Complaint resolution service publishes case studies, recall information and consumer news.

Credit unions are becoming more aggressive in the indirect lending market, as credit aggregators are simplifying the process for dealers to finance auto loans through credit unions, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Consumer Financing Satisfaction Study.

Now in its 11th year, the study measures customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle financing process. Four factors are examined to determine customer satisfaction with automotive finance provider: provider offering, application/approval process, payment/billing process and customer contact experience.

The study finds that at a growing rate, credit unions are forming alliances with dealers to offer new-vehicle financing, representing nearly 10 percent of loans being issued in dealerships—up from nearly 7 percent in 2005 and 3 percent in 2004. Through the indirect lending channel, credit unions are providing more favorable rates, driven primarily by tax advantages gained from their non-profit status. They are also offering longer-term loans. These factors are particularly beneficial to consumers at a time of rising interest rates, as lower APRs and extended terms help to lower the cost of financing a vehicle.

“As the new-vehicle financing environment adjusts to increasing rates and compressed margins, credit unions are positioning themselves as strong competitors to the established captives, banks and independents, which is underscored by the fact that credit unions have historically provided excellent customer service through their very close, personal ties with their customers,” said David Lo, senior research manager of automotive finance at J.D. Power and Associates. “From the dealer perspective, credit unions are currently competing primarily on their rates and terms. Captive providers still have a significant advantage in other offering related areas such as a more competitive reserve and overall compensation per deal.”

Overall, finance provider satisfaction drops in 2006, primarily due to a broad-based shift in interest rates. Of particular note is the industry wide effect of the increasing Federal funds rate, which has caused all finance providers to increase their rates. The net effect of this increase is an industry wide decline in satisfaction.

Ford Credit ranks highest in the luxury lease segment for a second consecutive year, performing particularly well in provider offering. In the non-luxury lease segment, Ford Credit leads the rankings for a fifth consecutive year, receiving the highest ratings in provider offering and the application/approval process.

With strong performances in payment/billing and application/approval process, GMAC ranks highest in the luxury loan segment for a second consecutive year. GMAC also ranks highest in non-luxury loan satisfaction and receives the highest ratings from customers in three of the four factors that determine overall satisfaction: payment/billing, provider offering and application/approval process.

The study also finds that the use of electronic contracting (eContracting), which allows dealers to forego paper contracts by submitting an electronically signed document to capture customer signatures, has a positive impact on customer satisfaction. On average, customers whose contract was processed with eContracting technology are more likely to say they are “delighted” with their overall application/approval process when compared to customers who were processed with traditional documentation. In particular, the largest difference in satisfaction is in the ease of filling out paperwork.

“Currently, only 3 percent of customers report that their contract was processed using eContracting,” said Lo. “While the current penetration is very small, this proportion is likely to increase soon. In our 2006 Dealer Financing Study, we found that 75 percent of dealers who currently use eContracting expect the number of contracts processed with this technology to increase within the next 12 months.”

Posted under Automotive, Finance

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against H&R Block alleging the tax preparation giant has violated 15 state and federal laws in marketing and providing high-cost refund anticipation loans (RALs) mainly to low-income families.

“Millions of Californians have placed their trust in H&R Block, and unfortunately H&R Block has repaid them by violating that trust,” said Lockyer. “In marketing and selling these expensive loans, H&R Block has profited greatly, but deceived consumers, violated their privacy rights and taken money from California families who can least afford it. This lawsuit seeks to hold the company accountable for unlawful business practices, prevent future violations and compensate victims.”

The complaint asks the court to require the defendants to pay restitution to harmed consumers, plus at least $20 million in civil penalties. The complaint does not specify the total restitution amount, but Lockyer estimated the maximum could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The defendants include H&R Block, Inc. and the following subsidiaries of the Kansas City, Missouri-based firm: H&R Block Services, Inc.; H&R Block Enterprises, Inc.; H&R Block Tax Services, Inc.; Block Financial Corporation; and HRB Royalty, Inc.

The complaint alleges the H&R Block defendants have violated 15 state and federal laws that regulate debt collection practices and contracts, and prohibit false or deceptive advertising, unfair business practices, and unauthorized use or sharing of individuals’ tax return information.

As described in the complaint, RALs are loans provided to taxpayers, secured by their expected refund. Internal Revenue Service rules prohibit H&R Block from providing the loans itself, so it contracts with banks for that purpose. H&R Block, however, provides clients the loan applications, fills out the applications, sends the applications to the banks, and distributes the loan checks to customers.

In a typical case, the program works like this: A customer comes into an H&R Block branch office. A “tax professional” calculates the customer’s taxes and determines they are owed a refund. The customer signs up for a RAL. If the bank approves the application, H&R Block ultimately provides the customer a check – not for the full tax refund amount, but for the estimated refund, minus loan fees, tax preparation fees and other charges. Depending on the amount of refund, those fees can force customers to pay the equivalent of annual interest exceeding 500 percent, according to the complaint.

Since 2001, the complaint alleges, Californians have bought more than 1.5 million RALs from H&R Block, “generating tens of millions of dollars in income for Block.” H&R Block has received a “substantial portion of the loan fees,” according to the complaint, and has purchased up to 49.9 percent of the loans. To illustrate how H&R Block’s RAL program targets low-income families, the complaint notes recipients of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) comprise 70 percent of the company’s customers for RALs and similar products, even though EITC recipients account for just 17 percent of all taxpayers. The federal government established the EITC to benefit low-income workers and their families.

H&R Block holds itself out as a tax preparer and adviser that consumers can trust. But to maximize its RAL revenue, the complaint alleges, H&R Block has failed to adequately inform customers they can keep more of their income throughout the year and not have to wait for a refund at tax time.

Additionally, H&R Block’s marketing of RALs has been deceptive in a number of ways, according to the complaint. Advertisements have portrayed RALs as a “refund” or “instant money,” and falsely told consumers that RAL recipients get “cash, cold, green, in your hand, out the door.” In reality, the complaint alleges, the refund is a loan, the cash is a check, and the check is for substantially less than the refund, after the loan fees and other charges are deducted.

Further, according to the complaint, H&R Block frequently has steered customers to companies that charge fees to cash RAL checks, with H&R Block getting a kickback on a portion of those fees. H&R Block has failed to adequately disclose these arrangements to consumers, the complaint alleges.

H&R Block also participates with banks and other entities in a deceptive debt collection scheme under the banner of its RAL program, the complaint alleges. RAL customers are liable for paying fees and paying back the borrowed money if their anticipated refund does not materialize, for whatever reason. When a customer allegedly owes that debt, H&R Block still will sell them a new RAL when they come to H&R Block in a subsequent year to get their taxes prepared. H&R Block does not adequately tell such customers about any alleged debts, or that when they sign the new RAL application, they agree to automatic debt collection – including collection on alleged RAL-related debts from other tax preparers or banks. These applications are denied, and the customer’s anticipated refund is used to pay off the debt, plus a fee. “Therefore, Block clients who are claimed to owe debt from a prior year are led to expect a loan, but instead find themselves in a collection proceeding,” the complaint alleges.

Additionally, according to the complaint, H&R Block has used and shared customers’ tax-return information without clients’ written consent, in violation of state and federal law. H&R Block has illegally shared customers’ information, and unlawfully used clients’ tax return information for marketing RALs, home mortgages and other financial products, and to collect debts, the complaint alleges.

Posted under Finance