Union Savings Bank

I received a letter in the mail from Union Savings Bank that my homeowners insurance company had sent them a notification that my policy was canceling and that they would provide insurance and send me a bill for it. I called USB and left a VM with Avis W[redacted] who called me the following day. I explained to her that there must be some confusion and asked for a copy of the letter they received from my insurance company [redacted]. I explained to her that I contacted [redacted] and they said they sent proof of insurance on Aug 3 and had receipt that USB received proof of insurance on Aug 4. Avis went on to tell me how long she had been with USB etc... I explained to her that really didn't matter and I wanted to get this resolved and I would like a copy of the letter sent to me via email. She said thank you for calling USB and you have a nice day and hung up the phone on me. I then called back and asked to speak to her manager. I then was on the phone with Cindy L[redacted]. when I explain the above to her she said "that is not how the conversation went" and I asked her "are you calling me a lair" and she went on to say how difficult I was being and "no wonder" etc.... and said I need to allow her to finish her sentence. She did not want to admit that she had just called me a lair, because she realized how unprofessional that was for a manager. I fianlly got her to agree to send me a copy of the letter they had received via email. The letter actually stated that their interest in the policy would be cancelling NOT MY INSURANCE POLICY. So if Avis has been with them for so long maybe she should pay more attention to detail. I then called [redacted] who then did a conference call with Avis explaining that USB had mistakenly been removed as the 1 st mortgagee on the insurance policy. I have been in the Mortgage industry for over 25 years as well as the customer service industry never is it acceptable to hang up on a customer unless they are using profanity or screaming at you (I did not do either) I did make it very clear that I wanted this resolved. If you call Avis at USB and receive her VM you will understand the response I received from her. Her VM sounds as though you are a bother for calling. All of this could have been avoided by a simply emailing me a copy of the letter. Terrible customer service from these two ladies. Union Savings should send them to a customer service training or HIRE better employees.

Attached you will find the payment history on [redacted]'s account. She had a loan with us in 2004 which she refinanced with us in 2009. The account has been late several times as indicated by the attachments. Please let me know if you need any additional information. We will not be adjusting...

our reporting to the credit reporting agencies.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Refusing to address my complaint it terrible business practice, unethical, discriminatory, neglect, etc.  I would like this moved up the chain of command immediately and a formal legitimately response to my complaints clearly outlined in my complaint dated 5/13/2016.
Regards,
[redacted]

margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 8px; text-align: left;">
Union  Savings Bank (Union) will be refunding Mr. [redacted] application fee.  Mr. [redacted] states that he wants a refund in the amount of $350.  Union’s standard application fee is $250 and our records do not indicate that Mr. [redacted] paid an amount in excess of that.  If he has proof that he paid $350 I will gladly refund him that amount.  Mr. [redacted] was unaware of the fact that Union does not do investment or second homes outside of our lending footprint.  For that reason we are refunding the application fee and apologize for the misunderstanding.
 
I would also like to know if the inability to use your standard response process is due to issues on your end or ours.  If it is ours, I would like to get it addressed and fixed for future responses.
 
 
[redacted]
Vice President/Compliance Officer
Union Savings Bank
Cincinnati, OH 45249
[redacted]
[redacted]   [redacted]
www.usavingsbank.com
 
