2, 2016. We have investigated the allegations made in the complaint regarding the integrity of the transaction that occurred between...

an independent third-party merchant, Simple, and Mr. [redacted], 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 Mr. [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 January 14, 2016, Mr. [redacted] applied and was approved for the leasing services of Simple through and independent third-party--Mattress By Appointment (the “Merchant”) --located in St. George, UT. 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. Mr. [redacted] provided the PIN number to the Merchant’s associate who used it to accept and acknowledge the Agreement on behalf of Mr. [redacted]. When the PIN was returned to Simple, a pre-designed signature baring the name of Mr. [redacted] was populated on the Agreement to indicate that the Agreement had been authorized electronically[1]. The Agreement identifies the Total Payments and Early Purchase Options (“EPO”). It states, “The total of your payments will be $2145.76 (“Total 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 the 90-Day Option amount, $1113.50.;” and the second EPO, “After ninety (90) days…you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments…” When the 90-Day Option expired on April 13, 2016, Mr. [redacted] had paid $526.44 in lease renewal payments. If Mr. [redacted] had paid $1113.50 by April 13th, he would have acquired ownership of the property by exercising his 90-Day Option. Because Mr. [redacted] did not exercise the 90-Day Option, he is bound to the terms of the Agreement which require that he pay the Total Payments of $2145.76, or exercise the second EPO available to him.[1] Pursuant to the ESIGN Act of 2000, a contract may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature was used in its formation.   Mr. [redacted] stated his desired settlement is for Simple to “have the interest removed.” The Agreement clearly explains the Total Payments to acquire ownership of the property is $2145.76. The 90-Day Option is a courtesy provided to customers which allows them to pay off the Agreement early. Although Simple strives to satisfy all customers by providing them excellent service, we do not negotiate the terms of our Lease-Purchase Agreements. We purchased the property from the Merchant and we are renting that property to Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] does not own the property and cannot negotiate a reduction in the Total Payments because he does not find the terms desirable anymore. If Mr. [redacted] wishes to keep his property, he will be required to honor his Agreement and continue making timely lease renewal payments of $175.48 every month until the Total Payments has been paid, or exercise the second EPO by paying 75% of the total remaining periodic lease payments. If Mr. [redacted] does not wish to keep making his lease renewal payments, then he has the right to opt-out of his Agreement by returning our property to us. In no situation may he keep our property and not make the lease renewal payments. We look forward to hearing from Mr. [redacted] to discuss his options once he decides whether or not he wishes to keep the property. [1] Pursuant to the ESIGN Act of 2000, a contract may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature was used in its formation.

We have received Mr. [redacted]’s rejection on behalf of Ms. [redacted]. We have further investigated the arrangements mentioned in our previous response and have come to a resolution. We have confirmed that as of Friday, November 11, 2016, the merchandise that Ms. [redacted] did not wish to keep has been picked up. Mr. [redacted] claims that he and Ms. [redacted] had paid $300 toward the other merchandise that we are leasing to them. Although we have no record of that payment, we have decided in good faith to close their lease and allow them to keep the remaining merchandise. No refund will be administered to Ms. [redacted], and nothing is owed to us by her. We look forward to doing business with her in the future.

Simple RTO, LLC (DBA: Simple Finance, hereinafter “Simple” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on July 7, 2016. We have investigated the complaint in every detail and intend to explain with more clarity, the contractual obligations of...

