Consumers, hide your cell phones!

A couple of weeks ago, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing on HR 3035 the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011 – a dangerous bill that would open up cell phones to robocall.  We’ve already said that the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  But, the name is a great misnomer and we here at the National Association of Consumer Advocates have been wondering what to call it:

•    The Robocall Act of 2011
•    The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2011
•    Cell Phone Debt Collection Abuse Act
•    The Robocall Hell Act

What do you think?  The picture and the main point is that the name of the bill ought to match the reality that will come in the form of 10 calls per second ambush calling that will unleashed on consumer cell phones if this bill passes.  NACA is joined by a number of other consumer advocates and privacy organizations who also oppose the bill.  And, across the states attorneys generals are banding together to fight this horrid legislation.

Of late, it also seems that the press is catching on and is also reflecting consumer sentiment that this is simply a bad idea.  There has been a great deal of press coverage on the bill and media interest in the is picking up.  Here are a few examples of recent coverage of the bill:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142315015/bill-would-leave-cell-phones-open-to-robocalls

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/business/rewriting-the-law-on-automated-cellphone-calls.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robocalls&st=cse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/house-discusses-mobile-telemarketing-bill/2011/11/04/gIQA7siInM_blog.html?wprss=post-tech

For more press clips: 

Here’s how you can help make sure your cell phone isn’t opened up to robocalls!

Since the hearing the National Association of Consumer Advocates continues to be in conversation with the bill sponsors and other House staff to reiterate our concerns that this is a harmful bill and that the bill is not necessary.  While these conversations are important, there are some ongoing initiatives will which help increase public awareness of this bill and help deliver a consistent message to Congress.  Take a minute now, through the links below, to sign one or all of the petitions below and let members of Congress know this bill is harmful! If you have a client distribution list, please consider sharing with them the following online petitions which have been created by organizations like Moveon.org and freepress.org.  These petitions allow individuals to send a message directly to Congress:

•    https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3035
•    http://pol.moveon.org/norobocalls/?id=32746-10220574-R7EtMhx&t=3
•    http://act2.freepress.net/sign/robocalls_HR3035/

One thing is certain, consumers won’t just stand by and watch their cell phone minutes increase.  A new tool has recently been launched to give robocall makers a sense of what robocalling is like for consumers.

If you don’t want to sign a petition, help us re-brand this bill!  As we all know, sometimes it is helpful to rebrand things in order to make your message ring clear.  What should we call this bill?  Ideas we have so far are:

•    Robocall Hell Act?

•    Cell Phone Bill of No Rights Act?

•    Robocall Invasion 2011??

Do you have any suggestions?  If so, please let us know by emailing Legislativeunit@naca.net!  As we continue to talk to the press and members of Congress about this, it would be great if a more consumer friendly brand began to be used.


Thanks sincerely for all that you do every day for consumers!

NACA’s Legislative Unit

Can you effectively run a business, without a manager or business owner? Why should the CFPB?

In 2010 Congress took a bold and courageous move and passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which created a new consumer cop on the beat, in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau!  Consumers and Consumer Advocates lauded this bold and necessary move.  Finally, there would be a cop on the beat whose sole interest and mandate came from the consumer.

Unfortunately, it didn’t take too long for Wall Street to recover and launch a counter insurgency against the new agency before it even started.  As usual, rather than doing it themselves, they sent their favorite minions, Congress!  Over the last year since the passage of Dodd-Frank, House Republicans have introduced measure after measure that would effectively handicap and weaken the CFPB if it passes and most recently Republican leaders in the Senate have made good on their pledge to block Richard Cordray’s nomination to direct the CFPB, leaving the Bureau without the full authority it needs to do its job.  Months after its launch and the presidential nomination, the CFPB still does not have a director.

This week there was a National Day of Action to draw attention to the fact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has no director.  The only thing standing in the way of a director being voted on is Congress.  NACA along with other consumer advocates are trying to get the word out and encourage consumers and advocates to call their Senators and let them know that the CFPB must have a director NOW! 

Call your senator let them know that this may work well for Wall Street banks, and financial industry special interests, but it doesn’t work for you!  

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Obama Pitches New Mortgage Relief Plan

Picture Courtesy of the Associated Press

In 2009, Obama released the original economic stimulus plan, Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which was designed to stabilize communities hit by foreclosures or abandonment. At the end of October, Obama pitched his latest proposal to attempt to relieve the economic and political fallout of a housing crisis that has hindered him as he seeks a second term in office. He has decided that it is not worth waiting for a dysfunctional Congress to take the first steps.

The Federal Housing Agency has estimated that this revamped refinancing program will benefit an additional one million homeowners. Moody's Analytics say the figure could even be as high as 1.6 million.

