Jump to content

CFPB Sues CashCall , WS Funding, Delbert services


ICANHASMUNY?
 Share

The last post in this topic was posted 3886 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-sues-cashcall-for-illegal-online-loan-servicing/

 

 

The CFPB’s complaint alleges that defendants CashCall, WS Funding, Delbert, and Reddam have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau’s investigation showed that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps – or both – in at least eight states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. Under statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe.

 

full complaint http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_cashcall.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


you'll notice that one of theses is "WS funding"

 

where do you think Western Sky on the reservation actually obtained money to lend?

 

it was a scam all the way.

 

he funded Western sky to make the loans , and then bought back the debts to collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

All Western Sky collection conduits. To bad they could only go after them in a few states and Calif., where CashCall is located, isn't one.

I believe at some point in the past few years, that California did indeed go after CashCall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-sues-cashcall-for-illegal-online-loan-servicing/

 

 

The CFPB’s complaint alleges that defendants CashCall, WS Funding, Delbert, and Reddam have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau’s investigation showed that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps – or both – in at least eight states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. Under statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe.

 

full complaint http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_cashcall.pdf

Couldn't have happened to a nicer, more deserving bunch of crooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

 

All Western Sky collection conduits. To bad they could only go after them in a few states and Calif., where CashCall is located, isn't one.

I believe at some point in the past few years, that California did indeed go after CashCall.

 

Yes, they did.

 

If interested, here is the final judgement:

 

http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/n1788_cashcallfinaljudgment.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

you'll notice that one of theses is "WS funding"

 

where do you think Western Sky on the reservation actually obtained money to lend?

 

I kinda figured it was either casinos or mineral rights. Silly me.

LOL

 

yeah, you think they really make any $$$ off that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

you'll notice that one of theses is "WS funding"

 

where do you think Western Sky on the reservation actually obtained money to lend?

 

 

I kinda figured it was either casinos or mineral rights. Silly me.

LOL

yeah, you think they really make any $$$ off that?

There's just no honesty in payday lending anymore. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah everything started going downhill when the FBI broke up the Mafia.

 

they used to keep the competition down.

Well, they used to make offers you can't refuse......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I've mentioned my friend who took out one of these loans approx a year ago or so in other CashCall/WS threads. She got the notice that CashCall sold the acct to their brother Delbert, I think in August. Delbert sent her an ACH authorization to sign and email back, which she did not do. So the next due date, CashCall took money from her acct. She questioned Delbert as to why CashCall took it instead of Delbert. The stupid answer was that CashCall was helping Delbert out because they were having problems with their ACH provider.

 

So, with my advice, she blocked CashCall from debiting her acct. They tried again the next month. Delbert was calling her umpteen hundred times trying to get a payment. They were also spoofing phone numbers trying to get a response. I told her to put a block on Delbert also as the loan is illegal in Az. She did. She also filed complaints with the Az Dept of Financial Institutions and the Az Atty General. The AZDFI is useless. They told her the 138% interest they were charging is legal in Az and the limit is 15x%. That is unbelievable.

 

Anywho, I just heard that Delbert, in response to her AG complaint, denied everything, of course. They offered to lower her interest to 20% thru the AG. But this past Monday, the day of the CFPB lawsuit, sent her an email offering to lower it to an "extremely generous" 86%. lol WTF are they doing? Do they not even know they are sending different offers to the same person?

 

I have advised that due to the lawsuit, she should pay nothing and respond to the AG, who surely must be involved in the CFPB lawsuit, that she will do nothing at this point until it is resolved whether or not it was legal for them to take her money via ACH and if it was a loan she need not repay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was it a western sky loan?

 

Arizona, which voids covered loans of $10,000 or less that are made or
procured without a license, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-601(5)-(7), 6-602(B),
6-603(A), 6-613(B); the lender has no right to collect any principal,
finance charges, or other fees in repayment of such loans;

 

Cash Call is Lic'd in AZ.