Ms. [redacted], and the resolution that Simple agrees to. 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 February 22, 2016, Ms. [redacted] was approved for the leasing services of Simple through an independent third-party—Sandys Furniture (the “Merchant”) –located in Elyria, OH. Upon approval, Ms. [redacted] signed the “Lease Agreement with Right to Purchase” (“Agreement”), which describes therein the Early Purchase Option by which she may acquire ownership of the Property. Simple purchased a queen bed, dresser, mirror, chest, and night stand (the “Property”) from the Merchant and leased the Property to Ms. [redacted] through a twelve (12) month Agreement wherein Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay $3,970.36 for ownership of the Property through monthly payments of $327.53. The Agreement identifies the Total Payments and Early Purchase Options (“EPO”). Specifically, the Agreement states, “[t]he total of your payments will be $3,970.36 (“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; the first EPO, called the 90-Day Option, which states “You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying the 90-Day Option amount, $2035.00.;” and the second EPO, which states that “[a]fter (90) days…you may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments…” When the 90-Day Option expired on May 22, 2016, Ms. [redacted] had paid $1655.59 in lease renewal payments (she still owed $339.41 to pay the full 90-Day Option). Ms. [redacted] claims in her complaint that she called Simple on May 3rd and was told by a representative she had “one more payment left on June 2.” Simple does not have any record of a phone call taking place on May 3rd and cannot confirm any conversation from that day. However, Ms. [redacted] did call Simple on May 1st to make an additional payment of $345.47 which shows that Ms. [redacted] understood that it was necessary to call Simple to make additional payments that were not regularly scheduled automatic drafts of her minimum monthly payment of $327.53. Ms. [redacted] is responsible for understanding her contractual obligations and the deadlines for exercising EPOs. If Ms. [redacted] had paid $1995.00 by May 22nd, she would have acquired ownership of the Property by exercising her 90-Day Option.  Ten (10) days after the 90-Day Option deadline, Ms. [redacted] made a payment of $327.53 to make the total amount paid $1983.12 and leaving the remaining balance of $11.88 to satisfy the 90-Day Buyout Amount. Simple strives to satisfy all customers by providing them excellent service, and offers a 90-Day Option deadline extension up to 10 days for a fee of 10% of the 90-Day Buyout Amount as stated in the Agreement. The 90-Day Buyout Amount stated in her Lease Agreement is $1995.00, making the 10% extension fee $199.50. Ms. [redacted] has been an excellent customer with perfect payment history, therefore, Simple will retroactively extend the 90-Day Option deadline from May 22, 2016 for 10 days, until June 1, 2016, for a fee of $199.50. On July 1, 2016 Ms. [redacted] made a payment of $327.53 which Simple will use towards the 10% fee, and the remaining balance of $11.88, and refund her the remaining balance of $116.15. Ms. [redacted] may exercise her 90-Day Option by paying the 10% deadline extension fee. There be no further payments necessary to satisfy the lease. We hope that this measure of good faith exercised will result in an amicable solution that is satisfactory to Ms. [redacted]. She has been an excellent customer and we look forward to doing business with her in the future.

On January 12,2018, 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 for Ms. [redacted].  Acima is a virtual rent-to-own company offering alternative financing for those who may not qualify for traditional financing.  Acima’s Agreements and procedures were developed under and abide by the “Lease-Purchase Agreement Act” of Georgia (Georgia Code Ann., § 10-1-680), which is where Ms. [redacted] lives and entered into the Agreement.  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. In this case, Ms. [redacted] did not exercise either one of these options. On August 15, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered the Agreement to rent 2 twin beds, bed frames, a marble table, four stools, and a bench (the “Property”) from Acima. On November 3, 2017, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to report that her chairs needed repairs. Our agent advised Ms. [redacted] to call Eat, Sleep, and Sit (the “Merchant”) to request repairs, otherwise she must find her own repair service to fix the chairs. As stated in Paragraph 7 of Ms. [redacted]’s Agreement, Ms. [redacted] is “responsible for maintaining the Property in good working condition during the lease term… we do not provide any Warranty of Merchantability of Fitness for a Particular Purpose, either Express or Implied, on the Property.” Acima is not responsible for maintaining the Property during the lease term.   Additionally, under Paragraph 9 of the Agreement, Ms. [redacted] has the right to terminate the Agreement by “returning the Property [to Acima] in accordance with our directions, and by paying us any unpaid Renewal Payments, plus Other Charges due, including any damage to the Property, beyond normal wear and tear.” On November 28, Ms. [redacted] called Acima to ask for the instructions to return the Property. Acima sent the instructions via email requesting that Ms. [redacted] send pictures of all the Property to initiate the return. Ms. [redacted] sent pictures of the table, chairs, and bench, but not the twin beds. In order to initiate the return process, Acima requires pictures of all the Property, as Acima does not do partial returns to terminate the whole contract. Rather, the customer has two options: 1) the customer may pay the remaining amount due on an EPO or on the total amount remaining on the Agreement to acquire ownership of the Property to discharge any liability of Acima in order to sell or dispose of the Property; or 2) return all Property contained in the Agreement and pay any outstanding charges or renewal payments on the account, with a minimum lease term of 60 days worth of renewal payments.  On December 5, 2017, Acima offered to settle Ms. [redacted]’s remaining liabilities on the Agreement for a total of $550.00 plus tax. Ms. [redacted] accepted this offer, and agreed to pay the settlement amount in two installments: $100 plus tax on December 18, 2017 and $450 plus tax on January 19, 2018. Ms. [redacted] paid the first payment of the settlement plan on December 18, 2017. On January 5, 2018 she charged the payment back to her account. Charging back the payment terminated the settlement plan.  It is worth noting that the settlement plan did not even cover the original invoice price that Acima paid to the Merchant for the Property. The Merchant’s invoice price was $1,957.08, and, including the settlement plan payments (if made), Ms. [redacted] would have only paid a total of $1306.36, plus tax, to terminate the Agreement and keep all the Property. As of the date of the settlement offer, Ms. [redacted] had paid $756.36 toward the balance on the Agreement. If Ms. [redacted] elects to keep the Property and make all the payments, her total of payments to obtain ownership of the Property is $3,531.72. If Ms. [redacted] would like to return the Property, she must return all of the Property in order to terminate the entire Agreement. Because the Agreement constitutes a lease of the Property, Ms. [redacted] is responsible for paying for the amount of time she has had possession of the Property, including the loss of any value to the Property due to damage beyond normal wear and tear. Ms. [redacted] does not own the Property, thus she cannot keep the Property and withhold lease renewal payments. If Ms. [redacted] would like to initiate a return of the Property, she may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982 to receive instructions and obtain a remaining balance owed.