NOTICE:This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the original message at the listed email address. Thank You.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]The bank did not tell me it is their practice to use the appraiser's valued repairs as the amount they will hold in escrow.  In fact, the bank told me I need to provide written quotes by contractors for repairs outlined in an attachment Sandy forwarded to me showing the appraiser's paper of suggested costs of repairs.  WHY WOULD I WASTE MY TIME MEETING 4 DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AT THE HOUSE SO THEY COULD PROVIDE ME WITH PROPOSALS/QUOTES IF I KNEW THE BANK WAS NOT GOING TO USE THOSE QUOTES?  IF THE BANK INFORMED ME THAT THE APPRAISER'S AMOUNT IS THE AMOUNT THEY WERE GOING TO USE REGARDLESS, I WOULD NOT HAVE TOOK OFF WORK THREE DAYS TO MEET CONTRACTORS AT THE HOUSE FOR PRICING..  The fact that my legitimate quotes, provided by professionals was completely disregarded by the bank is UNETHICAL, and I feel i've been DISCRIMINATED AGAINST because I am in the construction industry and I was told my quotes were too low, indicating that I have used my connections in the industry to provide low quotes.  THIS IS DISCRIMINATION.  I provided legitimate quotes and somehow being punished for it!   The purpose of the appraisal, and this is in writing on page 1:6 of the appraisal report, is to "...provide the lender/client an opinion of the market value of the subject property."  The purpose of the appraiser isn't to provide pricing for repairs..that is an opinionated price!  My pricing provided by professional contractors should hold more legal, binding power than an opinionated price provided by an appraiser.  If the bank believed my quotes to be too low, they should have called the companies and asked for the contact names that had quoted me those items and got further explanation or verification.  This is not the first time the bank has chosen to just "disregard" something.  From day one, they decided to just disregard the fact that the WATER WAS NOT TURNED ON FOR THEIR APPRAISAL, which is a huge NO-NO!  They scheduled the appraisal before the water was turned on and the appraiser marked "as is" on the document.    Attached is a copy of this appraisal.  Please also note that the appraisal does not show anywhere a clear scope of work that I need fixed.  The "scope of work" magically appeared in my email on march 21st, attached is that paper labeled appraisal page.   Attached are copies of all my legitimate quotes that were conveniently dismissed.   
[redacted]

Totally screwed me on 2 loans, one loan I get to a day or 2 before refinancing on a 30 year fixed loan and throws the curve ball of hey we can't do a 30 yr fixed but sure we can do a 3 or 5 year arm. Honestly I was tired of the hassle and gave them the benefit of doubt so did it.
Next loan, I give them a 2nd chance cause the loan guy was nice but apparently the rest of the joint is lacking sense. We get to 2 days before closing on a rental property I got a killer price on and they say underwriting doesn't want to approve the loan due to some mold in the basement, which they had me take time off work 2 days to get a roof and mold remediation estimate which apparently if you fix the problem and have enough money to buy the property cash they don't give a hoot and don't want to borrow money cause rates or low or god knows what other reasons, i'm really unsure. Anyway, totally lost the deal on the house. Should seek legal relief, makes no sense to me.

Revdex.com:
I am accepting the business's response to this complaint, because having the complaint open is only causing more stress on my wife and I, and we are confident that nothing will be resolved as long as we are working with Union Savings Bank. The part of the response that I disagree with the most is:
"Project management:  The bank is not a party to the agreement between the builder and the borrowers with respect to project management.  Since the loan is in the name of the borrowers, they are ultimately the General Contractor with responsibilities for oversight of everything from construction quality to budget management.  The Bank’s construction department’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the Bank’s money is used for the construction of the home which is the underlying asset securing the Note.  Our regulators require us to manage our process to ensure sufficient funds remain to complete construction as originally approved.  With 18.3% of the funds remaining and 15.5% of construction remaining, this appeared to be sufficient to finish the project."
The text in red above has been proven false by several reputable builders in the Cincinnati area. The money remaining is not sufficient to even make the house livable, let alone finish the construction as originally approved. That is my number one complain in this entire process, the money was not managed in the way that was outlined to me from the very beginning.
We know that we cannot win when it comes to an argument against a bank, but we wanted our frustration to be heard by someone who would listen.
Regards,
[redacted]

After researching the facts involved in this situation it became apparent that Union was responsible for the processing delay.  With that knowledge it was determined that Union will be...

honoring the expired rate lock agreement and will originate the 15 year loan at the 2.875%, if [redacted] still wants the loan.
Also, see attached document

[redacted] closed a mortgage loan with Union Savings
Bank on April 29, 2014.  Due to
regulatory requirements...