 

http://www.azdfi.gov/LawsRulesPolicy/Forms/FE-AD-PO-Regulatory_and_Consumer_Alert_CL_CO_13_01%2002-06-2013.pdf

 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/6/00632.htm&Title=6&DocType=ARS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

was it a western sky loan?

 

Arizona, which voids covered loans of $10,000 or less that are made or

procured without a license, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-601(5)-(7), 6-602( B),

6-603(A), 6-613( B); the lender has no right to collect any principal,

finance charges, or other fees in repayment of such loans;

 

Cash Call is Lic'd in AZ.

 

http://www.azdfi.gov/LawsRulesPolicy/Forms/FE-AD-PO-Regulatory_and_Consumer_Alert_CL_CO_13_01%2002-06-2013.pdf

 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/6/00632.htm&Title=6&DocType=ARS

I've read those before. That is why I was shocked when I learned the AzFDI said 158% is legal. My understanding of the situation is that she applied thru Western Sky at their website, but was contacted by someone from Cashcall immediately and that Cashcall approved her, not WS and Cashcall made the deposit, even though it showed as WS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She applied thru WS and If the deposit to her bank showed up as WS, then WS made the loan with Their $$, regardless of Cash Call's verbal approval.

 

Have her file a complaint thru the CFPB instead,

 

or hire a local attorney to file a declatory judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

She applied thru WS and If the deposit to her bank showed up as WS, then WS made the loan with Their $$, regardless of Cash Call's verbal approval.

 

Have her file a complaint thru the CFPB instead,

 

or hire a local attorney to file a declatory judgment.

I hate to disagree, but WS did not make any loans. It was all a phony setup. they can spin it any way they like, but CashCall made the loan. I think she did already file a complaint with CFPB after I told her about the lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I know this is an old thread, but I am curious what has happened since. I made the huge mistake of taking one of their 10k loans thinking I could just pay it off quickly. I am now not in the position to continue paying it. I took the loan while I was in Florida, I just looked at the Florida statutes which states that any loan made over 25% to 45% is a misdemeanor and over 45% is a felony. It also states that either of those or a couple of other loan shark-ish type deals are unenforceable debts in Florida. I see on the website that they changed the rate now to 18%, but in reality, I have made ~$10500 in payments and the balance is still $9300 or so. Taking the $9300 and applying 18% to it for 14 months adds another ~$11000 to what I've already paid. I am seriously considering stopping any future payments, since I have the original loan document which clearly states 89%. If I take the new total term of the loan, which still shows the same account number and calculate it as 29 payments of $743.49, it is around 73%. To me, either way it's uncollectible. Anyone care to weigh in? I don't think I'll lose any sleep over not paying them any more money since they at least got back the principle amount I borrowed already.

Edited by control_logic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's starting to look like the CFPB was setup for us to do all the complaints and then they sue the companies. Another cash cow for the government. Do the victims (complainers) get a piece of pie, of course not.

You even bother Reading anything?

 

 

 

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-takes-action-against-payday-lender-for-robo-signing/

 

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took its first enforcement action against a payday lender by ordering Cash America International, Inc. to refund consumers for robo-signing court documents in debt collection lawsuits. The CFPB also found that Cash America – one of the largest short-term, small-dollar lenders in the country – violated the Military Lending Act by illegally overcharging servicemembers and their families. Cash America will pay up to $14 million in refunds to consumers and it will pay a $5 million fine for these violations and for destroying records in advance of the Bureau’s examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-sues-cashcall-for-illegal-online-loan-servicing/

 

 

The CFPB’s complaint alleges that defendants CashCall, WS Funding, Delbert, and Reddam have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau’s investigation showed that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps – or both – in at least eight states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. Under statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe.

 

full complaint http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_cashcall.pdf

 

The eight states are clearly defined. Interesting that it says "...in at least..." which implies there may be more.

 

Methinks that if you live in one of these states you're a letter or two away from an easy deletion.

 

If you do not, you might want to research your home state laws regarding license requirements and interest caps. Maybe you live in an "...at least..." state.

Edited by PumpkinPrettyFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 3886 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      189715
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    Ellis50
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines