It can’t need all those repairs it’s a certified pre-owned vehicle!
You are on the verge of making a big decision; signing on for several years of payments for that used car. Hey, as long as you’re spending this much money wouldn’t it be wise to spend just a bit more and get a “Certified Vehicle?”
The implication is that certified vehicles are the cream of the crop, fully inspected, and extra reliable, but are they? Certified is not a legal phrase it is a marketing technique. Some certified programs might actually require the dealer to have a mechanic do a 100 point inspection, others may require little or nothing. Certified vehicles are sold as being extra reliable and fully inspected and; therefore, the buyer is charged more money for them.
A client of this firm bought a vehicle that was said to have undergone a 108-point inspection by a certified factory mechanic. The advertisement said the consumer could “buy with confidence.” After receiving these assurances the buyer signed a “no warranty” sales agreement thinking that while there was no warranty the vehicle had been thoroughly inspected and was good to go. Literally on the way home from the dealership the car began experiencing mechanical issues that turned out to require significant sums of money to repair.
A shady dealer can simply stick a certified sticker on a car and charge more for it. Before paying inflated prices ask what “Certified” means on that lot. Can you see the inspection sheet? Can you talk to the mechanic or person who certified the car? If you are not satisfied with the answers, find another dealer who provides better information.
If a vehicle is sold as having been inspected and certified, but later you find out none of this is true and there are actually known problems with the car you may have been deceived or cheated. You have a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. This blog is not intended to be specific legal advice; rather each situation must be reviewed to determine the rights and duties that may be presented by each unique set of circumstances. If you believe you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please fell free to contact us at http://www.juliejohnsonlaw.com
Regulations Proposed to Clamp Down on For-Profit Schools
I have committed a substantial portion of my practice to representing victimized students against their for-profit colleges. I am pleased to say that the federal government is taking steps to remedy some of the worst abuses in this shady industry. On June 16th the US Dept of Education proposed new rules to protect students in federal financial aid programs. This marks the first step in a call to the Obama Administration to crack down on for-profit education institutions’ shady student loan practices. The proposed new regulations completely address thirteen issues and partially address one (refer to Dept of Ed. Press Release for full details). The 14 issues covered relate to three primary areas of concerns:
1) Unqualified students are receiving aid. For-profits have a high percentage of students that do not complete degree/certificate requirements, because they lack the necessary foundation to succeed. The result is that these students are unable to acquire the higher skilled careers they initially sought, but still owe thousands of dollars in debt. Students are considered qualified if they have a high school diploma or pass an Ability-To-Benefit (ATB) test. Unqualified students are often able to acquire financial aid by producing illegitimate high school diplomas from “diploma mills”. These fake diplomas are sometimes awarded by the same institute that the student is applying for admission. A student may also be deemed qualified if he/she passes an ATB test. Again, there are institutions that are directly involved in altering results in the student’s favor. The Department’s proposals will help eliminate the use of high school “diploma mills” and improve oversight into how ATB tests are approved and administered in addition to including further clarifications.
2) Misleading or overly aggressive recruiting practices. Currently there are “safe harbors” for providing incentives to recruiters. For-profits have taken advantage of these loop holes armed with empty promises, deceptive financial advising, and sometimes outright lies. Dishonest recruiters encouraged students to take out loans they could not afford and enroll in courses they were not qualified for. Many students enrolled in programs where they felt misled about its accreditation status and their job prospects upon completion. The Department has proposed measures that would close the incentive loop hole and strengthen the government’s ability to take action again institutions engaged in misleading tactics.
3) Ambiguity in aid-worthy course work and credit hours. There is no standard definition for a credit hour, which has led to reports of institutions awarding more credits than are deserved. These institutions are able to gain more in federal funds without having to provide actual value as a result. The proposed regulations will attempt to define a credit hour and establish procedures for accrediting agencies to determine whether an institution’s assignment of a credit hour is acceptable.
The lone subject of disagreement involves the definition of “gainful employment.” The Department is proposing that for-profit institutions provide them with each program’s graduation and job placement rates. Student debt levels and incomes after program completion will be used to develop a metric to hold institutions accountable for meeting federal requirements.