on refinances the loan was disbursed (funded) on May 5,
2014.  At that time a check was generated
in the amount of $537.11 made payable to Ms. [redacted] (see attached HUD-1
Settlement Statement).  Loan Officer
Sandee [redacted] personally delivered the check to Ms. [redacted]’s residence so
she would not have a delay in access to the funds due to mailing.
Ms. [redacted] claims that Ms. [redacted] agreed to contact her
former mortgage holder and stop the automatic deduction from her checking
account for the payment on that loan. Ms. [redacted] stated that she never agreed
to do that.  Please note that no bank is
going to violate federal law by letting someone, who is not even on the account,
execute or stop a transaction. Ms. [redacted] was the only individual with the
authority to stop the automatic payment from being deducted from her account.
As you can see on line 903 of the HUD-1 it is noted that
$835 was paid by the borrower for one
year of Homeowner’s insurance.  These
funds had been collected in Ms. [redacted]’s escrow account by her previous
mortgage holder.  The complication in
this matter was that the homeowner’s 
insurance was due at the time the loan was being refinanced.  The previous mortgage holder did not pay the
insurance, instead they refunded the money to Ms. [redacted].  As a result, the June 2014-June 2015
homeowner’s insurance was not paid.  The
escrow account with Union is collecting funds to make the June 2015 –June 2016
payment.  There is no issue with the
property taxes.  The title company
collected the funds to pay them at closing and the current escrow account is
collecting sufficient funds for upcoming payments.
I apologize for any inconvenience Ms. [redacted]
experienced, however, she has received the $835 needed for payment of her
homeowner’s insurance.  Union did not
collect these funds at closing and will not be refunding her the $35 fee she
had to pay to stop the deduction of her mortgage payment.  That was solely her responsibility

Can you please get some additional information from Mr [redacted]   I need to know the approximate date this happen and what number he called.
 
Thank you

Subject client closed on a Construction/Permanent Loan with
Union Savings Bank on May 24, 2012.  The Bank structured...