What is Harp?

HARP attempted to help borrowers pay off existing loans that were backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who were current on their payments. Basically, if you were making your payments on time but didn’t have enough equity to refinance, you would be able to lower your rate without having to pay down your mortgage balance or take out mortgage insurance.

Just to clarify, equity is the difference between the market value of your property (how much you could currently sell it for) and how much you owe on your mortgage. For example, if your home is worth $250,000 and your mortgage balance is $150,000, you have $100,000 in equity, or 40 percent of the property’s value ($100,000 divided by $250,000).

At first, the program was restricted to borrowers who owed between 80% and 105% the value of their homes. The program was eventually opened up to borrowers who owed up to 125% the value of their homes. However, fewer than 900,000 homeowners have refinanced under HARP over the past two years, and just 72,000 of those borrowers have loan-to-value ratios between 105% and 125%.

Improvements

    With Obama’s new mortgage relief plan, borrowers will be able to refinance regardless of how far their homes have fallen in value, eliminating previous limits. Millions of Americans with homes have witnessed a significant drop in the value of their homes in the past few years. This plan will hopefully help deal with one of the most critical hurdles in the current economic recession—a slow housing market caused in part by an excess of homeowners who are unable to refinance. This should specifically have a large impact in certain parts of Nevada, Arizona, and Florida where many borrowers owe more than 125% of the value of their homes.

Furthermore, banks will only have to verify that borrowers meet a certain set of eligibility rules:

1.    That they’ve made their last six mortgage payments.
2.    That they have no more than one missed payment in the last year.
3.    That they have a job or another source of regular income.

This will make the refinance process a lot more efficient by mostly eliminating the need for borrowers to obtain estimates of the value of their homes or to provide extensive income documentation. Instead, borrowers will only have to show that they’re current on their mortgage and have a job or another source of regular income.

Read more about Obama’s new mortgage relief plan in the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/10/23/twelve-questions-on-obamas-refi-plan/

Written by Michelle Stricklin, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Big Banks Forced to Scrap Debit Fee Idea

"Imagine that: when the banks actually disclose a fee to consumers, they have the capacity to vote with their feet—in this case by migrating to competitor banks with a more customer-friendly policy.  This is free market economics at its best."

Facing a hue and cry from consumers, Bank of America announced on Friday that it will drop its planned $5.00 debit fee charge.

At the beginning of October, major banks including JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Bank of America announced the fee.  But consumers are showing some feistiness.  In the past month, consumers have mobilized against the fee, getting 300,000 signatures on a Change.org petition.  And worse for the banks, they are defecting at large rates from the big banks in favor of smaller, local banks.  In response, Bank of America (last but not least) became the final banking giant to nix the charge.

Could there be a better example of the benefits of transparency?  Imagine that: when the banks actually disclose a fee to consumers, they have the capacity to vote with their feet—in this case by migrating to competitor banks with a more customer-friendly policy.  This is free market economics at its best.

Transparency and disclosure makes it possible for the middle class to see the truth.  More transparency even trumps more regulation.  Let the public vote with their feet... and their mouse clicks.
  
Courtesy of The Corporate Observer

Consumers beware – House proposal would make nuisance phone calls the new norm!

Hate those annoying, usually dinner time, phone calls with a long pause where it seems like there’s no one at the other end?  Then, just before you hang up, you hear the robo-voice on the other end.  A new House proposal – HR 3035 – will likely make this the new norm for consumer cell phones.
 
A coalition of debt collectors, the U.S. Chamber and other anti-consumer groups have obtained Congressional support for a dangerous proposal that would allow debt collectors and other businesses to flood cell phones with robo-calls.  The bill, HR 3035 Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011, will be the subject of a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing this coming Friday, November 4, 2011 at 9:00am.  The bill’s sponsors are Congressmen Lee Terry (R-NE) and Edolphus Towns (D-NY).  

“Consumers already receive important notifications about data breaches, fraud alerts and flight cancellations when they consent to receive this information” says Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.  “HR 3035 will remove a consumer’s ability to choose what calls they would like to receive and plunge consumers back into daily deluges of robo calls from debt collectors, market research and survey calls among other kinds of calls; but, now on their cell phones.” says Reynolds. 

HR 3035 will allow businesses with to use predictive dialers to and will shift the costs of ads, surveys and other annoying calls to consumers.   Consumers will no longer be able to opt out of receiving calls because HR 3035 would make ‘any prior relationship’ with a business would qualify as consent for the purposes of receiving a so-called ‘informational phone call.’  