Acima Credit, LLC (hereinafter “Acima,” “us,” “we,” “our”) received a complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on April 30, 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 lease renewal 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 20, 2018 at 2:51 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 three twin bed sets (the “Property”) through 52 weekly payments of $26.36 plus a $50.00 initial payment for a total of $1,420.35 (the “Total of Payments”). Ms. [redacted] alleges we provided her the wrong information and had incorrect information listed on her account.  Acima keeps detailed records of all communications with customers to ensure consistent and accurate conversations between agents and customers.  All of the information listed on Ms. [redacted]’s account is that information provided by her to Acima on her application. On January 20, 2018 at 3:32 PM, an Acima agent called Ms. [redacted]’s cell phone and verified her contact information, paycheck dates, and expected delivery dates of the Property.  We have record of Ms. [redacted] receiving our welcome email after signing the Agreement. The welcome email contains the Agreement and a letter listing the 90-Day EPO expiration date. Ms. [redacted]’s 90-Day EPO expired on April 22, 2018. If Ms. [redacted] did not receive this email due to an inaccurate email listed on her account, it is no fault by Acima.  Acima exercised adequate due diligence in ascertaining Ms. [redacted]’s contact information during the verification call on January 20th. Ms. [redacted] called Acima on April 30, 2018 and was informed her 90-Day EPO had expired.  As a customer service courtesy to Ms. [redacted], our agent offered her an extension to exercise her 90-Day EPO for an additional fee of $100.00.  Ms. [redacted] refused this offer. Ms. [redacted] has threatened to chargeback all payments and demands Acima to refund all money collected from her.  Should she chargeback her payments, she will be in violation of the Agreement and subject to penalty fees. As stipulated under the Agreement, “WE OWN THE PROPERTY. This Agreement is a lease… You do not have the right to keep the Property if you do not make timely Renewal payments.”  Ms. [redacted] has options available to her to terminate the Agreement.  She may continue making payments on the Property until the end of the Agreement, exercise her second EPO, or return the Property to Acima in accordance with Paragraph 10 of the Agreement and pay any outstanding charges due.  If Ms. [redacted] wishes to pursue any of these options, or has additional questions about her Agreement, she may call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Acima Credit, LLC (FKA: Simple Finance; hereinafter “Acima” or “us” or “we”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on March 16, 2017. We have investigated the allegations made and are prepared to provide all the facts surrounding the transaction to...

fully explain the allegations in Ms. [redacted]’s complaint.Mr. [redacted]’s first payment toward her lease was originally scheduled to be due on April 3, 2017.  Ms. [redacted] called Acima on February 28, 2017 requesting we change her payment dates from the third of every month to the fourth of every month.  We obliged and informed Ms. [redacted] that April 4th is a Saturday.  Acima does not draft payment on Saturdays, so we scheduled Ms. [redacted]’s payment of $311.50 to be drafted on April 6th, 2017.  Our agent made a mistake and drafted Ms. [redacted]’s payment of $311.50 on March 6th rather than April 6th.  We acknowledge this was Acima’s mistake and apologize to Ms. [redacted] for the inconvenience.  A full refund of the $311.50 has been processed as of March 16th, 2017.  If Ms. [redacted] requires or desires further information, we welcome her to call our Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Simple Finance acknowledges Mr. [redacted]’s rejection to our proposed resolution. Unfortunately, there is not another option available to him at this time as he is legally bound by the contract he electronically signed with us. As stated in our last response, there may have been some leeway with respect to the 90-day Buyout deadline had he been current on his payments. However, since he has not submitted any payments to us for this lease (except for his initial payment), we are unable to offer him any other options other than what is stated in his contract.  Mr. [redacted] may 1) initiate a catch-up plan and allow this Agreement to proceed to term, 2) return our property and pay the daily lease rate for the days he has held the property, or 3) exercise his remaining Early Payoff Option.  The remaining Early Payoff Option is clearly described in his Agreement.  It states that Mr. [redacted] “may purchase the Property by paying seventy-five (75%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.” As of December 19, 2016, Mr. [redacted]’s Early Payoff Option amount is $1,066.32. He must pay this amount in one lump sum to take advantage of his remaining Early Payoff Option.  Mr. [redacted] may also return our property and pay for the days he held our property, or he may contact our Collections Department at 801-297-1983 to initiate a catch-up plan based off of the full lease amount.