the loan for
$205,200 based on 80% of the lower of cost or appraised value.  The cost
of the project was $213,533 plus the lot cost of $43,000 = $256,533.  The
appraised value at the time was $258,000 based on an as-completed value and the
contract submitted as part of the borrower’s application.  The borrowers
had given the builder whom they had selected on their own accord a deposit of
$12,827 before work had even started.  The Bank funded an LIP (Loan In
Process) account of $200,706 to disburse the balance of their construction
contract. 
ISSUES:
1)     
Late payment:  The borrowers signed the
original Note which committed to monthly payments beginning July 1, 2012, with
interest only due during the first 6 months for monies disbursed from the loan
account.  Since interest on construction loans are calculated in arrears,
the Bank identifies interest due based on draws taken through the 21st
of each month and interest bills are sent at that time.  While payments
are due on the first of every month per the Note, there is a 15 day grace
period before a late fee is assessed.  There were two late fees of $0.72
waived in the first two months until the borrowers understood the system. 
Furthermore, the construction loan department personally e-mailed the borrowers
every month with their billing information.  This is a customer service
beyond our automated process.
2)     
Draw process: 
a.       The
first draw was not submitted until late November.  The initial draw was
within budget and the percentage of funds disbursed matched the percentage of
project completion based on the Bank’s inspection.  As with every draw,
co-payable checks were made to the builder, and to their un-paid subcontractor
at that time, and to the borrowers. 
b.      Conversation
was held with Ms. [redacted] on 12/3/12 regarding late project start due to soil
issues and the Bank offered to extend the interest-only construction period to
5/1/13 to complete. 
c.       A
second draw was requested in mid-January and the Bank short paid the Builder’s
reimbursements.  Some cost over-runs were identified related to the slab
cost and the builder elected to use contingency funds in the budget. 
Copies of cancelled checks to subcontractors and materialmen were provided as
supporting documentation. 
d.      The
mid-February draw brought the project back into alignment with respect to
percentages of completion and percentages of the budget released, but the
builder again elected to use contingency funds for minor increases in the
lumber package.  The borrower was also consulted about the number of draws
taken to date.  Only 4 inspections were paid for at closing and additional
draws would cost $75 each.  Builder was advised of the borrower’s concerns.
e.      The
next draw in late March included a request from the homeowners for a deposit
for cabinets.  The Bank allowed 50% of the budgeted amount, and notified
the customer they were responsible for the cost upgrade for the cabinets they
selected.  The homeowners were also directly reimbursed the budgeted
amount for front and garage doors which were paid from personal funds. 
f.       
At this time, the customer and builder both
related to the Bank that another 60 days was required to complete the house
(target date of September 1st) and the Bank agreed to extend the
interest-only period even further. 
g.       Monthly
draws in May, June, July and August continued to appear to be within
budget.  As of August 9, 2013, the project was only disbursed 81.7% and
the construction was 84.5% complete by industry standards.  The builder
continued to purport that in-house labor was used and any sub-contractors
presented affidavits regarding the amounts due at that time. 
h.      In
October, the borrowers contacted the Bank and we assured them that their
builder could not access the funds remaining without their awareness since the
checks are all co-payable. 
i.        
Mr. [redacted] met with the homeowners on November
18, 2013 to discuss the draws taken and the remaining amount of funds to
draw. 
j.       
In December, the bank provided the borrowers
with copies of ALL affidavits submitted by their builder, and it was at this
time that the builder informed them that he could not finish the project.
3)     
File management:  The construction
department maintains a separate mini-file of each construction loan which
consists of copies from the master loan file of pertinent data to the
construction department.  If papers were “separated from the file” as they
allege, then it must refer to papers held in the master file which they were
requesting. 
4)     
Project management:  The bank is not a
party to the agreement between the builder and the borrowers with respect to
project management.  Since the loan is in the name of the borrowers, they
are ultimately the General Contractor with responsibilities for oversight of
everything from construction quality to budget management.  The Bank’s
construction department’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the Bank’s
money is used for the construction of the home which is the underlying asset
securing the Note.  Our regulators require us to manage our process to
ensure sufficient funds remain to complete construction as originally
approved.  With 18.3% of the funds remaining and 15.5% of construction
remaining, this appeared to be sufficient to finish the project.
5)     
Subsequent action:  The borrowers hired
another builder to complete the project.  When it was determined that it
would take an additional $50,000 to complete the project, the homeowner
deposited funds into the escrow fund.  They simultaneously asked the Bank
to re-appraise the project in the hopes of obtaining additional bank funds to
complete construction.  They cited some of the upgrades to cabinets and
the market improvement as reasons to believe there was increased value to draw
from.  Unfortunately, the new appraisal resulted in a lower value
($251,000) than the original appraisal.  The Bank then denied their
request for extension of any further credit.
6)     
Referrals:  As the leading residential
mortgage lender in the Cincinnati market, Union Savings Bank receives referrals
from many different sources including realtors and builders.  Each loan is
evaluated on its own merits and no preferential treatment is shown to favor any
third parties.
Copies of all correspondence between the construction
department and the borrowers are available if so requested    All correspondence
should indicate a responsive and friendly approach towards servicing this
client.  In the nearly two year history with this client, no concerns were
ever expressed with respect to the management of the disbursement process.

At this time, we are unable to do anything. He had turned down our original offer and we are unable to keep the complaint open as it was time sensitive.

I have stated previously that we are not addressing any more issues regarding Ms. [redacted] complaint.Tell us why here...

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The application and included payment was clearly for a differnt loan.  I was assured multiple times that the loan was ready to close at the time I made the payment.  I understand the non-refund policy but that was for a loan different from the original loan which was mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties.  I have tried numerous times to move forward with the original loan but Union Savings Bank assures me that this was a fictitious loan and is not available.  If I would have known thet the alternate loan was my only choice then I would have never moved forward with the loan and I certainly would not have paid prepaid closing costs.  The only resolution is to move forward with the original loan as promised or return of my prepaid closing cost fee.  Attached are the terms I agreed to in the form of the Truth-In-Lending Statment and the Good Faith Estimate.  I still would agree to these terms of this loan and closing costs.
Regards,
[redacted]