“This bill, if enacted, would also facilitate a proposal found in the Administration’s recent deficit reduction plan which would make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cell phones of consumers delinquent on student loans and debt owed the federal government.  Debt collectors already have sufficient access to consumers and still frequently violate the law by repeatedly making collection calls to consumer cellular phones using automatic dialing systems and leaving prerecorded voicemail messages, in violation of the law.[1]” 

“HR 3035 is a terrible idea,” said Reynolds, “cell phones are uniquely personal devices; consumers, struggling to make ends meet and keep their jobs, would prefer to spend these valuable minutes on their family and friends.”

For more information contact Delicia Reynolds of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, 202-452-1989 ext 103, Delicia@naca.net. The National Association of Consumer Advocates recently sent a letter opposing HR 3035 to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  For more information on debt collection abuse and protections available to consumers, visit http://www.naca.net/issues/debt-collection-abuse.

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

A Champion of Change

On October 13, my old friend, and consumer advocate extraordinaire,  Addison Parker was honored at the White House as a "Champion of Change." You can read below, the official "bio" that describes why Add was chosen as an honoree. I can tell you that, unofficially, Add is as final a legal services attorney as I have ever known, and that the number of Kentucky families he has helped are countless. I can also tell you, that sitting in the audience, watching Add being honored was a great thrill for me, particularly when he talked about the great loss of wealth he had seen in his community and how that problem needed to be remedied first, if we wanted a real economic recovery. I fear those are words not often enough expressed in our White House, and I am glad that in is moment honor, Add did just that!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/champions/legal-leaders/addison-parker

Until his retirement in June 2011, Addison was Co- Litigation Director of Appalachian Research and Defense Fund of Kentucky, Inc. (“AppalRed”) and Director of AppalRed’s Stop Foreclosure Clinic. He worked for 32 years at AppalRed. Presently, as AppalRed Attorney Emeritus, Addison provides pro bono services to AppalRed and its clients. AppalRed provides free legal assistance to low income persons in 37 counties, located primarily in the Appalachian hill country of Eastern Kentucky. Since 1999, Addison supervised AppalRed’s consumer law practice, foreclosure defense, complex litigation, and appellate work, while maintaining a full case load. For two decades, Addison has been Chairman of the Consumer Law Task Force of Kentucky Legal Services Programs. He was chairman of the Kentucky Bar Association Bankruptcy Section in 2006-07 and has been a speaker on consumer law topics and foreclosure defense at numerous continuing legal education seminars in Kentucky and nationally at seminars and conferences sponsored by AARP, The National Consumer Law Center, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

As Director of AppalRed’s Stop Foreclosure Clinic, founded in 2008, Addison trained and supervised AppalRed attorneys and private bar partners to defend judicial foreclosure with consumer-protection based counterclaims and defenses arising from unlawful and deceptive origination practices; disclosure violations; and abusive, deceptive, or negligent loan servicing. Addison received the 2011 Kentucky Justice Association’s Consumer Safety Award for his work with the Stop Foreclosure Clinic.


Written by Ira Rheingold, Executive Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates
 

If not now, when? If not you, who? Consumers and Advocates, look out and get involved!

Under the guise of job creation, the Wisconsin GOP has clearly visited the American Legislative Exchange Council’s playbook and are pushing a few anti-consumer bills that will further shield corporations from liability for wrong doing. 


Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has called a "Special Jobs Session" to consider a list of bills, including one that appears to be a version of the ALEC "Drug Liability Act" and also two additional anti-consumer bills that strike at the heart of the Wisconsin Consumer Protection Statute and will make it harder for consumers to fight corporate malfeasance.  ALEC is the corporate-funded national organization that allows Big Business to craft, then vote to approve, "model bills" along with politicians that right-wing legislators then take home and push in their states. The Wisconsin bills, AB 12 and AB 14 are sponsored by Sen. Rich Zipperer (R-Pewaukee), who paid his ALEC dues with taxpayer dollars.


Our friends and colleagues in Wisconsin need your help!  There are currently two bills moving through the Wisconsin Legislature that, if passed, would undermine the state’s Consumer Protection Statute by shifting the cost of enforcement and remedying important consumer protections from unlawful acts of others to the individual harmed or the state.


Please click through the links here to access talking points about the bills and legislative information on each proposal.  BUT most important, here is how you can help:


1.    Send an email or letter to the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee and the Senate Committee on Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations  – please use the sample text here but please do tailor it speak to any relevant stories or changes that have occurred in your state and why AB/SB 12 and AB 14 are bad bills.


2.    If you need additional information about this bill, please contact NACA member Gordon Leech at  gleech@celcwi.com.


The anti-consumer lobby has been busy and Wisconsin members need your help now; your state could be next!  Please take a moment to lend your support!

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Lets ensure that Forced Arbitration does not fall off the radar!