Acima Credit, LLC (“Acima”) received the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] through the Revdex.com on December 11, 2017, regarding her Lease-Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Acima. We have prepared a response to Ms. [redacted]’s claims and will address the facts related to the Agreement...

and Ms. [redacted]’s contractual obligations contained therein.   In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] claimed that she was given a loan for $650.00 and has since paid a total of $720.00 toward her ‘loan.” However, Acima does not engage in lending and we do not offer loans. 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 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 50% of the remaining lease renewal payments.   On March 10, 2017, Ms. [redacted] entered an independent third-party retailer – Eyes on Lex (the “Merchant”) – located in New York, New York. Ms. [redacted] applied and was approved for Acima’s leasing services and entered into a Lease-Purchase Agreement with Acima wherein she agreed to rent glasses and lenses (the “Property”) for the duration of a 12-month lease by making 24 twice-monthly payments of $48.37 for a total of $1210.88 (the “Total of Payments”).   The Agreement states these terms clearly, “...lease payments of $48.37 are due twice-monthly... The total of your payments will be $1210.88 (“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…” The Agreement also states, “Early Purchase Options: 90-Day Buyout: You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying $629.00 (“90-Day Buyout”). The 90-Day Buyout amount equals the Acima Cash Price, plus a 90-Day Buyout Fee of $10.00, minus any periodic lease payments you have made, plus any other charges. Early Payoff: After ninety (90) days of this Agreement, you may purchase the Property by paying fifty (50%) percent of the total remaining periodic lease payments, plus any other charges.”   The 90-Day EPO expired on June 11, 2017, at which point Ms. [redacted] had paid a total of $267.84 toward the 90-Day Buyout Amount of $629.00 that was due. Ms. [redacted] did not exercise her 90-Day EPO. As of the date of this response, Ms. [redacted] has paid a total of $898.16 toward the Total of Payments of $1,210.64. She has a remaining Total of Payments of $312.48. If she were to exercise her second EPO (purchasing the Property by paying 50% of the remaining total of payments) today, the payoff amount would be $133.92.   Ms. [redacted]’s desired resolution to her complaint is to have the remaining balance dismissed because she believes she has paid the ‘loan’ in full. As previously explained, Ms. [redacted] does not have a loan with Acima, and she has a remaining balance due. We will not dismiss the remaining Total of Payments.     Once Ms. [redacted] has paid the Total of Payments, or exercises the second EPO, she will have purchased the Property and acquired ownership of it. If Ms. [redacted] wishes to terminate her Agreement, she may do so by returning the Property to us. To utilize either of her options, Ms. [redacted] may contact Acima’s Customer Service Department at (801) 297-1982.

Simple Finance received the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] on November 25, 2016. We have reviewed the complaint, his agreement with us, and all the notes regarding his contact with us. Mr. [redacted] states: “…Simple Finance didn’t take my payment as we agreed on November 4th of 2016.” Simple...