The “metric” is where the dispute begins and ends. The Department wants to ensure that students can pay-off student debt with no more than 8% of their income over a ten year repayment period. Creating this income-to-debt service ratio drew the most pushback from an aggressive lobbying effort by for-profit college officials. The for-profit industry insists that the proposal would be detrimental to the students and the country. They contend that there is an unmet demand for their services due to recent budget cuts at public colleges and universities nationwide, and that without them President’s Obama’s goal of America leading the world in the number of college graduates by 2020 is not possible.
On the surface this seems like a noble argument to make. Unfortunately, the reality is that the majority of borrowers are collapsing from their excessive debt burden. How does the student or the country benefit if these graduates can’t get the jobs they were assured they’d be qualified for? These companies are almost completely financed by federal funds that they reap incredible profits for bonuses and dividends. Who are they looking out for? The student or their shareholders?
If you attended a for-profit school and suspect your school exaggerated employment opportunities or job placement rates; feel your school misled you regarding its accreditation, the transferability of credits or the qualifications of its programs; or have questions regarding possible education fraud, then contact the Law Office of Julie Johnson.
A disturbing trend has surfaced in the for-profit education industry. Stories of students being misled about program certification, transferability of credits, and enormous loan burdens seem to be in the news every month. Students that don’t get the education they bargained for are left with a mountain of debt and are still unqualified for the jobs they sought. As a result, these students often are unable to pay back the money the borrowed. When students do not make payments on their federal loans and the loans are in default, the federal government and taxpayers assume nearly all the risk and are left with the costs. The only winners are the for-profits that reap millions in profit from the taxpayers they exploit.
Not all for-profits are bad actors, some are forthright about their programs and the costs associated with them. If you have questions on whether of not your school has committed education fraud consider the following:
Accreditation and Credits Transfer Fraud
For-profit schools often cite that they are accredited by the national Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). However, many schools and public college systems disregard this rating, and will not recognize credits and degrees from many for-profit schools.
Career School and On-Line College Fraud
For-profit trade schools, career schools and on-line schools often employ salespeople that work on commission. These salespeople are as susceptible to temptations of fraud and misrepresentation as are salespeople in other industries. They can provide incorrect information regarding key factors students consider when choosing a school and career path.
Licensure and Job Placement Education Fraud
Licensure fraud involves schools making untrue claims regarding licensure or certification claims for graduates, or failing to adequately explain licensing limitations for graduates. Job placement fraud involves schools making false statements regarding job placement rates for graduates.
These are typical problems I have seen while representing victimized students at disreputable for-profit institutions. If you are a graduate of a for-profit and suspect your school exaggerated employment opportunities or job placement rates; feel your school misled you regarding its accreditation, the transferability of credits or the qualifications of its programs; or have questions regarding possible education fraud, then contact the Law Office of Julie Johnson.
“Deny” An Insurance Company’s Favorite Word
The U.S. insurance industry takes in over $1 trillion in premiums annually. It has over $3.8 trillion in assets, more than the GDPs of all but two countries in the world, the U.S. and Japan. Its CEOs are among the highest-paid, with an average annual income of $1.6 million per year. How do the insurance companies amass this wealth? At your expense. “Deny, delay, defend.” The three Ds, as they are called, has become shorthand for the way insurance companies put profits over policyholders. This blog will focus on the first, “deny.”
You are driving to work one morning, stuck in traffic. All of a sudden a huge truck runs a red light and plows into the side of your car. Worst case scenario. You’re admitted to the hospital where you lay in a coma for two weeks, with multiple broken bones and massive internal injuries. Months of recuperative therapy are ahead for you. The driver of the truck doesn’t have nearly enough insurance to pay for the health care you need but luckily you purchased an underinsured motorist policy of your own, right? Wrong. You make a claim on the policy only to get a response from your insurance company telling you that its investigation revealed that the driver of the truck barreled into your car in a deliberate act of road rage, so the accident wasn’t really an “accident” after all! This was the experience of Ethel Adams of Seattle, Washington, who had a $2 million UIM policy with insurance giant Farmers. She was left with tens of thousands of medical bills she could not pay because she was too injured to return to work.