As previously announced, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on the Arbitration Fairness Act next Thursday October 13th at 2pm in Dirksen 226.  Democratic witnesses include NACA Member Paul Bland, Minnesota AG Lori Swanson and consumer witness, Dr. Deborah Pierce. Republican Witnesses will include: Christopher Drahozel (click here to see his take on Concepcion and the Arbitration Fairness Act) and Victor Schwartz.

For the past few months NACA and its consumer advocate allies Public Citizen, NELA and AAJ has been working closely with Senator Franken’s staff to ensure that Forced Arbitration does not fall off the radar.  In particularly, we have helped with locating and vetting the consumer witness scheduled to appear at this hearing. 

Although the current political climate is not ideal, this hearing presents an incredible opportunity to try ramp up the pressure on Congress and let them know exactly what’s at stake here.  Leading up to the hearing NACA will be circulating an organizational sign-on letter (earlier version attached) which was previously signed onto by over 50 organizations and its own individual sign on letter.  Additionally, we are calling each member office to encourage members to attend.  Here’s how you can help:

1. ATTEND – if you are local and will be in the DC area, please come out to the hearing. Already a few NACA members have responded that they will attend and bring clients with them.

2. Take 5 minutes – Call a judiciary committee member and tell them why the Arbitration Fairness Act needs to become law.  Let them know that forced arbitration is unfair and undemocratic and that you expect to see them at the hearing on this critical issue.   Use the attached talking points to assist you.

a. We particularly need help in the following states - Vermont, Wisconsin, California, New York Illinois, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Delaware, Connecticut (states with Democratic Committee members).  Though no Democrats on the committee have opposed the bill, a few are reluctant to sign on in support!

b. We won’t win this with just Democratic support alone – republican members need to hear why Forced Arbitration harms consumers and employees.  If you have a connection to a senator in one of these states - Iowa, Utah, Arizona, Alabama, S. Carolina, Texas, Utah, Oklahoma – call or email!

3. Take another 5 minutes and tell a colleague or client to do the same!

Thanks sincerely for all that you do every day on behalf of consumers!

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Norman Lau

One of the great privileges of my job is the chance I get to meet and befriend some of the best consumer advocates in the country. Last month, one of my favorite people in the world, Norman Lau passed away. Norman was an absolutely outstanding advocate, but an even better person. Kind, thoughtful, caring, passionate are just some of the adjectives that come to mind when I think of my friend. Instead of searching for the right words to express both my sadness for our loss, and the joy of having known, Norman, I'm simply going to reprint what our friend, Jeff Crabtree wrote when he let us know that Norman had finally lost his long fight with cancer:

Norman Lau passed away on Saturday.  As many of you know, he’d been battling cancer for years.   I am sitting in his old office as I write this, and I swear he’s “visiting.”  There is a different kind of energy in the air here today--maybe he’s wrapping up some loose ends before he heads off.   

I’ll miss Norman Lau.  (And believe me, I don’t say that about all the attorneys I know.)... Norman proved you can be a great person and a great lawyer at the same time.  

I had the pleasure of working with Norman on several cases.  His contribution to those cases proved to me that his reputation is well-deserved.  He was knowledgeable, experienced, and had great judgment.  He was widely regarded as a top-notch expert in Hawaii on consumer law issues generally, and fair debt collection practice in particular.   Whenever I talk with consumer rights lawyers on the mainland, invariably they ask me “Do you know Norman Lau?” ... 
 
Norman was the kind of person who always watched out for the modern paradoxes encapsulated by George Carlin below.  As a tribute to Norman, I invite everyone to take a moment and reflect:

--Don’t spend more but have less.
--Don’t have more conveniences but less time.
--Don’t have more knowledge but less judgment.
--Don’t make a living, but not a life.
--Don’t ignore your neighbors, but e-mail people in Siberia.
--Don’t have a tall profile but be short on character.
Rest in peace, Norman.

Written by Ira Rheingold, Executive Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

The Untethered Law Office – Tools and Tips for Getting It Done

Most of the virtual lawyers out there are basically providers of unbundled legal services leveraging technology to accomplish their goals. Sure, some do provide full representation but for the most part it’s not that way. In fact, the virtual law office technology that’s out there seems designed to accommodate the lawyer’s secret wish—a thriving law practice without those nagging clients. Have them fill out some forms online, communicate entirely through a nearly mystic portal, and the lawyer gets to generate work product from a beachside palapa.


But, of course, the point of technology isn’t how it fits the lawyer’s deep-seated desires. It’s how the technology can help both lawyers and their clients get the job done more effectively. Although if you can deliver legal services in a more effective manner while being free to work from nearly anywhere, well, that’s a bonus.