Finance received a phone call from Mr. [redacted] on October 17th to inform us that he would not be able to make his scheduled payment on October 25th, and to request an extension. The representative who spoke with Mr. [redacted] advised him that since he had not made any payments on his account, he was ineligible for a deadline extension. Mr. [redacted] stated that he would be able to make a payment of $677.00 on November 4th. The representative advised Mr. [redacted] that at that time he will be past his 90-day deadline, and his lease pay-off amount will then be $1,421.76. Mr. [redacted] called again on November 4th wanting to pay $677.00 to close his account. He was advised that since he is past his 90-day deadline, a payment of $677.00 would not be sufficient to close his account, but that it could be applied to the current balance of $1,421.76. Mr. [redacted] then stated that he would need to speak to his attorney first and ended the call without making that payment of $677.00. The Agreement that Mr. [redacted] signed outlines his options to purchase the merchandise as follows: “Early Purchase Options: 90-Day Buyout: You may choose to purchase the Property at any time during the first ninety (90) days of this Agreement by paying $726.00 ("90-Day Buyout"). The 90-Day Buyout amount equals the Simple Cash Price, plus a 90-Day Buyout Fee of $0.00, minus any periodic lease payments you have made, plus any other charges. Early Payoff: 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. You must be current in your payments to exercise an early purchase option.” Mr. [redacted] would like to pay the 90-Day Buyout amount even though that option has expired. Normally, we will consider a request to extend the 90-Day Buyout when the customer is current. Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted] has not made any payments on his account. At this time, Mr. [redacted] has the option of paying $1,066.32 (75% of $1,421.76) to buy out his lease early, or he may call our Customer Service Department at 801.297.1982 to initiate a catch-up plan to bring his account current and resume payments for the full lease term.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The last response is completely incorrect.Acima Says: "Firstly, as mentioned before, the customer is allowed to view the contract at the time the PIN in the text message is received on the customer’s cell phone.  The Portal the Merchant (Furniture Queen) uses to enter the code and sign the lease contains the Agreement in full for viewing and printing purposes.  Ms. [redacted] was not obligated to sign the Agreement immediately following the receipt of the PIN text message."^ There is NOTHING, not ONE piece of information about me being in affiliation with any contract, Acima, nor any payment plan at all on www.furniturequeen.com portal. Revdex.com- Please see attached info to login to my personal portal to see first hand that this is clearly not true. The entire complaint is based around the company reporting false information, as seen here, and that their wording is misleading. Here we see they are saying that it was now the merchant themselves that had me sign the agreement over the phone, that too, is incorrect. I was on the phone with Simple Finance (now ACIMA) when that "contract" (which was sent as PDF in the last complaint) was "signed". Acima also says, "Secondly, Acima did send a hard copy of the Agreement to Ms. [redacted] at the address she listed on her application.  She later mentioned she was unable to receive mail at the listed address as she had moved.  It is the customer’s responsibility to report address changes to us.  A copy of the Agreement is attached and sensitive information has been redacted for security purposes."^ Now as I mentioned in my first message of complaint that they dissected entirely, yet chose to not address this-  " Because what they did was, have me approve the loan thinking it was going to be 90 days, and "mail" a contract to an address that I no longer lived at, and I had JUST changed my address with them because I had JUST moved."  It was my responsibility, and I took care of it. Please see my attached PDF's to login to my Furniture Queen portal that this company is absolutely full of it. The attached document they sent was not given to me until my phone call with this company on February 7th, 2017. At that point it was immediately e-mailed (which they could have done prior to, yet did not)   I also have evidence of my documented move, forwarding address request and if need-be the information from the old land lord that I had access to my mail at the apartment listed until June 30, 2016. Acima did not send this information out... as mentioned in several previous complaints on their company. There is a reason they keep it electronically and send it VIA mail. There is no true record. They can stick to their claim that they have sent it, they can stick to their claim that the customer relieved it, but they have no evidence to prove that as they would with e-mail. If any customer got that contract and saw they would pay the company twice as much for the furniture if they didn't pay by "X" date, they would jump hoops to make that happen. If you pulled my credit report you would see I ALWAYS make extra payments to any minimum payment due. I am continuing to this date to pay this dreadful company. Acima is able to take advantage of customers by:1.) Not informing customer that there is a huge penalty if the "early 90 day buy out" isn't done before you sign the contract OR after for that matter.2.) Preform any and all services electronically, yet not provide a portal to view your account(- balances, payments, etc.) nor allow you to view your contract electronically. 3.) Not send the customer the real contract out, or if they do, VIA mail so that there is no way of tracking that the customer ever actually received the information.4.) Lead you to believe you can set-up automatic payment plans that work for you over the phone, yet then tell you no. They do not allow you to set the automatic payment that they draft out, to ensure you pay off in the 90 days.5.) They do not send monthly statements of your payment history, remaining balances, etc. Via mail, as they state it is in effort to save paper.     I will continue to fight until this company is reprimanded for doing bad business. They have clearly taken advantage of too many customers as they have them in this contract blindly. I will pay my fees "due" and I have not caused the company any problems. With that said, I will not call the company back; as their representative told me there was absolutely nothing they could do for me.  Therefor, I will continue providing any and all information to expose this fraudulent company.  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I haven't had any bank closures due to fraud. Also, my recent bank inquiry was to open a SECOND account for a bank I already use to have TWO accounts with them and I was approved. Furthermore, when they say I can reapply in 30-90 days what does that do? If they are going to come back with the same rebuttal.
Sincerely,
[redacted]