Attached is an email regarding the scope of work that I was to provide pricing on.  I had been asking for a written list of what repairs were needed on the house because I was very unclear from the appraisal on what the bank wanted repaired; that is where the email begins.  On Tuesday, March 15, you will see in writing that Sandee is asking me to "supply a repair estimate".  Meanwhile, I contacted my realtor and told him how I was okay with providing quotes, that I was just having a difficult time getting a list of needed repairs from the bank.  My realtor, Tom [redacted], contacted a friend of his who works at that same bank, Kevin [redacted], to find out why it was so difficult for the bank to provide me with a scope, that email is included in the attached email thread.
I would like clarification on the following:
There was no "mistake" made when I was TOLD I have to provide quote. I would like a better reason as to why my quotes were not used when the bank demanded them.  I feel discriminated against. 
I was told I have to provide a mold inspection and pricing 2 days prior to closing when not a single word had been said to me regarding any mold inspection or request for pricing at any point during my loan process.  That is not enough time to have a house inspected for mold and pricing provided.  There has to be a cut off date that no changes or add ons to the scope of work can be made. 2 days prior to close is not enough time.  That should have been the FIRST thing the bank wanted an inspection on.
I want an explanation as to why the appraiser performed an appraisal without the water turned on and the legal implications of that decision. 
I want an explanation as to why the appraisal's document is checked "as is" and what that means in legal terms on this form.
I want to know why the bank is only accepting the appraiser's price and listed items, when the appraiser only priced out flooring, walls, garage door, and clean up.  But needed repairs included flooring, walls, plumbing, garage door, and mold removal.  How does the appraisers price get accepted when it doesn't even include all the needed repairs??????????????????

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not represent any additional information and does not resolve my complaint.  
In the business reply, there is incorrect information and points that do not make sense.  For example:
- When all documents were accepted for the May 28, 2013 closing and the only change for another loan was to reduce the loan amount, how could it take months to update the file.   There should have been a June closing.
- Union Savings Bank references obtaining a new subordination agreement.  Per the originator of the Subordination Agreement (PNC Bank), their original document that was used for the May closing was acceptable for any additional closing as long as the loan amount did not exceed the original amount (the loan amount was reduced).
- Union Savings Bank never informed me that a new loan application was applicable (Cox told me it was a simple correction and the new loan should only take two weeks to process).
- It is 100% false for Union Savings Bank to state they requested bank statements from me several times and what I sent was incomplete.  Per my response history in the attachment, except for the one time I was traveling, all responses were met within 24 hours of the request.  The delay that Union Savings Bank references on me was all due to their own errors.  My account was confused with another customer's account and Union Savings Bank delayed my loan processing.  Also, the incomplete document was due to Union Savings Bank incorrectly sending my documents within their own organization (I sent the full documents and they mishandled them). 
- Union Savings Bank consistently mishandled my loan processing through their requests, coordination with me and other organizations and most importantly through poor organization plus follow-up.
- I have become a victim of financial losses either due to their loan mismangement or Union Savings Bank's attempt to obtain additional funds (beyond advertised amounts) or avoid processing a loan at a rate below the current market (my locked rate was below current market rates in June 2013 and beyond). 
Regards,
[redacted]s

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not give enough details to resolve my complaint.  I was contacted by the loan officer yesterday and told him we were moving in a different direction with our loan. This response was given because working with him has been so stressful and even speaking to him on the phone offered stress. If Union Savings Bank would have a loan officer other than Mr. J[redacted] contact us we would like to hear what the process of moving forward would look like...it is necessary we start the entire process over and how quickly could we close a loan? 
Regards,
Norman Barker

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/10/16) */
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
Once again, Ms. Higgins purchased her vehicle June 26, 2015 and Ms. Higgins didn't contact my dealership until August 23, 2015; 27 days and 3,800 plus miles after her purchase.
Ms. Higgins is clearly only interested in...