Thankfully, there’s a simple way to operate a full-service law firm without being tied to an office. A means not of going virtual, but of being untethered. And it doesn’t hinge on a fancy virtual law office portal or bank-breaking technology.
In fact, there are only a few things you need to operate an untethered law firm. I know because mine is untethered. It’s a two-partner firm with an associate and a paralegal—and here’s how we get it all done.


Reliable Means of CommunicationA traditional office needs a phone, fax and email to communicate with the outside world. So, too, with the untethered law office.


For telephone service, I rely on Skype, so I can make and receive calls straight from my laptop. Using Skype Premium services ($53.88 per year) gives me unlimited phone calls to any number in the United States as well as video calling and a bunch of other features. For an extra $72 per year, I get a local number so people can call me as if I had a “real phone line.” Between the two, I spend less in a year than most people spend per month on a cell phone.


Need a receptionist to handle the incoming calls? No worries. I use Call Ruby, an excellent service that screens calls and patches them through to my line as I see fit. And for offices that have more than one person on staff, you can go with Grasshopper, a virtual PBX system that allows you to have a fully functional auto-attendant and tons of voice-mail boxes. When someone dials my extension, it trunks the call to a number of my choosing, and voicemails come to me by mp3.


Also, for those folks who still use faxing, I’ve got a solution: a fax-to-email service such as Maxemail or eFax. Either service will give you a local number for people to use as your fax line. Incoming faxes hit my email box in PDF, which means no scanning.


Now, email. I confess that I just don’t get the whole argument about its security. Whatever you do, email is not secure. The data is transmitted over unsecure Internet space, and someone with a mind to hack you is going to succeed. So, with that in mind, I use Google Apps for my email. They have better security than I could ever afford, I can get my email anywhere I’ve got an Internet connection, and the downtime is … well, infrequent to say the least. If it’s good enough for various governmental agencies, it’s good enough for me.


File Storage and ManagementI’ve got one heck of a hard drive on my laptop, so I store my files there. I also use an external hard drive as well as a cloud-based system to back up files.


But I’m not the only one in my firm, and we’ve all got to have access to the documents that make up our client files. For that we use Dropbox, which synchronizes files among staff computers and also backs up to the cloud. Some folks have made noise about using Dropbox for client work, but I’m content in the knowledge that it uses Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and AES-256 bit encryption to transmit and store files. If that doesn’t work for you, then you can also go with a provider such as Box.net.


We also use a cloud-based practice management application for the firm, keeping track of time, messages and file-related updates. Again, it’s available when and where we need it to be, and we never need to worry about backing up our servers.


A Place for Client MeetingsWhile my partner works from a physical office space, I don’t—but I still need to have meetings with my clients. I usually confer with clients by phone to begin, and I record all of my Skype calls (with consent, of course) so I can store them for better recordkeeping.


But sometimes, you need that face-to-face so you can work more closely. Some lawyers love Starbucks for client meetings, but that’s not my style. Instead, I look to the courthouse and colleagues. Most courthouses have lawyer conference rooms that are free to use. Many bar associations allow members to use their facilities, too. And if all else fails, a colleague can let you use a conference room.


But if you’re really looking for a place to call home base, look at some of the executive centers like Regus. Rent space for a few hours a month and see how it works out.


Staff Communications within the FirmIn addition to our paralegal and associate, we have a few virtual assistants who pitch in when needed. We have our virtual assistants as a result of hiring through eLance and similar sites. And interestingly, our associate found us as a result of a job ad we posted on Facebook. The logic was simple: We wanted someone who was facile with technology, and where better to go than a site of 700 million technologically adept people?


But regardless of who’re we hiring, once someone’s on the team, we communicate relentlessly.


Each morning I get on Skype with my associate and paralegal to review outstanding issues and plans for the upcoming days. We swap stories and notes and discuss challenges. Then we solve them. Just like in a real staff meeting. From there, we chat a few times each day using Google Talk or Skype. It’s all a casual back-and-forth, allowing us to keep a virtual watercooler going while we get the job done.


We’ve also got a firm wiki, a central repository of what I call “dangling knowledge”—passwords, procedures and the like. The wiki resides on our web server behind a username and password combination that we change regularly for added security.


What Life Looks Like for an Untethered LawyerOur firm’s clients know that we’re mobile, and they never need to sit idly by as we go on vacation. My staff has the ability to work from home, attending to family and personal needs as they see fit. Work and life mesh nicely, allowing us to live our lives freely.


Moreover, with the exception of my partner’s office spot, we’ve got no physical overhead. Our phone system costs a fraction of what a land-bound firm will spend each month, and our paper bill is so much lower now that we don’t need to refill the fax and copier machines.