Was Adams’ experience unusual? Not so much. Denying claims is one way insurance companies make money. Sometimes they do this by incentivizing claim denials, sometimes they do it by tricky policy language, and sometimes they do it by outright fraud. Farmers once ran a program called “Quest for Gold,” which included pizza parties and gift certificates to claims adjusters who met low payment goals. Allstate rewarded the adjusters who met such goals with portable refrigerators. Many insurance companies pay outright money bonuses to adjusters who deny claims. With these kinds of schemes, how likely do you think it is that the adjuster will honor your claim?
After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of homeowner’s claims were denied by Allstate, who had inserted ambiguous “anti-concurrent-causation” clauses into their policies that deceived policyholders into thinking they had coverage for wind damage when actually they did not. These clauses state that wind and rain damage – damage that was covered under the policy – was excluded if significant flood damage occurs as well. Therefore, people who had purchased policies that covered wind and rain damage still had their claims denied simply because the storm caused flooding as well. These obscure policy “loopholes” are perhaps the most insidious way insurance companies make money, because you pay for, and think you have, coverage that you actually never had.
After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, State Farm, like any “good neighbor,” forged signatures on waivers of earthquake coverage to avoid paying quake-related claims. In California, disability insurance carrier Unum was denying one in every four claims for long-term care insurance. The California Department of Insurance investigated and found widespread fraud by the company in 2005. Unum had systematically violated state insurance regulations, fraudulently denied or low-balled claims using phony medical reports, policy misrepresentations and biased investigations.
The insurance industry is replete with these kinds of practices. Luckily legislators have stepped in to address many of these abuses but as long as insurance remains a for-profit enterprise, there will always be tension between policyholders and profits. You need an advocate. If your insurance company has engaged in any of these practices with you, contact an attorney well-versed in consumer and bad faith insurance law. Julie Johnson has devoted her career to fighting these kinds of practices, and she will put her expertise to use for you.
Did I Really Agree To That?
You just left the dealership. Your favorite compact disc is playing, the top is down and you’re feeling great in your new shiny red ragtop. You secretly congratulate yourself on the sweet deal you struck with the dealer. You are looking forward to looking at the documents once they are delivered to you as promised.
A week later the mail comes and in it is a package of documents from the dealer. You open the letter and start to review the documents. “I didn’t agree to that. The amount I borrowed is not right, I didn’t agree to that interest rate, I didn’t agree to that long of a loan.”
Under Texas law when there is an installment loan agreement for a car the dealership must dealership disclose the terms of the final deal in writing before the deal is finalized. The terms that must be disclosed include: the amount financed, the interest rate, the length of the loan, and several other items such as the lender. Depending on the circumstances you may have a right to remedies under the law.
As always, the best advice is to obtain a copy of documents before you agree to anything. Review the documents; ask questions if you are unsure about anything.
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. If you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please fell free to contact us at www.JulieJohnsonLaw.com
My Car Has Been Repossessed, What Are My Rights?
It is a dark and stormy night. The wet north wind is blurring your vision. The collar of your jacket won’t keep the rain out for long so you begin to jog to your car. “My car is gone! Where is it? Has it been stolen? Did I miss a payment?”
Life can be uncertain, unexpected layoffs, emergency medical bills, and any number of other occurrences can strain your already tight budget. If you miss a car payment the lien holder can repossess your vehicle. If you have missed a payment the best course to follow is to contact the lender and explain your situation so that an agreement can be worked out. If you have a good record of payments and no other issues the lender may let you make a late payment or enter into some other arrangement.
If your car is repossessed you have rights under the law. Generally, in Texas a default occurs if you don’t make your car payment. Once this default occurs the lender has the right to take possession of the car. The lender may repossess the car without involving the courts only if this can be done without a breach of the peace. This is typically why repossessions are done at night or while the buyer is not around.
Once the car has been repossessed, and before the lender has disposed of the car, the buyer has a right to “redeem” it. The buyer can obtain the repossessed car by paying the entire loan balance, repossession expenses, and reasonable legal fees. The lender must advise you when and where the vehicle will be auctioned off. Appropriate notice must be given to you. There are rules as to how a sale must be conducted, that is, the sale must be reasonable.