questioning my integrity, as well as the integrity of the automotive shop we recommended. However, doesn't believe her integrity should be questioned. There are multiple occasions that Ms. Higgins provides inconsistencies and false accusations in both of your contacts with the Revdex.com, "I do apologize for the delay of this letter. I have been trying to get the remainder of the problems I have been having with my car fixed before wrote this, but that has not been a possibility because of my involvement at Missouri State University" and then later states, "I did end up getting my car fixed on August 28 of 2015. have attached a copy of the receipt". I don't find it necessary to cover every one of Ms. Higgins' inconsistencies and false accusations in her first contact with the Revdex.com or the inconsistencies and false accusations she ADDED to her second contact.
Furthermore, Ms. Higgins was provided a copy of the pamphlet and signed service contract that detailed what her warranty will cover, including labor rate coverage, any deductible and or overages she is responsible for, and the cost of the warranty. She knew the exact cost of the warranty, coverage's provided by the warranty and her responsibilities outside of the warranty on the day she purchased the vehicle. She knows the warranty is not a factory warranty, the warranty is a supplemental policy provided by a nationwide third party, and that she would be responsible for any overages or items not covered by the warranty. Ms. Higgins is also aware that she was purchasing the car "AS IS". Ms. Higgins signed an "AS-IS" document.
Ms. Higgins and her mechanic should have referenced her warranty pamphlet and service contract and or contacted the warranty company. Ms. Higgins' mechanic clearly provided inaccurate information to her and Ms Higgins needs to contact "her" mechanic for her issues.
1. Window regulator - IS NOT covered by her warranty.
a. Window regulator MOTOR IS covered by her warranty.
2. Cooling reservoir-IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic did NOT complete a claim.
3. Vent hose- IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic did NOT complete a claim
4. Thermostat-IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic (according to Ms. Higgins) still hasn't fixed this.
5. Rear brakes are a WEARABLE item, NOT covered by her warranty.
a. Autobahn Motorsport DID NOT inspect this vehicle; we are NOT a state licensed inspection station, nor do we claim to be. We DID have the car inspected at an authorized inspection station and the brakes DID pass state inspection.
b. Note: Ms. Higgins put 4,107 miles on this vehicle in 32 days; according to Ms. Higgins, up and down hills to and from Blue Eye. She will be replacing break frequently.
6. Blinker bulbs are a WEARABLE item, not covered by her warranty. The car is 12 years old, corrosion happens.
I contacted Cars Protection 10/16/2015 and spoke with [redacted]. He provided me with the following information/ notes from her warranty account:
1. Exclusive contacted Cars Protection 8/25/2015 and started a claim for:
a. Coolant Reservoir-covered
b. Left window regulator-not covered but if they would have replaced the motor of the regulator it would have been covered.
c. Vent hose-covered
2. Exclusive indicated there was a small value cover gasket leak that did NOT need to be fixed at this time.
3. Exclusive indicated there were NO OTHER issues with the car, including brakes or thermostat.
Cars Protection told Exclusive that Ms. Higgins must keep the car there in order for the services to be covered at that time. Ms. Higgins chose to leave with the car at the time of the claim. When Ms. Higgins brought the car back three days and 300 miles later, Exclusive should have resubmitted the claim and DID NOT. Ms. Higgins would only be responsible for the [redacted] deductible and the difference in Cars Protection shop rate allowance of up to [redacted] per hour. Ms. Higgins chose to us a shop that did not resubmit her claim and that charges [redacted] per hour. The shop we recommended to her honors the [redacted] per hour rate allowance.
I have provided you with the Buyers Guide, Cars Protection Plus-Value Plus Service Contract and Purchase Agreement; all signed by Ms. Higgins. Each document is clear, precise and ALL costs are straightforward. Also provided is the Claim Status from Cars Protection Plus, showing Ms. Higgins' mechanic started and did not complete a claim.
I will not engage in any further dialogue with Ms. Higgins. I stand by my integrity and the way I conduct business. I will not allow Ms. Higgins to continue slandering my business. I will proceed in a different direction if this continues; see Purchase Agreement.