Rather than having to spend time in a car or on the subway for a few hours each day, I can choose to use those ticks of the clock working or spending time with my family. I invariably choose the latter when I can, but when duty calls I know I can opt for the former without hassle.


By Jay S. Fleischman  
Read more at: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/law_practice_magazine/2011/september_october/the_untethered_law_office.html

Consumer Rights Law Blog: Dodge Journey Headed Down the Wrong Road as defects and complaints mount up?

We get a lot of calls every day from consumers who are having problems with vehicles. The defects vary anywhere from trim falling off to more.

From time to time we notice an increase in complaints about a particular make or model and recently it happened again.

The Dodge Journey's defects run most commonly across the 2009 and 2010 and 2011 model years with complaints about hesitation in the transmission, fuel problems, electrical problems, abnormal brake wear and many other defects have come to our attention.

For instance the 2010 ws recalled for leaking power steering fluid complaints. And the 2009 model year Journey had five recalls including two on the air bag system, two on the electrical system and one on the transmission. And a steering column defect resulted in a recall on the 2011 model year Dodge Journey.

And that's just the safety recalls and we are not even counting the secret warranties covered by factory technical service bulletins where Chrysler quietly tells their dealers about known problems and fixes that aren't covered by recalls.

If you've got a lemon Dodge Journey, you're in good company. Don't take a chance. At the first sign of any defect, get your vehicle in to your dealer for repairs. And if your dealer doesn't take care of you. Call us right away on our toll free Dodge lemon hotline at 1.888.331.6422 or email us right away by clicking here. Getting rid of lemon Dodge and other lemon vehicles is what we do.

Burdge Law Office

www.UsLemonLawyers.com

Because life is too short to drive a lemon

What’s your story? Tell Congress the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau needs a director now!

As a consumer advocate, I am moved most, not by the data and research demonstrating the need for stronger consumer protection and financial reform, but by personal stories shared by consumers – both in their ability to help advance an important policy issue and reaffirm the human spirit.  Moving from the technicality and policy relevancy of an issue, stories move us, stir our hearts and remind us of our connection to each other. Personal stories are not only records of change but also act as agents of change.
   
By being exposed to others’ stories and personal experiences, consumers gain valuable insight into the specific ways others have attempted to achieve social change; advocates gain the confidence necessary to help their clients make change; public officials and policy makers gain the courage to make laws that protect and preserve consumers rights. Stories also demystify and make accessible the public policy making process.

Your story needs to be told!  In 2010 Congress took a bold and courageous move and passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which created a new consumer cop on the beat, in the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau! Over the last few months, Republican leaders in the Senate have pledged to refuse to implement this law passed in 2010 by refusing to consider Richard Cordray’s nomination to direct the CFPB, leaving the Bureau without the full authority it needs to do its job. 

Call your senator let them know that this may work well for Wall Street banks, and financial industry special interests, but it doesn’t work for you!  

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Consumer Rights Law Blog: More ways to spot a wrecked car before you buy it

Consumer Rights Law Blog: More ways to spot a wrecked car before you buy it:


Here's another one minute video on how to spot a car that was wrecked and repaired - before you buy it. Some car dealers don't tell you all they know, like the fact that a car was wrecked and repaired. And that can make for thousands of dollars difference in the value of the car. Don't let a car dealer rip you off. Before you buy that used car, check it over carefully so you don't waste your money.

And if you do get ripped off, call. Fighting to protect consumers from car sales fraud - that is what we do everyday. Call on our Toll Free Car Sales Fraud Hotline, 1.888.331.6422, or email right now.

Burdge Law Office

http://www.carsalesfraud.com/

Helping consumers protect themselves for over 25 years.

ATT to consumers: Arbitration is great when it helps us, horrible when it does not!

In the fight to protect consumers and restoring access to justice one is rarely surprised by the level of corporate hypocrisy.  Yet, last week’s filing by AT&T managed to do just that. 

This spring, in AT&T vs Concepcion, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to consumers’ ability to access justice.  In ruling that corporations can ban class actions where there is an arbitration clause in the contract, Post Concepcion, companies can potentially isolate themselves from court challenge with an arbitration clause in any contract. 

Follow closely the highly illogical logic.  To obtain this decision, AT&T, in Concepcion, argued that class actions in arbitrations shouldn’t be allowed because there was no meaningful judicial review of what arbitrators do; yet, they lauded individual arbitration as meaningful, efficient and economically beneficial to consumers.  Since consumers now can’t bring class actions in court or in arbitration, the only recourse for a consumer fighting against corporate wrongdoing is to file in arbitration. 