If the car is sold and does not bring enough money to pay off the debt plus the expenses of repossessing it you could be liable for the difference even though you now have no vehicle. An accounting of the transaction must be given to you showing what the car sold for and the expenses involved. If the car is sold and the price more than covers the debt and expenses the remainder must be made available to the buyer
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. This blog is not intended to be specific legal advice; rather each situation must be reviewed to determine the rights and duties that may be presented by each unique set of circumstances. If you believe you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please contact us at www.JulieJohnsonLaw.com.
Did I Need To Buy All These Extra Ttems With My Car?
Often when buyers have made the decision to buy a new car they begin to think with their emotions and become easy prey for unscrupulous car dealers. A consumer in this position may fall victim to a practice known as “padding” or “packing.” A dealer may quote an unnecessarily high monthly payment. If the buyer agrees with it, the shady dealer will go back and add extras like fabric protection, alarm systems, diamond ultra coat paint armor, unwanted GAP insurance, or whatever he can come up with. After the price of these often overpriced, high profit items are added into the amount financed for the car itself the monthly payment conveniently add up to the previously quoted amount. Car dealers who engage in these practices without full disclosure to the customer engage in fraud.
The buyer may never be told these optional items were added, or may be told they are “free” with the purchase. The bottom line is that these items are often added to increase the profit margin for the dealer and not to benefit the buyer. The buyer may actually want some of the items, but should always have the option of deciding for himself and should not be deceived about the price of the extras. If you notice extra items that you don’t want ask questions, or just refuse to buy the vehicle with them. If the dealer will not accommodate you take your business elsewhere.
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. If you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please fell free to contact us at http://www.juliejohnsonlaw.com
Are Auto Dealers Overcharging for Cars?
Was I overcharged for my car? Cars and trucks are expensive. Second only to a home, a vehicle is the most expensive purchase a typical consumer will ever make. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what was paid for a car if an unscrupulous dealer muddies the water with deceptive trade-in valuation. Let’s assume that you have your heart set on a new Acme 3000 roadster, but you still owe $7,000.00 on the car you are presently driving. The dealer might lead you to believe that they will give you $7,000.00 in trade-in credit for the old car and that the loan will be paid off. All you have to think about is the price of the new roadster. But if the actual value of the trade–in is less than what is owed (you are upside-down on the loan) a less than honest dealer might increase the price of the new car to make up the difference. The buyer has the new car but also has a higher price, higher payments, and higher tax and registration fees than they should have. In Texas if a car dealer is found to have acted deceptively in the pricing of a new car and the valuation of a trade-in it may be liable under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and may be financially liable to the consumer who was cheated. There are also Texas laws administered by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles that make it improper for a dealer to advertise a vehicle at a price that it will not sell it for. In such case the Department of Motor Vehicles can take action against the dealers, which may end in civil penalties.
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. If you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please fell free to contact us at www.JulieJohnsonLaw.com.
Texas Bad Faith Insurance Claims
What Is a Bad Faith Claim?
When an insurance company fails to uphold the duties it owes to its policyholders, the insurance company has committed a bad faith act.
Insurance companies owe their policyholders (or “insureds”) important duties by virtue of the insurance contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing. For example, when a policyholder files a claim with his or her insurance company, the insurer is required to conduct a reasonable and full investigation into the claim. The insurance company cannot arbitrarily deny the claim, delay payment or decide to pay less than the full value of benefits owed under the insurance policy.
Unfortunately, these and other bad faith practices have become far too common in the insurance industry. While many insurers are more than happy to accept a policyholder’s premiums, they have been less than willing to pay out the same policyholder’s legitimate claims — even when those claims clearly are covered by the policies they issued.