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2015/10/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am quite appalled at the way I have been treated by this company. Yet again, they have lied. I visited their business MULTIPLE times before the August 23rd date. I gave them numerous chances to simply either help me, or to just say that they could not and would not. Instead they lied to me, and I am not going to stand to be called a liar when I have done nothing wrong in this situation. I got my car fixed once, but only the major things because of time and money reasons. That was a day I could get a friend to give me a ride to school while my car was being fixed. After that date, he went to school elsewhere and I do not have another car available to be to get me to class in the hours I would need it. The other people who could help me work during the day when I would need it, and it has not been an option. There was no lie in there. I said I got those things fixed, but cannot get back there because of school. The company I took my car to to fix it called the warranty company themselves. I was there. I know what was said, so I know what they told my mechanic. If he did not file a claim, it is not my fault. The only thing that was covered was thirty dollars on the coolant tank, and they did not tell him that any other costs would be covered. I honestly do not blame him for not wanting to deal with the process for just that amount. However, he did not charge me that thirty dollars, and it came out of what he would have been paid. He did this to help me out, and I will not criticize someone for that. He did say that there was a leak in the valve cover, which the company told me they fixed when I bought the car, but clearly did not. If this company did not want to help me, as I know I signed the "As Is" paper, they should have told me. They should not have given me false hope the MULTIPLE times I drove up there in order for them to help. I would have much rather appreciated that rather than to have my character questioned. I did not go alone, and therefore it is not just my word against his. I have been there more than once and am simply tired of being called a liar, then what I can only assume to be a threat if I continue to speak, and rightfully stand up for myself when he stated "I will not engage in any further dialogue with Ms. Higgins. I stand by my integrity and the way I conduct business. I will not allow Ms. Higgins to continue slandering my business. I will proceed in a different direction if this continues." I have not lied, manipulated, or done anything wrong on my end. If he would like to continue to twist my words, then that is not my fault. If clarification is needed in anything, I am more than happy to clear it up and am not ashamed of anything I have done. Many people in this situation knows that what he has said is false in regards to me contacting him. I drove there, over an hour drive, myself. I was never rude to them, simply asked them if they would help. Again, if they did not want to, I would have appreciated it if they would have just said so. Every time I went there, they said they would help me in one way or another. They said they would make me an appointment with "their" mechanic so I could get in quickly, but never did so, so they must not have found it that important at the time for me to go to their own mechanic that they talk about. After having been treated like this many times after visiting them, I did not see it in my own best interest to go to a mechanic that does business so close with them, especially after finding out about the eighty dollar diagnosis cost that they told me would not be covered. I am simply astounded at the way I have been lied both to and about with this company.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2015/11/03) */
Revdex.com Response:
Once again, Ms. Higgins purchased her vehicle June 26, 2015 and Ms. Higgins didn't contact my dealership until August 23, 2015; 27 days and 3,800 plus miles after her purchase.
Ms. Higgins is clearly only interested in questioning my integrity, as well as the integrity of the automotive shop we recommended. However, doesn't believe her integrity should be questioned. There are multiple occasions that Ms.Higgins provides inconsistencies and false accusations in both of your contacts with the Revdex.com. "I do apologize for the delay of this letter. I have been trying to get the remainder of the problems I have been having with my car fixed before wrote this, but that has not been a possibility because of my involvement at Missouri Sate University" and then later states, "I did end up getting my car fixed on August 28 of 2015. have attached a copy of the receipt". I don't find it necessary to cover every one of Ms. Higgins' inconsistencies and false accusation in her first contact with the Revdex.com or the inconsistencies and false accusations she ADDED to her second contact.
Furthermore, Ms. Higgins was provided a copy of the pamphlet and signed service contract that detailed what her warranty will cover, including labor rate coverage, any deductible and or overages she is responsible for, and the cost of the warranty. She knew the exact cost of the warranty, coverage's provide by the warranty and her responsibilities outside of the warranty on the day she purchased the vehicle. She knows the warranty is not a factory warranty, the warranty is a supplemental policy provided by a nationwide third party, and that she would be responsible for any overages or items not covered by the warranty. Ms. Higgins is also aware that she was purchasing the car "AS IS". Ms. Higgins signed an "AS-IS" document.