As it turns out though, AT&T only likes arbitration if only a few people actually use it.  Last week, in response to the initiation of multiple arbitrations filed by many individuals, AT&T sought an injunction against any attempts to arbitrate such claims because, purportedly, the relief sought is akin to class-wide injunctive relief which is outside the scope of what the arbitration agreements permit.  Translation: we only like arbitration if it works for us.  Because too many people recently tried to bring individual arbitration filings AT&T is now bringing its customers to court. 

Perhaps, consumer advocates were right all along.  Pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses are exculpatory; they are not meant to accommodate anyone but the corporation who wrote the clause.   

Written by Delicia Reynolds, Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates

Foreclosure Reforms May Be Coming Soon

Now several years into the housing crisis more than 7.5 million homes have entered into foreclosure, with millions more still at risk.  Most federal government and private initiatives to stem the tide of foreclosure have fallen short in the face of continued poor economic conditions as well as reported abuse and misconduct of the largest financial institutions at each stage of the mortgage process from origination to foreclosure.  It is clear that the voluntary loan modification efforts, conducted under the Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program or through the mortgage industry, have not been able to help enough affected borrowers.

Many homeowner advocates and consumer groups are looking to the settlement negotiations with the state attorneys general and the nation’s top mortgage servicers to begin to resolve many of the widespread problems in servicing and foreclosure practices.  However, recent news reports indicate that a 50-state attorneys general settlement is experiencing complications.  Attorneys General from New York, Delaware, Massachusetts and Nevada have voiced public concerns that a proposed settlement would protect banks from mortgage investigations that are not yet finished.

These states are conducting their own investigations into banks’ mortgage practices. For example, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden are investigating mortgage securitization and recently filed a motion to intervene in the proposed $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America and the Bank of New York acting as trustee of 530 Countrywide residential mortgage securitizations. Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts said in a letter last month that she will not sign on to an agreement if it includes “a comprehensive liability release’’ for mortgage securitization or conduct related to a mortgage database called MERS.

We continue to wait to see how the settlement negotiations play out.  We know that what little has been done to address the foreclosure crisis on a national level so far has not worked.  That is why a meaningful settlement is so important to help homeowners, investors and the economy as a whole.  

Ellen M. Taverna
Legislative Associate, National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)

S&P Selling Lemons; Are You Buying?

10 August 2011

If an auto dealer sold you a lemon, would you purchase another car from the same dealer?  Recent headlines have focused almost exclusively on the standoff between Congressional Democrats and Republicans over the national debt ceiling.  Tensions and debates started and stopped, rising to the final crescendo of the historic downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating by Standard and Poor’s (S&P), which occurred on Friday, August 5th, 2011.  Yet, this same company had a significant role in creating the financial crisis, rating subprime-backed toxics as AAA investments and that  joined with other players in the financial industry over the years to discourage more aggressive financial regulation.

 Interesting enough, the S&P was not the only one selling financial lemons last week.  In the rush to get a debt ceiling deal passed and get out of town, the Senate cancelled the first nomination hearing for Richard Cordray – recently nominated to head the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  Before Senators left town, however, Congressional Republicans didn’t miss an opportunity to block any chance of a recess appointment of a CFPB director by scheduling several "pro forma" sessions essentially to prevent the Senate from formally recessing.   Cordray’s nomination faces strong resistance from nearly all Senate Republicans who have promised to block any nominee to head the agency unless it is significantly weakened.   

Consumers are sick of lemonade.  This downgrade underscores the need for Congress to put partisanship aside and support a consumer cop on the beat to lead an independent and strong CFPB.


Delicia Reynolds
Legislative Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)

And Why Should We Care What S & P Thinks!?!

09 August 2011

When I heard about S & P downgrading U.S. credit - only one thought came to my mind - you've got to be kidding me!! Isn't this the same company that threatened to downgrade or refuse to even rate mortgages in states that had the audacity to try and prevent the predatory lending crisis that we all saw coming. And isn't this the brilliant agency that gave AAA ratings to mortgages that weren't safe enough to use at the bottom of a bird cage.

Paul Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opinion/credibility-chutzpah-and-debt.html?_r=1&hp

and Robert Reich: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-sp-has-no-business-do_b_920348.html

said it better than I ever could.

Ira Rheingold
Executive Director, National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)

Will the FTC Finally Take Action Against Crooked Auto Dealers?

04 August 2011

As referenced in an earlier NACA blog post, we know that young military servicemembers often fall victim to predatory auto loans, many of whom are buying their first car and managing regular paychecks for the first time.  The Center for Public Integrity recently released an investigation that found senior military leaders worry that fallout from abusive loans can result in increased stress levels that affect “military readiness” and put security clearances at risk if credit scores are ruined.  A new study by the Center for Responsible Lending also shows that many of the same tactics that led to the mortgage crisis like creating incentives for brokers to mark-up the interest rate above what the consumer's credit would qualify for or charging consumers hidden fees continue to plague auto loans.

