I just got off the phone with Shelia Showers (sp?) in Wachovia's legal office... Who reinforced Wachovia's punitive position towards patrons in which forces customers to assume responsibility for Wachovia's incompetence and fraud.
In my case, I financed a vehicle through Wachovia. At the time of purchase, I requested to pay the balance in full. However, the dealer said that if I financed for at least six months, my already good credit score would be improved — so I agreed.
Wachovia then assigned me late fees for timely made payments. When I inquired with Wachovia about why these late fees were being added, I did not receivce adequate explanation. Upon researching Wachovia, I found out their history of "holding checks" and immediately requested payoff statements to pay off the remaining balance. (The dealer also severed its relationship with Wachovia over "unauthorized fees.")
Wachovia never sent payoff statements. First month they were requested, Wachovia never sent. When the bank was called to find out why it hadn't been received, customer was told to be patient and wait. Next month, the statement was not received. Customer then requested another pay off statement, getting in writing pay off time and amount — which Wachovia agreed to.
Five days before the pay off date, Wachovia repossessed the vehicle.in addition, it made pay off impossible - as it took the vehicle to impound and said it would not know the location of the impound at least a week — and in the meantime, the patron woudl accrue $100 per diem impound fees. This was Wachovia's last attempt to grab more fees. When Wachovia was informed of their error, they informed the customer that they would have to accept the impound fees... And that they would hang up on the patron if the patron protested.
The car was sold immediately thereafter at a fraction of the price. Wachovia then demanded the balance — despite the fact the bank had violated its own agreements.
Wachovia accepted no responsibility.
Patron entered settlement with Wachovia through representation by counsel and got a substantially reduced settlement.
The repossession, unauthorized "late fees" remained on the patrons' credit report — due to Wachovia's willful negligence — despite the fact the matter was settled.
When the patron tried to get the items removed from her credit, the credit reporting company informed the patron that it would file a dispute/investigation through Wachovia and then remove them. However, despite the fact that Wachovia was in the wrong, had broken contracts, and repossessed the car improperly, preventing the patron from paying the car off, etc., Shelia Showers (Wachovia counsel) insisted that those marks be left on the credit report despite its damaging impact on the credit of the patron and Wachovia's willful neglect.
Her position was that the patron clearly was at fault since the matter was settled before court. She did did not care of the impact on the customer who entered into a loan with Wachovia in good faith, only to be defrauded. Showers said she did not care that the patron would be compromised professionally and woudl be denied loans for the marks on her credit due to Wachovia's negligence — as the bank was prepared to go to trial. Since the patron settled before trial, she insiisted that the marks remain permanently on the patron's record.
Wachovia is a predatory lender and needs to be investigated for fraud, mismanagement, and incompetence.
0 comments