Examples of Bad Faith Acts
Bad faith acts can occur under any type of insurance policy, including auto, homeowners, health, disability, life insurance, boat and recreational vehicle policies. Some examples of bad faith acts include:
- Failing to investigate a claim for benefits under an insurance policy
- Unreasonably delaying payments
- Denying a claim when liability is reasonably certain
- Failing to complete the claims process within a reasonable time
- Failing to defend a policyholder against a third-party claim
- Placing the insurance company’s own financial interests over the policyholder’s
- Rejecting a claim for benefits without explaining why the claim was rejected
- Offering or paying less than what is owed under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
- Misrepresenting the meaning of a provision in an insurance contract to the policyholder
In some cases, insurance companies also will use a policyholder’s previous claims history as grounds to deny a current claim. This practice is a bad faith act. Insurance companies have the opportunity to assess the risk a particular policyholder may pose at the time the policy is underwritten. Based on this risk, the insurance company decides the cost and level of protection it will offer the policyholder. After the underwriting process is completed, however, the insurance company should not use a particular policyholder’s claims history as a reasonable basis to deny a new claim for benefits.
What Protections Are Available Under Texas Law?
Under the Texas Insurance Code, insurance companies underwriting any type of insurance policy in the state are required to meet certain standards of conduct. For example, the state regulates how much time insurance companies have to process claims. Currently, insurance companies have 15 days from the date they have received a claim to send the policyholder a written acknowledgment of receipt of the claim; begin an investigation into the claim; and request all necessary statements, forms and other information from the policyholder to process the claim.
The Texas Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act (Insurance Code §§542.001-542.302) also provides a list of insurer settlement practices that are illegal in the state. These include:
- Knowingly misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to the policyholder’s claim
- Failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness pertinent communications concerning policyholders’ claims
- Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt investigation of claims arising under its policies
- Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims submitted in which liability has become reasonably clear
- Compelling policyholders to take legal action to recover the total amount of benefits due to them under the insurance policy under its policies by offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered in a lawsuit
- Failure of any insurance company to maintain a complete record of all the complaints which it has received during the preceding three years or since the date of its last examination by the commissioner of insurance, whichever time is shorter
- Committing other actions which the State Board of Insurance has defined, by regulations adopted pursuant to its rule-making authority, as unfair claim settlement practices
Contact an Experienced Attorney Today
Many people who have been offered an unfair settlement or had their claim unfairly denied by their insurance companies may feel powerless to do anything about it. They believe that with the insurance company’s power, money and resources, they have no other option but to accept what they have been offered.
This, however, is not true.
Texas insurance policyholders who have been victimized by the bad faith acts of an insurance company have legal options available to them, including filing a lawsuit against the insurer. In some cases, state law allows policyholders to receive punitive damages and attorney fees in addition to any amounts owed to them under their insurance contracts.
For more information on filing a bad faith claim or other questions about insurance law, contact Texas attorney Julie Johnson today.
What Is Odometer Tampering?
A common type of scheme in the car sales industry is odometer tampering. Odometer tampering involves rolling the mileage on a car back. A car with fewer miles on it is worth more than one with high mileage and can be sold to a buyer for more money. If a buyer is assured that the bright red roadster has only 15,0000 miles on it she might be willing to pay more for it than if it had 115,000 miles on it. The consumer would not have paid as much for the car or may not have bought the car at all if she had known the true facts. The car buyer has been deceived, she acted on the fraudulent information and she has been damaged by over paying for the vehicle. She has been defrauded.
The problem of odometer tampering is so significant that the Federal government undertook a study of the issue a few years ago. The study was performed by the NHTSA, which concluded that there are around 240,000 cases of tampering a year in the United States. There are laws at the federal and state level that prohibit odometer tampering.
Often the vehicles that are tampered with are late model cars that have amassed a lot of miles in a short period of time. A three-year old vehicle with 80,000 might have its mileage rolled back to 30,000 miles and be sold as a low mileage car. The consumer thinks they have found a vehicle that has very little wear and tear on it that will be reliable well into the future. The reality is that the vehicle may be more prone to breakdowns, will need repairs and maintenance soon, and has a lower value than the buyer thought.
A consumer who has been defrauded through odometer tampering can sue the dealership and if the case is proven can collect damages from the wrongdoer.
The Julie Johnson Law Firm is dedicated to the protection of consumer rights. If you have been victimized through questionable dealer practices please fell free to contact us at http://www.juliejohnsonlaw.com