These problems are so pervasive that it was the focus this week at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) roundtable in San Antonio, Texas.   This is the second auto lending roundtable that the FTC has held this year to gather information on consumers’ experiences with sales and financing at car dealerships.   The focus of the first day was specifically regarding military consumers’ financial experiences with auto dealers.  It also addressed the role of financial literacy in consumers’ understanding of the auto lending process as well as ending the second day with fair lending issues.  NACA members Dwain Alexander, Tom Domonoske, Rosemary Shahan, and Alberto Mesta Jr. were panelists at the FTC event.

The ball is now in FTC’s court to do something to protect consumers against abusive auto lending.  Unfortunately, auto dealers were successful in their lobbying efforts to exempt themselves from the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). While much of the FTC’s authority and power in the area of financial services has been turned over to the CFPB, the FTC is authorized to issue rules with regard to one significant group, auto dealers.  Furthermore, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FTC’s unwieldy and cumbersome Magnuson Moss rulemaking proceedings were substituted with the more streamlined APA informal rulemaking procedures for auto dealers.

We hope that with the information learned about auto lenders’ predatory financing practices and unexpected add-ons at these auto roundtables, the FTC will finally act to issue new strong rules and take tough enforcement against dealers that engage in unfair lending practices against servicemembers and everyday consumers.

Ellen M. Taverna
Legislative Associate, National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA)

A Comic Worth A Thousand Words

04 August 2011

Not Much Else Needs To Be Said:

I Will Gladly Pay You Today For a Hamburger I Can Eat Tomorrow - Prepaid Service Contracts Can Be a Ripoff

03 August 2011

Most car dealers are honest, but some just plain aren't.

We just saw a consumer's sales paperwork from a Cincinnati dealership where the dealer packed into the deal an oil change package at a cost of $624. The oil change package promises free oil changes for as long as the buyer owns the car.

It reminds me of Wimpy's refrain, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" but in reverse. The dealer has got the consumer paying up front a big chunk of money for oil changes that will probably never happen - and of course there's no refund either. It's like free money to the car dealer and a ripoff you need to watch out for.

First of all, the vehicle is a 2011 Chevrolet Cruze and according to the factory manual, it will only need an oil change when the car's computer says so. I've got the same kind of thing in our car and it usually says we need an oil change about every 7 to 9 thousand miles. Of course, many folks have grown up hearing the oil manufacturers and car dealers beating the drum that you have to "change your oil every 3,000 miles" but there's at least one long-time industry expert that says it ought to last at least 5,000 miles and even longer if you use the best oil out there. Let's assume the computer is broke and you just change the oil every 4,000 miles. That seems pretty reasonable (although you ought to get that computer fixed anyway).

Okay, what's the average miles driven per year in the U.S.? The federal government says 12,000 but a lot of (mostly car industry) others say it's 15,000. Let's take the middle and call it 13,500 miles.

So, how long does the average person keep their car? One mechanic expert said online that the answer was 4.7 years.

Okay, let's multiple 4.7 years by 13,500 miles ... hummm, let me get out my calculator. Okay, that means the average person drives their car 63,450 miles before they get rid of it, trade it in, or whatever.

If you wait for the computer to tell you when to change your oil, and you are like most of us and just use your car for normal city and highway driving, you'll probably have that computer tell you to change the oil just 9 or ten times. And if you just go ahead and change it every 4,000 miles, then you'll have a total of about 16 times. So the range is going to be 9 to 16 oil changes during your ownership of the car. So what's that cost you if you pay for it when you have it done, instead of up front?

Well, one Cincinnati car dealers says it's $20 to $25 (with a "free" car wash thrown in) - and it's not the Chevy dealer who ripped off the client whose paperwork we're looking at here - and there's lots of other places where the cost will run from $18 on up.

If you get your oil changed just 9 times, that's gonna cost you $225. If you get it changed 16 times, that'll cost you $400. And that "lifetime oil change" deal? Well, that car dealer charged $624.

So, you see, it's kind of like the car dealer saying "I'll gladly let you pay me today for a hamburger I'll give you next Tuesday" or - actually - in about 3 months. It's like free money to the car dealer.

When you go car shopping, just remember. Buying the car is the easy part. Getting out of the finance office financially alive, though, that's the hard part. Don't put up with getting ripped off. Read everything carefully before you sign anything. Scratch out or cross out anything you don't like. Don't buy stuff you don't need and stuff that is of no real value. And think real hard before you buy any of it.


Burdge Law Office
www.CarSalesFraud.com
Helping consumers protect themselves, everyday.