Ms. Higgins and her mechanic should have referenced her warranty pamphlet and service contract and or contacted the warranty company. Ms. Higgins' mechanic clearly provided inaccurate information to her and Ms Higgins needs to contact "her" mechanic for her issues.
1. Window regulator - IS NOT covered by her warranty.
a. Window regulator MOTOR IS covered by her warranty.
2. Cooling reservoir - IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic did NOT complete a claim.
3. Vent hos - IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic did NOT complete a claim
4. Thermostat- IS covered by her warranty. Her mechanic (according to Ms. Higgins) still hasn't fixed this.
5. Rear brakes are a WEARABLE item, NOT covered by her warranty.
a. Autobahn Motorsport DID NOT inspect this vehicle; we are NOT a state licensed inspection station, nor do we claim to be. We DID have the car inspected at an authorized inspection station and the brakes DID pass state inspection.
b. Note: Ms. Higgins put 4,107 miles on this vehicle in 32 days; according to Ms. Higgins, up and down hills to and from Blue Eye. She will be replacing break frequently.
6. Blinker bulbs are a WEARABLE item, not covered by her warranty. The car is 12 years old, corrosion happens.
I contacted Cars Protection 10/16/2015 and spoke with [redacted]. He provided me with the following information/notes from her warranty account:
1. Exclusive contacted Cars Protection 8/25/2015 and started a claim for:
a. Coolant Reservoir-covered
b. Left window regulator-not covered but if they would have replaced the motor of the regulator it would have been covered.
c. Exclusive indicated there were NO OTHER issues with the car, including braked or thermostat.
Cars Protection told Exclusive that Ms. Higgins must keep the car there in order for the services to be covered at that time. Ms. Higgins chose to leave with the car at the time of the claim. When Ms. Higgins brought the car back three days and 300 miles later, Exclusive should have resubmitted the claim and DID NOT. Ms. Higgins would only be responsible for the $100 deductible and the difference in Cars Protection shop rate allowance of up to $** per hour. Ms. Higgins chose to us a shop that did not resubmit her claim and that charges $** per hour. The shop we recommended to her honors the $70 per hour rate allowance.
I have provided you with the Buyers Guide, Cars Protection Plus-Value Plus Service Contract and Purchase Agreement; all signed by Ms. Higgins. Each document is clear, precise and ALL costs are straightforward. Also provided is the Claim Status from Cars Protection Plus, showing Ms. Higgins' mechanic started and did not complete a claim.
I will not engage in any further dialogue with Ms.Higgins. I stand by my integrity and the way I conduct business. I will not allow Ms.Higgins to continue slandering my business. I will proceed in a different direction if this continues; see Purchase Agreement.
[redacted]
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 20, 2015/11/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The company clearly does not want to tell the truth. They simply repeated themselves and refuse to tell the truth, even though I brought people along with me to easily testify that I went to their business MULTIPLE times for the date he stated yet again. He accused me of lying with one thing, and I have already cleared that up. It was not a lie, and I explained why he thought so. This response was nearly a copy and paste of the last response, which was also a lie. I am tired of this company lying about me then saying my integrity should be questioned. I am saddened by how this company conducts business. I have done nothing wrong, and once again, I will clear anything else up that may have had confusion. However, they used the same single thing that they said I have lied about when I have already cleared it up, and their argument is invalid for it. Once again, the company opened the response with the lie that I only came to them once and not until almost two months later. I honestly do not know what else to say as I stand by my word and my integrity as there is nothing in question. I simply hope that this company does not treat any other customers like this, and they know what the actual truth is. The owner lied to me about my coolant tank on one of the trips I made up there that they say I did not. I came up there with a leak and asked what was wrong and he just said "you know you have to add coolant, then start it up, then add coolant again." Yes, I do know. I have grown up around cars. What I told them was I just added coolant two days prior and it needed more once again. Something was clearly wrong, but he just acted like I was stupid. Come to find out, the coolant tank was broken and it completely needed replaced. I do not know what else to say. I do not have anything to defend, and I stand by my comments.